In a 2016 episode of the science fiction series Black Mirror, a young woman named Lacie lives in a world where people rate every interaction they have with another person.

Think of rating a restaurant on Trip Advisor. Except in this scenario, they’re rating you.

In this dystopian scenario, Lacie obsesses about improving her “rating.” Whatever she says and does could make or break her future—from the cost of her rent to the quality of her healthcare. 

Inevitably, this leads people to associate with those who have a higher rating and disassociate with those who have a lower one.

Turns out that Lacie isn’t very good at navigating this system. By the conclusion of the episode… Well, let’s just say it doesn’t end well for her.

Black Mirror is fiction. But the society it paints is becoming a reality in the People’s Republic of China. 

You may have heard of it. It’s called the Social Credit System. By all indications, it’s the future of that country. If we’re not careful, it may be our future here.

Pei Li left China to get away from the all-seeing eye of the Chinese government. He fled to the West in search of freedom, and found it in the United States. 

But now He’s seeing troubling signs that remind him of what he left behind.

The loss of freedom doesn’t happen overnight. The Chinese Social Credit System has been decades in the making.

It was okay at first. These things always are. Throughout the 1990s, Chinese banks developed financial credit rating programs—like those we have in America—to increase lending in rural areas. So far so good.

But government officials soon realized that similar programs could be set up to gather other information about the behavior of its citizens.

By 2014, new technology allowed the state to monitor what people said, did, bought, read, and searched on the Internet.

Why? Because more data equals more control.

That year, the State Council, China’s highest administrative body, issued a blueprint for phase one of the Social Credit System. The central government then established pilot programs in 43 cities across the country. 

In one of those cities, Rongcheng, local officials labeled certain behaviors as either acceptable or unacceptable. Every adult was assigned 1,000 social credit points. They gained or lost points depending on how well their public and private lives conformed to government standards. Buying diapers was fine: you’re taking care of your family. Playing video games: questionable because the state sees it as a sign of laziness. And discussing religion or grumbling about state policy: unacceptable.

Lose too many points and you might miss out on privileges like bank loans, faster internet, and plane tickets. I wonder if “toxic masculinity” or just being white, or christian, republican will be factored in? Maybe these things already are. Isn’t that what DEI and Affirmative Action are?

Right now, big companies such as Alibaba work with the government to make the system viable. Imagine the government knows and judges what you buy on Amazon, and you get the idea.

It’s assumed that in the near future, the system will be mandated for all Chinese citizens. Already, many people have been “enrolled” without their knowledge.

Some in China think that the Social Credit System promotes good behavior, addressing everything from crime to bad driving and financial delinquency.

But the system doesn’t stop there. The problem…who determines “good behavior?” Where is the standard going to come from, Hollywood, the Holy Book, the Red Book, or worse?

It hasn’t taken Chinese authorities long to draw up massive blacklists for those deemed “unacceptable.” According to the Guardian in England, there are 23 million Chinese on those lists. And the number is growing.

One of them, Liu Hu, is a journalist who published articles exposing government corruption and censorship. The system banned him from flying, traveling on a train, buying property, and taking out loans without any due process.

The Muslim Uyghurs of Xinjiang have seen even worse. Many have been sent to reeducation camps for “unacceptable” behavior.

With examples like these, it isn’t hard to envision a time when loyalty to the Chinese government will determine all aspects of its citizens’ lives—where they live, where they work, and where their kids go to school.

Everything we see in China, we’re starting to see here in the West. Australia, Austria, and even the US have imposed or attempted to impose mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations. Government officials openly pressure banks not to give loans to disfavored businesses, like oil companies. Parents who protest what their kids are learning in government schools are labeled domestic terrorists.

Lacie’s experience is already becoming a reality for almost a fifth of the world’s population. It didn’t end well for her.

If we’re not vigilant, it won’t end well for us.

There are few things worse than being called “intolerant,” “Inflexible, or “closed-minded.” Who wants to be that? Isn’t it far better to be open to everything, dismissive of nothing?

Well, not necessarily.

Should we have any standards at all? Or should the standard simply be “anything goes?”

These are new questions for any civilized society.

For most of American history, standards of acceptable behavior were generally agreed upon.

Today, we can’t even agree on the difference between men and women. Those on the Progressive Left seem dead-set on unsettling just about every settled question—all in the name of being “open-minded.”

But can your mind be so open that your brains fall out?

Do we need to tolerate every crackpot view under the sun, no matter how harmful? No matter how ridiculous or false? Do we need, for example, to keep an “open mind” on murder? Of course not. That question’s settled (for now), and every citizen has an obligation to follow the law. Even if someone doesn’t want to. Even if he “identifies” as a serial killer.

How about a more controversial example? Consider the case of Drag Queen Story Hour, an activist organization that sends transvestite men wearing sexualized clothing into elementary schools and public libraries to read books and sometimes even dance in front of little kids.

In the name of tolerance, must we allow men to strap on stilettos and wiggle around in front of toddlers— I guess if your community wants it, but even when our communities object, even when we believe that it’s wrong?

This example is a little bit tougher for the “tolerance” crowd, not because the answer is obvious—though I think it is—but because any way you answer, someone’s views are not going to be tolerated. If we answer “yes, we do need to tolerate Drag Queen Story Hour,” then we’re refusing to tolerate the wishes of parents and taxpayers who don’t want their public property used in drag shows for kids.

If we answer no, we’re refusing to tolerate the wishes and behavior of the transvestites and community who want these performances in public schools. There is no world in which the answer to this question accommodates and tolerates everyone and everything.

So, the question that actually divides us is not whether every public behavior must be tolerated. The question that divides us is which public behaviors should be tolerated and which shouldn’t. As they say, that’s the rub.

For most of American history, if a man dressed up in sexual clothing to perform for children, he’d be arrested. Drag is not new, like just about anything, “there is nothing new under the Sun” there have always been places where, if you wanted to see this you could go. For centuries, America had refused to tolerate in public places, and certainly in the Children’s section of the public Library, all sorts of things such as obscenity, the incitement to violence, and public nudity.

Even when such laws and limits have been repealed or gone unenforced, it isn’t as though some sort of pure tolerance has blossomed in their place, where all is welcomed.

Instead, old intolerance has been replaced by new intolerance. Fifty years ago, a teacher might be fired for teaching the Communist Manifesto in school. Today, a teacher could be fired for teaching the Bible in school.

