Will Dr. David Wright of Indiana Wesleyan University Clarify Himself?

Here
 
https://www.wesleyan.org/5716/elections-and-who-we-are
 
We find the President of IWU saying the below,
 
“We are an inclusive community that loves and embraces one another despite differences of political persuasion, race, gender, nationality, immigration status, or any other characteristic that people have used to foster division, suspicion, and strife. While some in our community feel better about the future, others in our community feel less safe, more vulnerable, less included today than they did yesterday. Let us affirm together that IWU loves and embraces our minority students and staff, those who come from immigrant families, those who are international students, or those who identify with some other group of people who feel vulnerable and pushed to the margins. I would ask all members of our community to remember and practice those values and virtues of Godly hospitality that represent the very best of what our Lord Jesus Christ taught us.”

Dr. David Wright
President — Indiana Wesleyan University

 
 
1.) “We are an inclusive community that loves and embraces one another despite differences of political persuasion, race, gender, nationality, immigration status, or any other characteristic that people have used to foster division, suspicion, and strife.”

IWU Alumni, Rev. McAtee inquires,

 

Dear President Wright,

What does “any other characteristic that people have used to foster division, suspicion, and strife” mean? In our current climate the characteristic most used, as alleged by the sodomite community, to foster division is heterosexuality vs. sodomy or heterosexuality vs. Transgenderism. Is it your opinion Dr. Wright that CIS Christians who insist that Heterosexuality is normative Christian behavior are fostering division suspicion and strife vis-a-vis the LGBTQ community?

A clarification is in order I think sir.
 
 
2.) “IWU loves and embraces … those who identify with some other group of people who feel vulnerable and pushed to the margins.”
 
Now who else could the IWU President, Dr. David Wright be referring to except those now commonly referred to as the LGBQT community? Let’s just ask the question directly of IWU President, David Wright;
“Sir is it your intent to lead IWU to “love and embrace” the LGBQT community and if it is your intent what does that exactly mean?
 
3.) In light of how President Dr. David Wright folded on the Indiana RFRA these questions present themselves even more obviously. Now combine this with the recent 1st annual Indiana Wesleyan University “Multi-cultural Day” and it is clear that Indiana Wesleyan University needs to respond to clarify where exactly Indiana Wesleyan is on these issues. Also, as the Wesleyan church is so tied at the hip with IWU it might be profitable if the denomination would give their Alumni a statement on their position regarding the sin of aberrant sexuality.

b.) Are we to understand that Typhoid Mary, Ebola Jane and TB Ted though hidden and shunned in the past are welcome at IWU?
 
Are we to understand that serial killers, though pushed to the margins of society, are welcome at IWU?
How about pedophiles who are still somewhat pushed to the margins and so vulnerable? Are they welcome at IWU?
 
A note of clarification is in order.

3.) Dr. Wright asks,

I would ask all members of our community to remember and practice those values and virtues of Godly hospitality that represent the very best of what our Lord Jesus Christ taught us.”

But the very best of what the Lord Jesus Christ taught us includes what we find in I John,

I John 2:9 — Anyone who runs ahead without remaining in the teaching of Christ does not have God. Whoever remains in His teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you but does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your home or even greet him. 11Whoever greets such a person shares in his evil deeds.

Will Dr. Wright not receive or greet those who do not remain in the teaching of Christ? Does Dr. Wright understand that this “not receiving” is also the essence of Christian hospitality? Scripture does not call us to be hospitable to those who would use that hospitality to tear down the house of Christ.

The New York Times, Cultural Marxism, and the attack on the Christian Faith

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/18/opinion/sunday/breaking-the-anti-immigrant-fever.html

In a Carlos Slim majority owned New York Times Editorial board op-ed piece the “Gray Lady,” demonstrated her resolve to be anything but a whiter shade of pale.

In a piece villainizing the Trump administration for enforcing the law as it pertains to illegal immigrants the “Paper of Record,” editorialized,

“Where could the demonizing and dehumanizing of the foreign born lead but to a whiter America?”

And all the Cultural Marxists said, “AMEN.”

By all that is just and true the last thing we can have is an America that was 90% white as it was when I was born.  A Whiter America? The Times seems to think that would be a descent into Dante’s Hell.

This comment demonstrates that the Times is owned by the Cultural Marxists and is pursuing the ideological pretensions of the Frankfurt School. The concern of the Times and the left is only about the foreign born inasmuch as the presence of the foreign-born here yields to them the capacity to pursue the browning of America and so the destruction of the white man. There is a goal here and that goal is to subjugate and perhaps even eliminate America’s founding White Anglo-Saxon Christian stock.

