The Gaianic Left's Verbal Dazzle Camo

Dazzle camouflage does not try to blend into the background but rather deflects your attention, with lines on different horizons than the one it occupies.

A crypto-religion is a religion that seeks gain through deception, by amassing followers by denying that is a religion, claiming it is really based on what is either harmless or self-evident.

Gaianist doctrine can be defined as inversions of the four basic dualities of Genesis: Creator above Creation, Mankind uniquely made in God’s Image, Men uniquely reflecting God’s image vis a vis women, and good/holiness with God vs sin/evil apart from God. So Gaianic doctrine is that the universe is self-created and self-imbued with impersonal wisdom, mankind is merely another type of animal, human males and females merely have different reproductive organs, and there only what is “natural” and not what is holy.

The Left conceives of progress in Gaianistic terms in contra to a Judeo-Christian heritage and "status quo".  The modern Left as a social movement can be described "Social Gaianism".   Since Gaianism is diametrically opposed to the foundational ideas of the Bible, it cannot socially advance with these ideas front and center in the West and particularly the U.S. with such a history connected to Christendom.  So Social Gaianism must advance under the banner of false flags, claiming to be self-evident moral progress against all manner of social ills.  The Gaianic Left has advanced through  deception and has for the past several years been trying to achieve institutional control of our nation.  

The religion of the modern Left can be described as “Crypto-Gaianism”.  Crytpo-Gaianism needs convey its metaphysical ideas of what is good and not good.  But, as a crypto-religion, it cannot be overtly metaphyical, so it must simultaenously convey and hide its metaphysics.  So Gaianism is verbally parasitic, appropriating words from their true, traditional meaning within Christendom and surreptitiously redefining them with a cultish meaning within Gaianism.  

An individual Leftist may not even be fully conscious that they are part of a Gaianic crypto-religion, and may be brainwashed into believing that what they believe is self-evident.  The clue that the are brain-washed into a cult is that they adhere to their Gaianic presuppositions in contra to counterveiling logic and evidence, and religiously follow the shifting intentions of the Gaianic collective.

In service of their religion, a Gaianist Leftist will engage in various forms of Gaianic "jihad" in words and deeds against Christendom, its primary foe (The Gaianic Left and radical Islam have had an alliance against Christendom). Gaianism uses verbal/linquistic dazzle camouflage using plundered words, as a tool of war, to simultaneously advance and hide its advancement, to gain dishonest ground. 

When a Gaianaist calls you a “racist”, it is actually because you are misaligned with Gaianic presuppositions and values. Since Gaianism does not believe in good and evil, “racism” is one of its many substitute words for evil/wrongness.

And at the same time they are defining you in contra to their Gaianic cult, they are deflecting the conversation about you toward a concept of “racism” within its established Christendom meaning that lies on a different horizon outside Gaianism, to try to harness the energy of that conversation to achieve a Gaianic advantage. They want the non-Gaianaist on their back-foot, defending that they are not a “racist” according to its established meaning. In the fog of verbal war the Crypto-Gaianist gains dishonest institutional and cultural ground for Gaianism as a warrior against “racism”, and benefits from the confusion between its Gaianistic meaning and its meaning within Christendom. 

The key to confronting Gaianism begins by not being mis-deflected by their dazzle camo into conversations on false horizons. The more you can define the outline of their cult, there in plain sight on its true horizon, the more you can confine it to the conversation on cults that it belongs in and bind it in its cage away from a conversation on moral progress, common sense and decency.

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.

Aphorisms on Leadership and Lowly Tasks

You cannot lead with poor attitude. The attitude which you do a lowliest task marks your character.  If your attitude is poor doing a lowly task you will never be qualified to do a leaderly task.

A lowly task, even sweeping with a broom, can be done elegantly and excellently.

A leaderly worker performs his tasks in a leaderly way, with a marked level of diligence, elegance and excellence that serves his master and models excellence to his fellow works.

12 Ways to Debate Like a Trained Boxer and Triumph in the Ring

1. A trained boxer puts in the time and the focus to become skilled at his craft:   As someone who wants to enter the ring of debate you will need all the focus, and training time that a trained boxer requires to be effective.

2. A trained boxer knows his skill level and weight class:  It’s not necessarily a good thing to always stand up for what you believe.  You can damage reputation and your cause if you get onto a stage that you’re not ready for. You need to test your debate skills in an arena appropriate for your skill level, and know when you are ready for a larger stage and when to go back into the dojo.  

3. A trained boxer has a good sparring partner and a good trainer:   As someone who aspires to be effective debating, you will need a qualified person to bounce ideas off of who can give you constructive criticism, different perspectives, play devil’s advocate, and role play. You will also need mentors who can help you consider points of view that you did not consider and who can help you hone your focus.