Ten years ago, if you called a man a woman, you’d probably get a punch in the nose. Today, if you refuse to call a man a woman, you might find yourself banned from social media, expelled from school or out of a job.

So, then who decides what those limits of toleration should be?

Until relatively recently, the answer was we, the people, decide. It sounds quaint now, but we had what were once called “community standards” which were voted on locally and nationally when disagreements appeared.

And what were those standards based on?

The short answer is tradition; that is, what has worked well in the past. Some will say, “why would I trust tradition?” Well, tradition, is traditionally true. Just like generalizations become what they are because they are generally true, not always but generally.

Today we seem to live in a world with no reference to the past. We live in what British journalist Douglas Murray has dubbed “year zero.” It is presumed that we are much smarter than all those who lived before us.

This is a dangerous way of thinking because it’s not rooted in anything, (and that is not a generalization but an axiomatic fact). And it can be uprooted by the next political fad.

Of course, not everything that was done in the past was good or ought to be preserved into the future. The most vivid example is that; for centuries, slavery was commonplace, but it of course wasn’t good, and it was tradition.

But tradition is the anchor that helps us discern the good. It avails us of the wisdom of the ages. And this discernment of the good led us to abolish slavery. Even though some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, they knew it was wrong. They were anchored in the biblical idea that all men are created in the image of God, while others tried to twist the Bible to accommodate the brutality, and dehumanization of slavery. That tension eventually guided the country toward proper exegesis of the Bible, and abolition.

If we’re going to overturn social norms, the burden of proof that radical social changes are going to make things better should be on the revolutionaries, not on the defenders of tradition: the conservatives. The conservatives have over 3,000 years of history behind them: the Bible, the Magna Carta, English common law, the American Constitution, the Gettysburg Address.

I’ll take that over tolerance, just for the sake of tolerance.

The second part of the Will Durant quote about the ancient Persian empire reads as follows:

“Nor is it natural that nations diverse in language, religion, morals and traditions should long remain united; there is nothing organic in such a union, and compulsion must repeatedly be applied to maintain the artificial bond.  In its two hundred years of empire Persia did nothing to lessen this heterogeneity, these centrifugal forces; she was content to rule a mob of nations, and never thought of making them into a state.” (Our Oriental Heritage, 382)

Can you say “multiculturalism”?

Heterogeneous societies are not necessarily doomed to disintegration.  America has been a “melting pot” almost from the beginning of its history.  But what has made the “melting pot” successful in this country is that the people who came here wanted to be Americans.  And the immigration was controlled and regulated so America could effectively assimilate the newcomers.  People came with the full intent of learning the language, customs, and culture of the United States.  Yes, for awhile, they might maintain the “old country’s” ways.  But they always eventually became Americans, taught their children to be Americans, and thought of themselves as Americans.  And they didn’t try to destroy their new home.

Fracturing a people as Leftists do is disastrous.  There must be something that binds people together, creates an organic whole, makes them one.  Some kind of homogeneity is necessary to prevent centrifugal forces from spinning a nation into oblivion.  Our Founders recognized this.  “To render the people of this country as homogeneous as possible must tend as much as any other circumstance to the permanence of their union and posterity” (Alexander Hamilton).   Thomas Jefferson agreed: “It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together.” It is very difficult for people to “transact together” if they don’t even speak the same language.

And the more diverse they become in language, religion, culture, etc., the more difficult it will be for them to live together in unity.  As we see in history, even people of the same “racial” stock often strain to exist together peaceably, and frequently don’t.  European history is full of white Irishmen fighting white Englishmen fighting white Frenchmen fighting white Germans fighting white Italians…and it is the same everywhere.  Africa to this day is full of tribal dissension and warfare.  The American Indian fought tribally as a way of life.  The slightest difference in a peoples can produce division; when differences are magnified, troubles multiply.  That’s indisputable history.

This is not an argument, of course, for America to be totally “white.”  It is an argument for a common ground for all our peoples to live together harmoniously.  It is an argument that, no, diversity is not our strength if it divides us.

Leftists are determined to expand this negative sort of “diversity.”  By doing their best to portray white America as the greedy, thieving, racist oppressor of the rest of humanity, there becomes no motivation for any non-American immigrating to this country to assimilate at least some (not all) of his values or mores for the greater good of the whole.  America has indeed borrowed and learned from many cultures.  But that amalgamated culture is what unites us. By constantly degrading that culture as “white supremacy” (which it is not), Leftism is splintering and dividing America in ways that are driving people apart rather than bringing them together.  As long as we can remember we are all Americans, then we might have enough glue to remain united.  But if we force people to “press one for English,” we are creating and encouraging a diversity that will rend us asunder.  Remember Persia.

Again, this is no argument for “white supremacy,” nor that American culture is superior to others (though I seriously doubt Ben and Jerry’s owners would want to sleep in a teepee in North Dakota in the middle of the winter).  But if people aren’t willing to assimilate, to become part of the integrated whole—and if they are not educated to do so—then…Persia.

The same happened to the Roman empire.  Rome ruled a motley of peoples, and eventually failed to make Romans out of most of them.  Thus, when the barbarians attacked, the non-Romans weren’t going to die for Rome; why should they?  As long as they were compelled to remain within the empire, or saw some benefit for doing so, they acquiesced in being a part of it.  But when the compulsion or the benefits disappeared, they saw no reason to continue being loyal to a system that was not theirs.  And they didn’t.  Heterogeneity—diversity—did much to destroy the Roman empire.

It is absolutely no coincidence that the longest running continuous states/empires in history—Egypt (B.C.), China, Japan—were among the most homogeneous.  They kept their “oneness” intact, even through dynastic changes.

We should never degrade another person’s culture.  But neither can we let them destroy our country in their pursuit of their own.  When honoring your heritage or culture supersedes assimilating into the country where you intend to live, then you don’t belong in your new home. There are many, many men who gave their lives to protect the values, traditions, and beliefs that modern Leftists are doing their utmost to destroy.  Countless men died to give Barack Obama the opportunity to go around the world and denigrate the very system that gives him the right to do it.  What a crass hypocrite.