People have need to remember that in the ideology of Cultural Marxism there was the understanding that a new proletariat had to be built to replace the failed proletariat that was the “working class.” The working class, in the Marxist paradigm, had failed in bringing in the new Communist man because the working class had shown themselves corruptible to the bourgeoisie promise of upward mobility. A new proletariat must be built up in order to overthrow the Christian bourgeoisie and that new Cultural Marxist proletariat would be comprised of the feminists, the perverts, and the minority as each and all were propagandized into believing that the Christian white man had victimized and abused them.  This new proletariat would be the rank and file shock troops who would be the ones who would perform the “long march through the  institutions,” in order to defeat the Christian West.

The New York Times rightly understands that the Trump administration’s putative resolve to enforce the law against illegal immigrants is an attack on their new proletariat Marxist political base. If there are fewer minorities in America there are fewer people who have been propagandized into the Cultural Marxist cause to overturn what made the West, the West.

The goal in all of this is to be able to produce Tourist pamphlet guides for the new America that say, to paraphrase Garrison Keilor,

Welcome to America, where all the women are feminists, all the men are effeminate, and all the children are no longer white.

Chateau Heartiste, in an article on the same subject closed by offering this observation,

“As a White man, I sense that war has been declared on me and my kind. When my enemies bring war to my doorstep, what am I to do? Welcome their bayonets to my chest? Whine about how totally not racist I am as the enemy levels its guns at my head?”

I would only add to this that the goal for destruction is not primarily the white man. The white man is only secondarily in the sites of the Cultural Marxists. The primary target of the New York Times and all Cultural Marxists is the Christian faith. The White man merely becomes the primary target because the white man has been for centuries the Typhoid Mary of the Christian faith. Eliminate the White man and one eliminates, on a civilizational scale, the Christian faith.

Columbus Ohio’s Consideration of Conversion Therapy Band

Just read an account where the Columbus, Ohio city council, following Toledo and Cincinnati, is considering making conversion therapy illegal to engage upon within the city limits as applied to anyone under 18 years of age. Conversion therapy is therapy trying to help deliver someone from the insanity of identifying as LGBQT.

http://nbc4i.com/…/city-council-considers-ordinance-bannin…/

1.) This is the criminalizing of Christianity among the professional class. Who else in the medical or psychological professional field except a Christian would pursue this kind of therapy as help for the mentally ill? Christians in these professional fields are being told that they must not seek to apply Biblical Christianity as a means of making the sick whole.

2.) This is sacralizing Sodomy and the whole LGBQT phenomena. If a law is passed forbidding medical professionals fromm seeking to convert the pervert then what else can that be except an action which sacralizes and makes untouchable the LGBQT individual?

3.) As such it goes a long way towards establishing a religion in Columbus. Adherents of LGBQT’ism may not be touched. They are Holy to the Columbus Lord. Perverts have special rights and having special rights their religion of LGBQT’ism has special rights. This kind of legislation, applied as it is to the professional class, is a banning of repentance as that might arise in the context of professional counseling.

4.) If the city council meeting that I viewed is any indication of what is going on in Columbus, the measure is being passed on the strength of emotional testimony. The pervert crowd testifies that the fences that Taboos provide are so mean and that their feelings are hurt. Tears flow in the audience. No one stops to consider that Taboos that build fences of social ostracization serve a purpose to protect the community.

One wonders if there is any perversion that can be named wherein it would be acceptable to shun someone with harsh words? Is it acceptable to say to a pederast, “You’re an abomination?” Is it within proprietary  bounds to tell someone who is a practitioner of Coprophilia that they “better repent or they will burn in hell?” Is it socially unacceptable to tell someone who keeps goats for bestiality purposes that they if “you get near my children you won’t need the goats anymore?”

And yet, all because people are putting verbal boundaries between themselves and mentally ill people (see the testimonies in the link) apparently we must have a law that protects pervert LGBQT’ism and so eliminates the associated and protective social order taboos.

5.) Of course, the accredited shrinks were on hand insisting that conversion therapy is of the devil.

“Opponents of conversion therapy, including many in the medical community, said the practice is not legitimate and cannot change one’s gender identity or sexual orientation.”