4. A trained boxer studies current champions and those champions who came before:  You will need to read and keep yourself informed and study those past and present who are engaged in the same or similar debates.

5. A trained boxer studies his opponent:   You will need to become a careful student of those you are debating against, what their mindset is, what deeper questions are they trying to answer, what historical events led to their way of thinking, what they get right in their thinking and what they get wrong and why.

6. A trained boxer knows how to connect punches from many different angles:  You will need to understand what you are debating from the perspective of many different topics, being knowledgeable on those topics.

7. A trained boxer does not get distracted from executing his fight strategy in the ring:  You will need to know how to avoid red herrings, misdirects and tangents and be able to refocus the debate back to the point you are trying to make.  The more successfully you can do this, the more power your point will have.

8. A trained boxer never trades slop for slop:  You should never stoop to the level of a lesser opponent in a debate by trading sarcasm, name calling, ad hominem attacks, making assumptions about your opponent, etc…  Your power comes from executing logic correctly the same way that a trained boxer executes punches with good boxing form.  Like a trained boxer, you should trust in your training and remain above reproach in the ring of debate. 

9. A trained boxer never lets negative emotions get the best of him in the ring:  Your ability to succeed in a debate will take emotional toughness and mental toughness that comes from always taking the right risks, and always avoiding the wrong risks.

10. A trained boxer knows how to use his opponent’s movements to his advantage:   You will need to be able to take the things your opponent says and use it to your advantage.  It is far more powerful when you can accurately describe what your opponent believes, based on what they have said, than saying something negative by making sloppy generalities. Precisely exposing a contradiction in your opponents position, based on your opponents own words, will do the work of sarcasm without you having to stoop to being "snarky" to make your point.  

11. A trained boxer is prepared to go all 12 rounds: you won’t win a serious debate in a single “haymaker" statement.  Your effectiveness in a debate will take a demonstration of skill, persistence, determination and patience.  In a debate your goal is not to convince your opponent so much as it is to sway those on the sidelines who are watching, and embolden and encourage those who believe as you do but may not have the words or the courage to debate. As for your opponent, your goal is to wear out his arguments.  He will know that you are a worthy opponent.

12. A trained boxer does not win every match: You must care enough about your long term success in arguing for what you believe to lose a debate sometimes.  It’s your opportunity to grow and not allow a fear of failure to keep your from your ultimate goal of being able to influence others toward what you believe.

A Similarity Between Sexuality and Language

There are those who believe that traditional cultural expressions of sexuality are mere “social conventions”, as if these social conventions should be sloughed off by enlightened people.
Sexuality and traditional sexual social conventions have a similarity to language. Language begins in pure physiology with vocal chords, tongue, etc…, and ends in pure convention, with accents, slang, etc… Spanning the first part of the gap between physiology and culture is the basic human need to communicate with language, and the basic logic of language (nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc...), and the human brain that is designed to link biology, logic, emotion and expression.
Spanning the second part of the gap, various languages and cultures organize the basic logic of language into different conventions of grammar, sounds and words. While languages are conventions in the way they organize the basic logic of language, they are not fungible any more than a motorist in the U.S can decide to drive on the left side of the road. Having all of these non-fungible things supporting it, language then has its more fungible social conventions of slang, accents, colloquialisms, evolving words, etc...
Sexuality also spans a bridge from pure biology to pure social convention, with a host of non-fungible aspects in between. Those who believe they are promoting “freedom” by removing sexual social conventions, do not respect this, which leads to the emotional and social equivalents of car crashes and train wrecks.

What's in a Word? The Long-Game Of the Sexual Left

Much of the Church has yet to fully comprehend Leftism as movement that is equal parts political, social, ideological, and spiritual. Each one of these four facets of Leftism compliments and reinforces the other three facets of Leftism.

Generally speaking, the Church is either under the influence of Leftist thinking, OR it understands the social and political symptoms of Leftism: sexual immorality, porn, divorce, abortion, the erosion of freedom to live openly as a Christian, etc... but not Leftism itself, as the unique evil in our age that is driving and encouraging those sins.

The Church understands the Biblical language of spiritual battle, but does not fully understand how Leftism has taken people's minds captive, as the spiritual battle of our time on the macro level, as the ideology that lies at the root of the existential crisis driving people into sexual immorality, as the defective moral compass directing people into spiritual death in the name of being politically correct.

The Church understands traditional Christian doctrine, which was provided to us by those who clarified it against the heresies of the past, but the church does not understand how to clarify the Gospel against the modern rival to the truth of Scripture that is Leftism, and the worship of Nature that is behind Leftism.