Leftism fails because it deliberately destroys the foundations upon which a society is built—and replaces it with nothing unified and whole.  It is deliberate, for heterogeneity can only be maintained by totalitarian force, the very thing the Left craves.  Biden and Democrats are willingly dividing America for the sole purpose of enhancing their own power and control.  That’s Leftism.

Pure and simple, the Left today (not Liberals…big difference)— in America and every other Leftist organization on this earth—is trying to overturn the American Revolution of 1776 and return mankind to the rule of “kings” and “lords.” They won’t call themselves that—yet—but the principle is the same: they rule, you obey. And if you don’t, the gulag (at best) awaits you. Or maybe Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice.

This is clear from the vicious attacks on early Americans and those who played such a vital part in establishing modern Western Civilization. Christopher Columbus is hated by the Left. Our Founders were “slave owners,” “they stole Indians’ land,” “they were elitists”; so, we get the 1619 Project, CRT, “white supremacy”—every bit of this an attempt to destroy America’s Founders in the eyes of the people and reverse the American Revolution. This of course totally ignores the fact that ever single piece of land on the planet has been “stolen” over and over again by different people throughout the history of humans. Even the land we live on here in the United States was constantly being taken from one tribe through slaughter and pillage and then retaken by another more powerful tribe again and again and again. Europe, the Middle East, the Far East, the African continent…all the lines in the sand and dirt were moved countless times and then moved again by war, famine, disease. Empires and their leaders were always totalitarian and brutal. Now, the Left (again, not liberals) want to tear the place down and replace it with a new caste of leaders—totalitarian to the core—who will have total power. They, not our Constitution, will tell you what you can and cannot do. Their government will give you whatever rights they want you to have, not you are giving government the rights it has. Anyone who doesn’t believe this is modern Leftism has never studied the history of the 20th century. Or lived in China, North Korea, or any number of totalitarian Islamist regimes and had to face it constantly. It isn’t just a “theory,” folks. It is in reality, the way most of the people in human history have lived, the way billions live now, and the way the Leftists in America want Americans to live. They will tell you what they will allow you to do, say, buy, and indoctrinate you from birth on how to think. They can’t get away with it yet, though. But that is the way they think.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”, the “equality” of man was not “self-evident” to ANYBODY in 1776 except the men who founded America. But what did Jefferson mean by “all men are created equal”? Well, we can know for sure some things he did NOT mean. He did not mean all people are economically equal; the Founders owned slaves, a practice that was common in nearly all parts of the world for most of human history. Slavery isn’t uncommon in history, folks; freedom is. People of the world are not “economically” equal, and never will be.

Nor did Jefferson mean that “all men” are equal in their talents, abilities, intellect, or a thousand other ways in which humans are (thankfully) different and unequal. I can’t throw a baseball like Nolan Ryan could. I could never be a quarterback like Tom Brady. I don’t have the brains of Albert Einstein (no comments here, please). My bank account will never match Elon Musk’s. I can’t write like Tom Clancy. People are different. We all have our own talents and abilities. That is “self-evident” now, and it was “self-evident” to Thomas Jefferson and the men who founded America. It’s where we got it.

So, what did Jefferson mean about equality? Well, actually, he told us: “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” We are all equal in that we have an “unalienable” (natural, God-given) right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Everybody is “endowed” (not born) with these rights. Yes, to us, our Founders sound a little hypocritical when it comes to slavery. But again, to be fair to them, we must look at history from before 1776, not from 2024. History moves slowly and it took a while for these great principles to sink in, even in America. It took almost 200 years before every American had “equality before the law,” (a concept the Left is desperately trying to take away again). But the crucial point is—the point that the Left totally denies and ignores—it was these principles, enumerated by Jefferson in the Declaration, that LED to the abolition of slavery everywhere, and that eventually produced the civil rights all Americans now (theoretically) enjoy. History is a marathon, not a sprint. And after thousands of years of entrenched hierarchical thinking all over the world, it is no surprise to any intelligent person that it took awhile to overthrow that system and produce the equality of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” which is the hallmark of the United States of America.

But, the Left will never allow these historical truths because they WANT to return to hierarchy with themselves on top. Yes, all Americans are equal under the law—except those the Left, in their creation of a legal double-standard, wants to silence and exclude from political participation. Hillary Clinton denied the outcome of the 2016 election and got a two-year governmental hearing about it. Donald Trump denied the outcome of the 2020 election, and got indicted, and many of his followers are jailed for a minor scrap in front of the Capitol, which belongs to THEM, the people. This is hierarchy—the ruling class, the self-anointed nobility, oppressing those who oppose them. It is EXACTLY what our Founders rebelled against. It is EXACTLY what the Democratic Party wants to return America to. A colony. With them in control. Bow to your lords and obey.

Thomas Jefferson and our Founders established the principle, denied in every Leftist government in the world, that nobody is born with a right to rule others. Governments “[derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” People are endowed with rights from God.  Governments are endowed with rights from the people. But tell that to Xi Jinping. Or Joe Biden.

The Leftists want a new American revolution—one that will overthrow the old one. Conservatives are fighting to conserve the principles of the last great hope of mankind.

The moral confusion of our time is not new.

Almost 3,000 years ago, the Prophet Isaiah lamented, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”

But at the start of the 20th century, a new form of moral confusion was introduced. While there were always those who called good evil and evil good, shortly after Einstein discovered relativity in the natural order, Western civilization applied relativity to the moral order. As the late historian Paul Johnson wrote in “Modern Times”: “At the beginning of the 1920s the belief began to circulate, for the first time at a popular level, that there were no longer any absolutes: of time and space, of good and evil, of knowledge, above all of value.”

Until then, though often poorly applied or simply ignored, there was the belief in the West that moral truths exist. Then, as Johnson writes, “Mistakenly but perhaps inevitably, relativity of science became confused with relativism of culture.”

Everything became relative — you have your values, I have mine; what I think (or more accurately, what I feel) is good is good, and what I think/feel is bad is bad. This is even true with regard to truth: As the increasingly popular saying goes, I have “my truth” and you have “your truth.”

Instead of good and evil, we now have a set of other “moral” categories which in the study of Logic are actually logical fallacies called category mistakes : rich and poor, white and black, colonizers and colonized, strong and weak, oppressors and oppressed are not, and have not been, moral categories in any of human history until now. Those in the latter groups — the poor, people of color, the colonized, the weak and the oppressed (real or alleged) — are, by definition and edict, good, while those in the former categories are, by definition and edict, bad. To cite one widely held example, blacks cannot be racist. I was taught that nonsense in graduate school in the 1970s, and it has become a truism among the “well-educated.”