Yet we know that it is perfectly acceptable for medical professionals to do conversion therapy via sex change operations. We know that legion is the name of shrinks that seek to help people to adjust to the discovery of their new gender. This is more evidence that this is a faith-based decision that is prioritizing the religion of LGBQT’ism.

And again,

“There’s not a shred of evidence that shows that’s (gender conversion) even possible,” Dr. Jim Broyles, a psychologist, said.

Broyles, who is the former head of the Ohio Psychological Association, said the therapy can be “harmful and damaging” to patients.

This completely ignores that there is not a shred of objective evidence (tearful subjective testimonies don’t count as objective evidence) that gender fluidity exists. There is not a shred of objective evidence that people are born sodomite or were born female in male bodies.

6.) The star witness was a 14-year-old LGBQT person of one variety or another. The audience and council members fawned all over herm for herm bravery and eloquence. Evidence that we are no longer a Christian people as we give our sympathy to the wicked.

7.) In as much as we are protecting the criminally insane by legislation, it goes a long way towards proving that we as a people group are ourselves criminally insane.

8.)  “At the end of the day, this is about protecting people for who they are,” Zach Klein, president of the Columbus City Council.

Really? This is the only standard Zach? Then why not protect the pederast? The goat lover? The coprophiliac? The necrophiliac?  After all, if law is going to be based on protecting people for who they are how dare we not protect one and all for who they are?

9.) As this proposed law would apply to only those under 18 it seems clear that this is an attempt by the LBGQT community to sustain and grow their numbers. Obviously, if a confused child isn’t helped before they are 18 with sexual confusion then it makes it that much more likely that their sexual identity will be set in concrete once they are 18 and older. Every year that goes by wherein a child is allowed to be confused sexually makes it that much more unlikely that they will ever be unconfused. As such this proposed law would have the effect of swelling the numbers of the LBGQT pervert community.

10.) This proposed law takes parental responsibility away from the parent and places it in the hands of the state. The state will not allow parents to seek out professional help in Columbus to find help for their child. Of course, parents can still go to a religious counselor, per the law’s proposed content, but if the “professional” community is not allowed to pursue this then what is communicated is only fringe nutcase religious people try this kind of “nutty” therapy.

In the end, we have become a social order that is so inclusive that we have lost the ability to name anything as taboo, except the naming of having taboos as being taboo.  As a people, we desire to so include everyone that the only people we will exclude are people who own the standards that were once considered the essence of being civilized. The only abominations, the only ones who can be damned to hell, the only ones that we must protect our children from, the only ones who must be shoved in the closet and so socially ostracized are those who insist this is all insane fecal reasoning.

 

 

Indiana Wesleyan University 1st Annual “Multi-Culturalism” Day — Seminar’s Examined

Indiana Wesleyan University 1st Annual “Multi-Culturalism” Day

Courageous Conversations Seminars

All About the Bass: Searching for Treble in the Midst of a Pounding Culture War, presented by Dr. Scott Burson:

In recent years, many evangelical Christians have taken up arms against those who are not part of their tribe, whether they be liberals, the LGBT community, or Muslims. This Us vs. Them approach seems to be fueled by the assumption that faithfulness to the righteous standards of the Gospel requires a hostile orientation toward “the Other.” This interactive workshop will challenge this paradigm and explore ways in which Christ-followers can cultivate a more faithful, holistic response to the entire gospel message, a message that emphasizes not only righteousness, but compassion, as well.

Rev. McAtee responds,

Note well the “Us vs. Them” approach implied in this Seminar.

Us = Tribal Members who believe that their assumption the compassionate standard of the Gospel requires a hostile orientation towards “the Other” who putatively wrongly emphasizes the righteousness of God’s character in a culture hostile to Christianity. 

Them = Those “others” who believe that compassion and love are defined as speaking the truth, without hostility, about God’s righteous standard to those who are lost and in rebellion against their Creator.

Dr. Burson’s assumption, given the description of the seminar, seems to be that there is no necessary antithesis in a Gospel proclamation. He seems to be hostile to any notion of “other” that Christianity has baked into its very definition. One can’t help but wonder if Dr. Burson might think that the God who hates the wicked every day (Psalm 7:11) is part of the problem with Christianity.

Christianity is certainly compassionate but it does not demonstrate its compassion when it gathers a seminar that seeks to dilute God’s righteous standard.

Indiana Wesleyan University 1st Annual “Multi-Culturalism” Day

Courageous Conversations Seminar

An Intercultural Marriage: A story of God’s love, presented by Dr. Harriet Rojas: Harriet met Ner Rojas when she was teaching in Chiclayo, Peru. Hear more about their love story and God’s love.