The Church has a lot to learn from those like Dennis Prager and other secular thinkers who have stared hard into the Left to understand, classify and categorize its dangers, particularly in the realm of the social, political and ideological. The Church also has a lot to offer those in the world who take Leftism seriously, by explaining how the Kingdom of God offers the only real, durable answer to Leftism, as the only thing that addresses every facet of Leftism including the spiritual facet. The Church will only be effective in ministering to people out of their Leftism when it first identifies Leftism as the reigning counterfeit idea of the age, and carefully clarifies the Kingdom of God against Leftism.

The essential fallacy of Leftist Christianity is this: because Jesus cared for the poor and was mindful of the outcast and downtrodden, any idea that is promoted in the name of helping the poor, downtrodden and outcast is what it means to be like Jesus, and to be Christian.

Jesus mission was to reconcile each individual with the Father, to call the individual to repent of sin and to enable his/her regeneration and sanctification. It was the context of personal repentance and reconciliation with the Father, and in the context of having utmost respect of the Law and the whole of Scriptures teaching, that Jesus modeled how we are to care to for the poor, in all of the ways that people can be poor, economically, spiritually, socially, etc...

By stripping away the repentance out of sin into reconciliation with the Father, and by extension, the whole counsel of Scripture, the Leftist prescription for one to be "Christ-Like" is to affirm someone in a state of gender unholiness, never calling them into repentance, since to promote the the Biblical idea of gender holiness with the intent of calling people to repentance is merely to promote stigma towards those on the margins, keeping them marginalized.

Words are such that they have whole ideas, philosophies and worldviews baked into them. A word itself is like a thesis encoded into letters, such that you must understand the idea to fully understand the meaning of the word, and uttering the word reinforces the idea that word exists to express.

The thesis that is "baked" into the terms "man" and "woman"/"men" and "women” is the Biblical binary of the God-created sexes of human male/female operating in the God-ordained genders of man/woman.  The idea encoded into the terms "man" and "woman" is that there is a universality to human sexuality: that men and women express a whole greater than the sum of their parts and that the differences between men and woman are durable and predictable across time, space and culture.  

The substance of the uniqueness expressed by the terms “man” and “woman” to convey the uniqueness that one has vis a vis the other is a trifecta, a "three legged table" of purpose, design and role: men and women have, respectively, a unique purpose, and from there a unique design to express that purpose, and from there a perogative for unique space in the culture to express that purpose according to their design.  Remove any part of that trifecta and there is no reason for the other two aspects of the trifecta of purpose, design and role to have meaning.

While a Leftist may allow the terms men and women for the sake of convenience, from an ontological standpoint, the Left does not believe that men and women actually exist in the full meaning of these terms, rather only biological human males, females, and hermaphrodites having different bodies, chromosomes and genitalia. Any favored expression of sexual differences above biology is merely the imposition of a cultural artifice that gives one form of sexual expression the false dominance of normalcy over other forms of sexual expression, giving one set of biologically different human creatures the power to oppress another set of biologically different human creatures.  

So that is why the Left is not simply interested adding "lesbian", "gay", "bi-sexual", "trans-gendered" ... to the already existing terms “men” and “women”, but in coming with their own alternative terms to codify their diametrically opposed view of the world in regard to gender and sexuality, a worldview that rejects the binary of sexuality into man and woman. 

One of their terms, “hetero-normal” is intended to convey the idea that being a “man” is merely a normative lifestyle choice for the biological human male to conform to among other lifestyles. Complimenting “hetero-normal” is “cis” as the term to describe someone who identifies the sex they were born with.  So a man is no longer merely a “man” but a “male cis hetero-normal”.   And then you have the movement to promote "ze" instead of "he" and "she". 

The long-game of this Leftist word play is to enable the sexual "individualist" to come out from under sexual "conformity" imposed by the terms "man" and "woman", and to remove the stigma for those who do not feel/believe that they are either a man or a woman.  In reality, these "alternative" terms are not so much in the business of removing stigma, but re-distributing it in favor of Leftism.  These terms serve a social engineering effort to remove social stigma from those who do not feel that they are either fully man or woman and place stigma on those who value the terms man or woman enough to require the cultural space needed for these terms to have meaning.

There is no room in the long run for both a Leftist concept and a Biblical concept of sexuality and gender to co-exist and co-habitate.  We will either operate under the conformity to the ideas of "man" and "woman" or the alternative conformity of sexuality and gender splintered to a host of non-binary terms. 

Either the Left is promoting freedom and justice, liberating people into what is truly natural, or it is keeping people from being redeemed into what C.S. Lewis would describe as the "arch-natural", what is truly natural as God designed us to be. 

People do not set out to be evil, but rather walk backwards into being evil, often because they believe that they are doing the right thing, passionately.  As one who affirms Scripture, I assert that the Left is engaged in evil, promoting sexual confusion by believing that it is promoting justice.