This explains the widespread sympathy for the Palestinians and antipathy toward Israel.

In a morality-based world, Israel would be universally supported. But we don’t live in such a world; we live in the world of substitute- moral categories, and Israel falls into every one of the “bad” categories. Israel is perceived as rich, strong, white, a colonizer and an oppressor. I am all for telling complete stories and allowing all viewpoints, but revisionism of this kind is absolutely absurd in every way and it will not end well…it never does, it’s happened before. It is illogical and patently untrue…why would anyone want to ascribe to this delusional way of looking at morality? To quote Nietzsche, “there are people who talk of justice, but mean revenge.”

This is morally backward.

Israel is a modern liberal democracy. It has a robust free press, vibrant opposition and an independent judiciary. Two million Israelis — a fifth of the country’s population — are Arabs, who, in the words of the Council on Foreign Relations, “have the same legal rights as Jewish Israelis have.” They have their own political parties, with 10 seats in Israel’s parliament. Arabic, as any tourist to Israel sees, is, alongside Hebrew, Israel’s official language. There have even been Arab supreme court justices.

In fact, Arabs in Israel are, even now, considerably more pro-Israel than The New York Times, most Democrats and, of course, the United Nations. Reuters, which leans left, reported in November that “The Gaza war has dramatically increased the sense of solidarity with Israel among its 21% Arab minority.” And The Economist reported in mid-January, “Even as war rages in Gaza, Israel’s Arabs are feeling more Israeli … Two-thirds of Israeli Palestinians say they identified with their state, up from half before the war.”

Israel treats a vast number of Palestinians in its hospitals. During 2005 alone, approximately 123,000 Palestinians were treated at just one institution, Hadassah Hospital, in Jerusalem. Israel treated more than 4,000 victims of the Syrian Civil War in civilian hospitals at Israeli government expense.

Two weeks ago, the chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, John Spencer, wrote in Newsweek that, during Israel’s war on Hamas, the country “has implemented more measures to prevent civilian casualties than any other military in history. … As someone who has served two tours in Iraq and studied urban warfare for over a decade, Israel has taken precautionary measures even the United States did not do during its recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Israel provided days and then weeks of warnings, as well as time for civilians to evacuate multiple cities in northern Gaza before starting the main air-ground attack of urban areas. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) employed their practice of calling and texting ahead of an air strike as well as roof-knocking, where they drop small munitions on the roof of a building notifying everyone to evacuate the building before a strike.

“No military has ever implemented any of these practices in war before,” Spencer concluded.

In contrast to decent, humane, democratic and moral Israel, Hamas, which is supported by the majority of Palestinians, is the moral equivalent of the Nazis. It routinely tortures Palestinian opponents of its tyrannical regime and is dedicated to the annihilation of Israel and its Jews. It takes pride in burning Jewish families alive and the sexual torture, rape and mutilation of Jewish women.

Regarding Hamas’ cruelty, Amnesty International reported in 2015 the case of Atta Najjar, a former police officer under the Palestinian Authority:

“[Najjar] was serving a 15-year prison term imposed by a military court after he was arrested in 2009 and subsequently convicted of ‘collaborating’ with Israel. On 22 August 2014, he was taken out from the prison and executed.

“There were marks of torture and bullet shots on his body. His arms and legs were broken … his body was as if you’d put it in a bag and smashed it. … His body was riddled with about 30 bullets. He had slaughter marks around his neck, marks of knives. … And from behind the head, there was no brain. Empty … It was difficult for us to carry him. … He was heavy, like when you put meat in a bag; no bones. His bones were smashed. They broke him in the prison,’ said his brother, who retrieved the body from al-Shifa hospital morgue on 22 August 2014.”

But Israel’s decency and Hamas’ cruelty mean nothing to much of the world, especially the Left, the universities and the media. Because who is good and who is evil doesn’t matter. Only who’s rich and who’s poor, who’s white and who’s black, who’s strong and who’s weak, who colonizes and who’s colonized, and who oppresses and who is oppressed.

Here are three shocking statistics to think about for a moment:

How Ironic, I am now counter-culture with my beliefs…again. Like I was in my 20’s.

While those numbers are disheartening to those of us who can’t deal with life without the Bibleand its truth, and the incomparable value it has to daily living, these stats also inspire me to stand firm in my resolve to bring the light of God’s Word to this darkening world.  When I say “can’t deal with life without the Bible” some immediately and falsely think of the tired old Marxistsaying “religion is the opiate of the people.” Which of course can be turned around on the secular atheist or agnostic by applying the same logic; it is an opiate to believe that all ends in death and there is no judgement. How convenient as well.

However, I consider myself a “cultural apologist” for the faith of Christianity and it’s sacred text the Bible. So, my perspective will always be one of explaining and making argument for that end. People who read my posts know this either right away, or within a few short reads.

I don’t force or jam anything down anyone’s throat, it’s all up to you to read my Christian/cultural/apologist perspective, or unfriend me. I know and have read many, many theories and secular arguments. I don’t like to toot my own horn but after all, I have 2 Masters degrees in Philosophy, one is secular and one is Christian. And that took a considerable amount of time and effort, I’ve heard and read it a lot from both sides.

Having said that, here is todays cultural topic:

Have you heard about the latest relationship “reality” show?

Couple to Throuple is airing on Peacock. It tells the story of four couples who are curious about polyamory (“many loves”) and head to a resort where they begin dating a group of singles. This is just one way many in our secular culture are working overtime to promote “consensual non-monogamy” through books, cover stories, and other articles extolling its virtues.

The ongoing sexual revolution follows a four-step strategy:

To apply pressure to this, It is obviously best to respond as early as possible. What can those of us who believe in biblical morality say to persuade those who endorse and normalize polyamory?

Our culture is way beyond fighting some of those battles, and as a Christian, once the battle is over on the legal and then cultural front; I am now in the position of “living in the culture and not being of it.” So, I doubt that you need me to remind you that the Bible forbids sexual relationships outside the lifelong covenant of one man and one woman in marriage (cf. Genesis 2:24; Hebrews 13:4; Ephesians 5:22–33; 1 Corinthians 6:18; 1 Thessalonians 4:3–5; Galatians 5:19).

