The Left's Adrogynic Tribalism and its Nemesis, Christendom

This article reflects a peculiar joining at the hip of the Left's ideas of race and gender.

The Left has a peculiar mythos of "androgynic tribalism", that androgyny is the authentic human condition and that cultural ideas delineating men from women, and universal standards of right and wrong and good and evil, are the result a non-authentic ideas imposed on humanity.  

For the Left, to be "white" has little to do with skin color and much to do with one's participation and agreement with Christendom, which is the legal, social and political expression of Christianity and, in the West, those pre-Christian ideals of ancient Greece and Rome that are Bible-adjacent, consistent with Biblical Natural Law.

"Racism" is a term that the Left has plundered from its meaning within Christendom and re-defined it to mean that which supports Christendom in contra to the Left. "Racism" to the Left is effectively equivalent to "evil" within Christendom and to be "white" is by definition to be "racist". The Left understands that it is playing with the confusion between two diametrically opposed concepts of racial progress and is happy to harvest the energy of useful idiots who believe that they are advancing the Christendom of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in contra to "racialism" by supporting BLM's Leftist attack on "racism".

The founding documents of United States of America, The Declaration and Constitution, have reflected the purest expression of the ideals of Western Christendom, and the expungement of tribalism in favor of a universal vision for humanity being endowed with rights by the Creator. American culture has been intended as "melting pot", where a new American citizen acknowledged their heritage, but gave up their tribalism to be part of E Pluribus Unum.  

Cultures that make distinctions between men and women have extended far beyond Christendom and (even extend into the animal kingdom with distinctions between male and female animals). However, a culture that makes distinctions between men and women while also being tribal only challenges the androgynic facet of Left, but does not challenge the tribal facet of Left. The Christendom of the United States of America, which simultaneously values human universalism under the Creator and Biblical/Natural Law distinctions between men and women, is the double barrel existential threat to the Left's cult of androgynic tribalism.

It is true that the United States of America, and its people, have historically fallen short of the ideals of our Founding and have dealt with racialism as was understood Dr. King Jr. But we have gotten better, with fits and starts, with every generation at putting the Founding ideals to practice, with room yet to improve. But the Left is not interested in acknowledging the progress that has been made within a Christendom concept of racial progress, because its nemesis is Christendom itself.

This is why the Left's very peculiar construct of "race" and "racism" is joined at the hip to its peculiar construct of sex and gender, and why the Left has a particularly dark and destructive vision for Christendom and the United States of America.

The Morally Fashionable Urban vs The Fashion Resistant Heartland

 

I saw one article that attempted to describe the de facto cold civil war in our country as that between the heartland and urban areas.  I would qualify that description by saying that the conflict is between heartland culture and urban culture people.  The heartland is a state of mind as much as a zip code.  There are heartland culture people in urban areas, but they are often out-numbered by urban culture people who have more institutional power including corporate, economic, political, and bureaucratic power.  In contast, heartland culture people dominate in more rural areas.

Fashion is normally understood in the realm of style, including clothing, music, architecture, hair, etc…, when fashion should be thought of in terms of both moral fashion and style fashion. Moral fashion is fashionable ideas about what is good and bad, right and wrong, ok and not ok.  While style fashion can be morally agnostic, shifts in style fashion usually reflect shifts in moral fashion.   

Urban culture people are fashionable people, morally and stylistically.  Within urban culture it as a fundamental  moral obligation to be aligned with the latest moral ideas, which are considered to represent moral progress.  To fall behind the latest in moral fashion, is to falter in one’s moral progress, and to be “unfashionable” and in moral error.   

Urban culture people have walked backwards into a form of religion, in the name of rejecting traditional religion, and have created quasi-religious terms to describe moral fashion piety.  To be “politically correct” or now to be “kind” is to be aligned with the latest morally fashionable idea.  To be “woke” is to be enlightened into the deeper ideas that lie beneath political correctness.    To be “phobic” is to be in a state of misalignment and quasi-sin.  To be “hateful” is to act out of ones “phobia”. 

If the urban culture collective has started to follow an idea, there is no higher or competing realm of truth for that idea to be measured against.  There are no competing goods or higher transcendent moral obligations that provide internal guardrails for morally fashionable people who are in hot pursuit of what is morally fashionable, whether it be canonizing George Floyd, embracing CRT, hoisting umbridled and unconsidered contempt on vaccine decliners, etc....

Heartland culture people are fashion resistant, particularly in the realm of moral fashion.  They tend to be working class, or recent (legal) immigrants, and/or practitioners of traditional religion, mainly Christianity or Judaism, who have consciously resisted wokeness.   

In this part of the 21^st century, urban culture has become so intensely morally fashionable with ever more accelerated and ever more radical and outlandish "woke" ideas that they have thought their way into a headspace that has no room for any respect or acknowledgement of heartland culture.  Fashion resistant heartland culture is the moral antithesis and nemesis of what modern urban culture has become, and heartland culture people are moral fashion infidels.  

To the extent that urban culture people have entered positions of institutional power they act out the obligations of their urban fashionable moral universe, and so they serve only the interests of the morally fashionable.  This has become a zero sum game where gains for the morally fashionableness mean losses for the heartland, and there are no rights endowed to heartland people by their Creator that are not expendible in the relentless pursuit of moral fashion by the movers and shakers of urban culture. Members of the urban moral fashion collective have become increaslingly vocal that heartland fashion resistant people are domestic enemies, while heartland culture people are increasingly seeing the urban culture collective as a vast domestic enemy. 

As urban culture moral fashionableness is spinning out of control, it is leaving behind more and more urban people who would not have heretofore considered themselves to be more aligned with heartland culture people.