Then what about the new battle of Polyamory? And what about those who don’t care what the Bible says? Can there be something relevant the Bible has to say to them?

As a cultural apologist, I am called (convicted) to declare and defend biblical responses to the critical issues we face today. This work often begins with the apagogic task of demonstrating the flaws in the worldview to which I am responding.

To this end, let’s note what is objectively wrong with polyamory, with links to articles by secular counselors and other professionals:

What is the positive: Are there secular arguments in favor of the biblical version of marriage?

If you want to read a fascinating and deeply researched book on the subject by University of Virginia sociologist Brad Wilcox. In Get Married: Why Americans Must Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families, and Save Civilization, he demonstrates conclusively that nothing predicts happiness better than a strong marriage between one man and one woman. It is overpowering statistically.

Here are some key facts:

I am not fooling myself. As the stats on Bible-believing Christians I gave at the top show, I am in the overwhelming minority even among “Christians.” The reality is, most so-called Christians don’t believe in the bible as stated above (so really what are they? Non-bible-believing Christians? That is irrational if you understand Christianity…and logic). But that’s Okay with me, I would literally die for my beliefs, and soon may have to prove that statement, as many have this year (check out opendoorsusa.org it’s unbelievable how many have died for the Faith just this last year). Already there are many things I know I can’t even discuss at length, or directly even in this format, or I could be cancelled, loose my job, and or be totally ostracized.

Never the less, and Unsurprisingly, God’s word turns out as a general rule, to be right yet again, and relevant to anyone (some will say “that’s a generalization” but, general rules are general, because they are generally true). So, be encouraged: when you declare and defend biblical morality, you are offering others the truth they desperately need for the human condition, not just the believer. When you live by that morality personally by the strength of the Holy Spirit and not your own strenght, you are showing them the reality and relevance of your faith. Which is called a “Christian witness.”

“When we have the Holy Spirit, we have all that is needed to be all that God desires us to be.” A.W. Tozer

If you’re a Christian, you “have the Holy Spirit” right now (1 Corinthians 3:16).

How fully does he have you?

There has been a lot said about “Foot-washing” in the last week because of the Super Bowl. Just to be clear, Jesus did not go around washing everyone’s feet. There is precisely one story in the New Testament in which Jesus washed feet, and it was at the Passover meal before his Passion and death. In that case, he washed the feet of his disciples. People often take singular moments in Jesus’s ministry and extrapolate them, making them out to be regular occurrences, but that’s not a fair or accurate assumption. There’s no reason to assume that Jesus just traveled around washing the feet of every non-believing, unrepentant sinner who walked by. There’s no mention of it. But we do know that his fundamental message was this: Repent and believe. “I have not come to call the righteous to repentance, but sinners” (Luke 5:32). This was Jesus’ real message.

Many are saying that the Super Bowl commercial is a good entry point for non-Christians, to get people’s feet in the door (pun not intended). But even if it does, they’ll be coming through the door for the wrong reason. When you tell unrepentant sinners, “Come and get your feet washed,” you are reaffirming them in their sin. You’re feeding into their pride and ego.

For the disciples, having their feet washed by Christ was a humbling experience. They felt uncomfortable. They tried to stop him because they knew they were unworthy. But if somebody sits down says, “Come wash my feet, I DESERVE this treatment. Come cater to my every whim,” then the very last thing you should do for that person is actually wash their feet, literally or metaphorically.

You are not saving anybody’s soul by feeding their ego, and keeping them secure in their selfish behaviors; whatever those may be.

So, I want to take some time to properly exegete the Foot-washing. The best way is through literal/historical/grammatical/contextual analysis of the scene of the 1 and only instance of foot washing given to us in the Bible. What where the circumstances and what was Jesus’ teaching, because he was always teaching.

The setting (context) is the day before Jesus’ death, and rather than being preoccupied with thoughts of His death, sin-bearing, and glorification, He is totally consumed with His love for the disciples. John 13 is all about his love for these few, to make them ready for what was coming. Knowing that He would soon go to the cross to die for the sins of the world, He is still concerned with the needs of twelve men. His love is never impersonal—that’s the mystery of it.

In what were literally the last hours before His death, Jesus kept showing them His love over and over. John relates this graphic demonstration of it:

“Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He should depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.  During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself.  Then He poured water into the basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. So, He came to Simon Peter.  He said to him, “Lord, do You wash my feet?”  Jesus answered and said to him, “What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter.” Peter said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.” Sowhen He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you?  You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am.  If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.  For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you.  Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent Him.  If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them.” (John 13:1-17)

It is very likely that Jesus and the disciples had been hiding at Bethany during this final week before the crucifixion. Having come from there (or from anywhere near Jerusalem), they would have had to travel on extremely dirty roads. Naturally, by the time they arrived, their feet were covered with dust from the road.

Everyone in that culture faced the same problem. Sandals did little to keep dirt off the feet, and the roads were either a thick layer of dust or deep masses of mud. At the entrance to every Jewish home was a large pot of water to wash dirty feet. Normally, foot washing was the duty of the lowliest slave. When guests came, that slave had to go to the door and wash their feet—not a pleasant task. In fact, washing feet was probably a slaves most abject duty, and only slaves performed it for others. Even the disciples of rabbis were not to wash the feet of their masters—that was uniquely the task of a slave.

As Jesus and His disciples all arrived in the upper room, they found that there was no slave to wash their feet. Only days before, Jesus had said to the twelve,

 “Whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant (slave is the actual word), and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave” (Matthew 20:26-27).

 If they had given mind and heart to His teaching, one of the twelve would have washed the others’ feet, or they would have mutually shared the task. It could have been a beautiful thing, but it never occurred to them because of their selfishness. A parallel passage in Luke 22 gives us an idea just how selfish they were and what they were thinking about that evening:

“And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest.  And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’  But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.” (vv. 24-26)

What a sickening picture this is! They were bickering about who was the greatest. And in an argument about who is the greatest, no one is going to get down to the ground and wash feet and become thei slave! The basin was there, the towel was there, and everything was ready. But no one moved to wash the others’ feet.

If anyone in that room should have been thinking about the glory that would be his in the Kingdom, it was Jesus. John 13:1 says that Jesus knew His hour was come. He was on a divine time schedule, and He knew He was going to be with the Father. He was very conscious of the fact that He soon would be glorified: “Jesus [knew] that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God” (v. 3). But instead of being concerned with His glory, and in spite their selfishness, He was totally conscious of revealing clearly His personal love to the twelve that they might be secure in it.

Verse 1 says, “Having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.” “To the end” in the Greek is eis telos, and it means this: He loved to them to perfection. He loved them to the uttermost. He loved them with total fullness of love…perfectly. That is the nature of Christ’s love, and He showed it repeatedly—even in His death. He loves utterly, absolutely, to perfection, totally, completely, without reservation. At the moment when most men would have been wholly concerned with self, He selflessly humbled Himself to meet the needs of others. Genuine love is like that.

And here is the great lesson of this whole account: Only absolute humility can generate absolute love. It is the nature of love to be selfless, giving. In 1 Corinthians 13:5, Paul said that love “does not seek its own.” In fact, to distill all the truth of 1 Corinthians 13 into one statement, we might say that the greatest virtue of love is its humility, for it is the humility of love that proves it and makes it visible, otherwise it is just a word like any other word. Love is a verb, and the action is humility.

Christ’s love and His humility are inseparable. He could not have been so consumed with a passion for serving others if He had been primarily concerned with Himself.

“Love…in Deed and Truth”

How could anyone reject that kind of love? But people do it all the time. Judas did. “During supper, the devil [had] already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him” (v. 2). Do you see the tragedy of Judas? He was constantly basking in the light, yet living in darkness; experiencing the love of Christ, yet hating Him at the same time.

The contrast between Jesus and Judas is striking. And perhaps that is the very reason the Holy Spirit included verse 2 in this passage. Set against the backdrop of Judas’ hatred, Jesus’ love shines even brighter. We can better understand its magnitude when we understand that in the heart of Judas was the blackest kind of hatred and rejection. The words of love by which Jesus gradually drew the hearts of the other disciples to Himself only pushed Judas further and further away. The teaching by which He uplifted the souls of the other disciples just seemed to drive a stake into the heart of Judas. And everything that Jesus said in terms of love must have become like chafing shackles to Judas. From his fettered greed and his disappointed ambition began to spring jealousy, spite, and hatred—and now he was ready to destroy Christ, if need be.

But the amazing thing is, more men hated Jesus and desired to hurt Him, the more it seemed He manifested love to them. It would be easy to understand resentment. It would be easy to understand bitterness. But all Jesus had was love—He even met the greatest injury with supreme love. In a little while He would be kneeling at the feet of Judas, washing them!

Jesus waited until everyone was seated and supper was served. Then, in a devastating act of humility that must have stunned the disciples,

[Jesus] got up from supper and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself.  Then He poured water into the basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. (vv. 4-5)

With calmness and majesty, in total silence, Jesus stood up, walked over and took the pitcher, and poured the water into the basin. He then removed his outer robe, His belt, and very likely His inner tunic—leaving Him clothed like a slave—put a towel around His waist, and knelt to wash the feet of His disciples, one by one.

Can you imagine how that must have stung the disciples’ hearts? Do you feel the pain, the regret, and the sorrow that must have shot through them? One of them could have had the joy of kneeling and washing the feet of Jesus. I’m sure they were dumb-founded and broken-hearted. What a painful and profound lesson this was for them!

We, too, can learn from this incident. Sadly, the church is full of people who are standing on their dignity when they ought to be kneeling at the feet of their brother. The desire for prominence is death to love, death to humility, and death to service. One who is proud and self-centered has no capacity for love or humility. Consequently, any service he may think he is performing for the Lord is a waste.

When you are tempted to think of your dignity, your prestige, or your rights, open your Bible to John 13 and get a good look at Jesus—clothed like a slave, kneeling, washing dirt off the feet of sinful men who are utterly indifferent to His impending death, thinking about themselves and who would be the greatest in His kingdom. To go from being God in glory (v. 3) to washing the feet of sinful, unglorious disciples (vv. 4-5) is a long step.

Think about this: the majestic, glorious God of the universe comes to earth—that’s humility. Then He kneels on the ground to wash the feet of sinful men—that’s indescribable humility.

You see, for a fisherman to wash the feet of another fisherman would be a relatively small sacrifice of dignity. But that Jesus Christ, in whose heart beat the pulse of eternal deity, would stoop down and wash the feet of lowly men, that’s the greatest kind of humiliation. And that is the nature of genuine humility, as well as the proof of genuine love.

Love has to be more than words. The apostle John wrote, “Let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth” (1 John 3:18). Love that is real is love expressed in activity, not just words. And again, the activity that best manifests itself as love is humility.

“If I Do NotWash You, You Have No Part with Me”

Here we have one of the most interesting insights into Peter that we see anywhere in Scripture. As Jesus humbly loves, and goes from disciple to disciple, He finally arrives at Peter, who must have been completely broken. He said with a mixture of remorse and incredulity, “Lord, do You wash my feet?” (v. 6), and perhaps he pulled back his feet. Jesus replied to Peter, “What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter” (v. 7). At this point, Peter was still thinking that the Kingdom was coming, and Jesus was the King. How could he allow the King to wash his feet like a slave? It wasn’t until after Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension that Peter understood the total humiliation of Jesus.

Peter got bolder. In verse 8, he says, “Never shall You wash my feet!” To emphasize his words, Peter uses the strongest form of negation in the Greek language. He basically commands Jesus to stop. He calls Jesus Lord but acts as if he (Peter himself) is. This is not praiseworthy modesty on Peter’s part.

Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 
Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” (vv. 8-9)

That is typical of Peter—he goes from one extreme (“Never shall You wash my feet!”) to the other (“Not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.”).

There is profound meaning in Jesus’ words, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” You see, the typical Jewish mindset could not accept the Messiah humiliated. In Peter’s mind, there was no place for Christ to be humiliated like this. He must be made to realize that Christ came to be humiliated. If Peter could not accept this act of humiliation, he would certainly have trouble accepting what Jesus would do for him on the cross.

There is yet another, more profound, truth in Jesus’ words. He has moved from the physical illustration of washing feet to the spiritual truth of washing the inner man. Throughout John’s gospel, when He dealt with people, Jesus spoke of spiritual truth in physical terms. He did it when He spoke to Nicodemus, the woman at the well, and the Pharisees. Now He does it with Peter. With Nicodemus it was, you must be born again of the Spirit and become like a child; with the woman at the Well it was the water had to come from a different source than the spring she was drawing from.

He is saying, “Peter, unless you allow Me to wash you in a spiritual way, you are not clean and you have no part with Me.” All cleansing in the spiritual realm comes from Christ, and the only way anyone can be clean is if he is washed by regeneration through Jesus Christ (Titus 3:5). No man has a relationship with Jesus Christ unless Christ has cleansed his sins. And no one can enter into the presence of the Lord unless he first submits to that cleansing.

The foot washing is not only an incredible act of humility by the God/man, but also a object lesson performance of what only Christ can do and must do in order for true salvation to occur.

Peter learned that truth—he preached it himself in Acts 4:12: “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” When a man puts his faith in Jesus Christ, he’s clean, and not until then.

“He Who Has Bathed…Is Completely Clean”

Thinking that the Lord was speaking of physical cleansing, Peter offered his hands and head—everything. He still did not see the full spiritual meaning, but he said in essence, “Whatever washing you’ve got to offer me that makes me a part of You, I want it.”

Jesus, still speaking of spiritual washing, said, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean” (v.10). There is a difference between a bath and a foot-washing. In the culture of that day, a man would take a bath in the morning to get himself completely clean. As he went through the day, he had to wash his feet from time to time, because of the dusty roads, but he didn’t have to keep taking baths. All he needed was to wash the dirt off his feet when he entered someone’s home.

Jesus is saying this: once your inner man has been bathed in redemption, you are clean. From that point on, you do not need a new bath—you do not need to be redeemed again—every time you commit a sin. All God has to do is daily get the dust off your feet. Positionally, you are clean (as He told Peter in verse 10), but on the practical side, you need washing every day, as you walk through the world and get dirty feet.

That spiritual washing of the feet is what 1 John 1:9 refers to: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us [literally, keep on cleansing us] from all unrighteousness.”

Jesus knew which of the disciples were truly cleansed by redemption. Furthermore, He knew what Judas’ plans for the evening were: “For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, ‘Not all of you are clean'” (v. 11). That should have pricked the heart of Judas.

Judas knew what He meant. Those words, combined with Jesus’ washing his feet, constituted what would be the last loving appeal for Judas not to do what he was planning to do. What was going through the mind of Judas as Jesus knelt washing his feet? Whatever it was, it had no deterring effect on Judas.

“You also Ought to Wash One Another’s Feet”

Notice what happened after Jesus finished washing their feet:

So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you?  You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am.  If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.  For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you.  Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.  If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them.” (vv. 12-17)

Having inserted a parenthetical lesson on salvation—a sort of theological interlude—Jesus gets back to the real point He is teaching His disciples: that they need to begin to operate on the basis of humility.

He argues from the greater to the lesser. If the Lord of glory is willing to gird Himself with a towel, take upon Him the form of a servant, act like a slave, and wash the dirty feet of sinful disciples, it is reasonable that the disciples might be willing to wash each other’s feet. The visual example Jesus taught surely did more good than a lecture on humility ever would have. It was something they never forgot. (Perhaps from then on they had a contest to see who got to the water first!)

Many people believe that Jesus was instituting an ordinance for the church. Some churches practice foot-washing in a ritual similar to the way we have baptism and communion. I have no quarrel with that, but I do not feel that it is being taught in this passage. Jesus was not advocating a formal, ritualistic foot-washing service.

Verse 15 says, “I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you.” The word “as” is a translation of the Greek word kathos, which means “according as.” If He were establishing foot-washing as a pattern of ritual to be practiced in the church, He would have used the Greek word ho, which means “that which.” Then He would have been saying, “I have given you an example that you should do exactly the same thing that I have done to you.”

He is not saying “Do the same thing I have done”; He is saying, “Behave in the same manner as I have behaved.” The example we are to follow is not so much the washing of feet, it is His humility. That leads to a minimization of the lesson by trying to make foot-washing the important point of John 13. Jesus’ humility is the real lesson—and it is a practical humility that governs every area of life, every day of life, in every experience of life.

The result of that kind of humility is always loving service—doing the menial and humiliating tasks for the glory of Jesus Christ. That demolishes most of the popular ideas of what constitutes spirituality.

Some people seem to think that the nearer you get to God the further you must be from men, but that’s not true. Actual proximity to God is to serve someone else.

In terms of sacrificing to serve others, there was never anything Jesus was unwilling to do. Why should we be different? We are not greater than the Lord: “Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master; nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, you are blessed [happy] if you do them” (vv. 16-17).

Do you want to be blessedly fulfilled and happy? Develop a servant/slave’s heart. We are His slaves and a slave is not greater than his master. If Jesus can step down from a position of deity to become a man, and then further humble Himself to be a slave and wash the feet of twelve undeserving sinners, we ought to be willing to suffer any indignity to serve Him. That is true love, and true humility.

Jesus was not bowing to sin or sorrow over how he had treated certain people. He was God, humbly showing how we love each other. In fact the one person who addressed the one instance of foot-washing was Peter. And he was horrified Jesus would humble himself like a slave for him a sinner. But at the same time, Jesus was cleansing them from their sin, not approving it.

Imagine a group of people who work to destroy Italy because, they claim, Italy’s origins are illegitimate. Imagine further that these people maintain that of all the countries in the world, only Italy doesn’t deserve to exist. Then imagine that these people vigorously deny that they are anti-Italian. Would you believe them?

Now substitute “Israel” for “Italy,” and you’ll understand the dishonesty and absurdity of the argument that one can be anti-Zionist — that is, against the existence of a Jewish state — but not be anti-Jew.

Yet, that is precisely what anti-Zionists say. They say that Israel’s existence is illegitimate. They don’t say this about any other country in the world, no matter how bloody its origins. And then they get offended when they’re accused of being anti-Jew.

How can they make this argument?

First, they change the topic. They say it’s unfair to charge those who merely “criticize” Israel with being antisemitic. No one says criticism of Israel is antisemitic. But anti-Zionism isn’t criticism of Israel. Anti-Zionism is opposition to Israel’s existence.

Zionism is the name of the movement for the return of the Jews to their historic homeland. Over the past 3,000 years, there were only two independent states located in what is called Israel. Both were Jewish states, and invaders destroyed both. No Arab or Muslim or any other sovereign country ever existed in that land, which was given the name “Palestine” by the Romans so as to remove all memory of the Jewish state they destroyed in the year 70.

Second, anti-Zionists claim they can’t be anti-Jew because Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism. That is the same as saying Italy has nothing to do with being Italian. Judaism has always consisted of three components: God, Torah and Israel (the people Israel and the Land of Israel). Israel is as much a part of Judaism as are God and the Bible. Moreover, the most pro-Israel, i.e. the most Zionist, Jews are the Orthodox, the most religious Jews. That there exists one tiny group of ultra-Orthodox Jews (Neturei Karta) that is anti-Zionist means nothing. They are as representative of Judaism as the Ku Klux Klan is of Christianity.

Third, anti-Zionists claim that Judaism is only a religion; therefore, Jews are only members of a religion, not a nation. But the Jews are called a “nation” more than one hundred times in the Bible. That is why there can be irreligious, secular and even atheist Jews — because Jews are not only a religion, but a people — a nation. No one thinks non-religious Jews are not Jews. There can be no atheist Christians because Christianity is a religion, not a nation.

Fourth, people point to anti-Zionist Jews to prove that anti-Zionism isn’t anti-Jewish. That would be like pointing to Americans who gave Stalin the secrets to the atom bomb to argue that siding with the Soviet Union in the Cold War was not anti-American. Or, to provide another Jewish example, it would be like pointing Jews who eat pork in Yom Kippur to argue that eating pork on Yom Kippur is Jewish. What Jews do or believe is not always the same as Judaism.

Fifth, anti-Zionists claim that Israel is illegitimate because Zionism — and therefore, Israel — is “racist.” This is a libel. Half of Israel’s Jews are not even white, and anyone, of any race or ethnicity, can become a Jew. Furthermore, one in five Israelis isn’t a Jew. And these Israeli non-Jews, mostly Arab Muslims, have the same rights as Jewish Israelis. As for Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza (Israel completely abandoned Gaza in 2005), that has nothing to do with race and everything to do with security. It is because the Palestinians and other Arabs tried to destroy Israel in 1967 and lost the war.

If the Palestinians would stop killing Israelis, Israel would have no problem with a “two-state solution.” But Palestinians have rejected offers to have their own state on four separate occasions since 1947. That is the only reason they don’t have their own state.

And why have they always rejected having a Palestinian state? Because the only state they would accept is one that eradicates Israel. They have therefore been solely dedicated to destroying the Jewish state, not in having their own state alongside Israel.

Sixth, and finally, anti-Zionists claim that Israel’s origins are illegitimate. Of all the world’s 200-plus countries, the only country anti-Zionists declare illegitimate is also the only Jewish one. That’s pretty much all you need to know about their motives.

Why don’t they make this claim about Pakistan? In 1947, nine months before the establishment of Israel, India was partitioned into a Muslim state (Pakistan) and a Hindu state (India), just as Palestine was partitioned into a Jewish state (Israel) and an Arab one (Palestine).

But, unlike Israel, no Pakistan had ever existed. And unlike Israel’s founding, which created about 700,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands and about 700,000 Arab refugees from what became Israel, the founding of Pakistan created about seven million Muslim refugees from India and about seven million  Hindu refugees from Pakistan. And while the highest estimate of Arab deaths in the fighting that took place when Israel was established is 10,000, the number of deaths as a result of Pakistan’s creation is around one million. So why is Israel’s legitimacy challenged while Pakistan’s isn’t? The only possible answer is because Israel is Jewish.

Of course, not all anti-Zionists hate all Jews. But if you seek to destroy Italy, you don’t have to hate every Italian to be anti-Italian. Not every anti-American hates all Americans, but they are still called anti-American. If you seek to destroy the one Jewish state, you don’t have to hate every Jew to be called anti-Jew. And the name for that is antisemite.

Concerning the Hamas Oct 7^th atrocity, it’s amazing when you consider it in the context of the me-too movement.  We went from believe all women to believe no women if they’re Jewish.

It’s not about where are the women’s groups it’s more about, who do the women’s groups represent now?  Now we know they don’t represent any Republican women, or libertarian women, or pro-life women, or Independent Women. They also don’t represent women in sports who don’t want to compete against men, they don’t represent women who believe in legitimate safe spaces away from men, and now they obviously don’t represent Jewish women, and they don’t even represent white women, unless they buy a dinner where they confess that they’re an oppressor to woke Scholars. I’m trying to think who’s left to represent. Is it men who say they’re women?  Once you no longer stand up for victims of mass rape, what good are you as a Woman’s Group? You’re worthless you’re pathetic. I think we need to reframe this. By describing October 7th as an act of Terror these apologists always say one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, and then start talking about the historical context.  Well, there is no historical context for a sexual atrocity of this magnitude.

Sexual atrocity is the phrase that needs to be employed from now on.  On October 7th it was a sexual atrocity because that leaves no wiggle room to these misogynous monsters out there.  That label is 100% true, and it has actual video, personal, and eyewitness evidence.  As opposed to something like Kavanaugh where one allegation from decades ago, with no evidence, was an absolute Abomination in the eyes of the same group in the me-too movement.  And yet here you have a mountain of dreadful, horrific, evidence and they don’t say anything.  Every moment you spend on behalf of the perpetrators makes you an apologist for the world’s only planned sexual atrocity in modern history. When you come face to face with these protesters you have to ask them, how can you accept sexual atrocity, if they deny it then they should be called “sexual atrocity deniers” and that should stick with them for the rest of of their lives.

The UN waited almost two months, and I think it’s because we didn’t call it what it was, we just kept saying Act of Terror. I think if you just use the sexual atrocity label on it, that will have a more accurate and vivid effect.  It’s simply amazing how they don’t seem to care about this. It makes you wonder if this is orchestrated or something. But it’s also deeply emotional.  What hole is this filling, for all of these unhappy women, to apologize for these monsters.  There are so many young women willing to align themselves to a movement that denies sexual atrocity!  What, and where is that energy shift coming from? Why are they doing this?  I don’t know how many moms are okay with this. I don’t think there are many. There’s definitely something missing in their lives that’s for sure. To take the side of the perpetrators of this horrific sexual atrocity that is a powerful symbol of something.