Rev. McAtee responds,

The current culture we are living in are slamming kids 24-7 with the virtue and normalcy of Inter-cultural marriage. While certainly inter-cultural marriages can work our children ought to be taught that they are not the norm and create a marriage where many pitfalls exist that do not exist in marriages where there is a shared background and culture. Inter-cultural marriage should be discouraged for those unmarried while still providing community support when such marriages take place.

As a minister who has counseled more inter-cultural troubled marriages than I care to remember I can tell you that inter-cultural marriage, normatively, is not a good idea.

IWU’s “Courageous Conversations” on their first Multicultural Days.
Breaking down the walls, presented by OILE:

This experiential session is designed to unify, empower, and engage participants to break negative socially accepted stereotypes. This activity is meant to question generally accepted beliefs and open a conversation about how we view other people groups and why we feel this way.

___________

Rev. McAtee responds,

One would LOVE to know just exactly what “negative socially accepted stereotypes” we are talking about. What “generally accepted beliefs” are going to be questioned?

In Corporate settings I’ve been a participant in these “experiential sessions,” and typically they are designed consistent with the Delphi technique. Is IWU going to Delphi their students by manipulating a false consensus? Will this really be a conversation or students going to be psychologically herded into a predetermined conclusion?

Finally, note that OILE is going to be asking why people “feel” this way as opposed to why they think the way they think.

IWU’s “Courageous Conversations” on their first Multicultural Days.

Supporting Even When We Don’t Understand, presented by Jackie Stancil, Nicole Stancil, and Risha Ruono:

Students who struggle with mental illness, survivors of sexual assault, or those with questions about their sexuality or gender often bring their struggles to friends before they speak to teachers, doctors, or counselors. What can we say in support without damaging relationships? This workshop offers ideas about how to walk brothers and sisters through painful struggles.

____________

Rev. McAtee responds,

First not all the items mentioned in the description belong in the same category. Survivors of sexual assault or those with genuine mental illness are not necessarily struggling against sin as those who are having questions about their sexuality or gender. These category differences need to be kept in mind when approaching this subject. If the category distinctions are not kept in mind then one runs the danger of not naming the potential sin in the matter sexual and gender confusion.

Naturally, the Christian desires to be compassionate to those who are struggling with what the Scripture calls “Besetting sins.” However, we must first keep in mind that compassion begins by not allowing the person struggling to coddle or excuse their sin. To not challenge the person struggling, even in the context of coming alongside to minister, would be an act of hateful aggression against the one who struggles. There is zero compassion in enabling the sinner in their sin. Sodomy and LGBQT’ism must be named as sin even as we seek to come alongside those who are struggling with these questions.

In terms of damaging relationships, the main relationship we need to keep in mind to avoid doing damage to is our relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. If we coddle people in their sin … if we enable them in their sin … if we become codependent in their sins we dishonor the Lord Jesus Christ and damage His relationship with us and our relationship with Him.

This workshop concerns me greatly because it has all the potential of winking at the sin of LGBQT’ism.

IWU Courageous Conversations

Authentic Relationships: Why Empathy Matters, presented by Laura Bronsink:

Showing empathy is a key component to building meaningful relationships. It is the only way that we can fully accept others.
Challenging the dominant culture of individualism, this session will cover basic principles of empathy and strategies for building it.

—————-

Rev. McAtee responds,

Who will be empathetic to those who are lifting the prophetic warning concerning the heresy that is Multiculturalism and Cultural Marxism? Who wants to have meaningful relationships with the Prophetic voice that says IWU Multiculturalism days are days of anti-Christ and so death?

Secondly, IWU’s Multiculturalism days SCREAMS that the culture of individualism is dead at IWU. What we are seeing is University-wide group think. IWU challenging the dominant culture of Individualism is like the reporter who went to a Goth bar and asked the Goth patrons why they were into Goth, only to be told, as surrounded by a sea of Goth, that they “just wanted to be different.”

There is no culture of individualism at IWU and there is no dominant culture of individualism in the West and any lecture warning about the dangers of  a dominant culture of Individualism is pursued to the end of making sure no individualism survives the group think.

I’m hoping Laura can empathize with me on this.

IWU Day of Courageous Conversation Session Descriptions

Bridging the Gap:

Facing challenges of loving beyond the familiar, presented by Chris Heuertz and Heather Roberson, LMHC: Often our social world can be limited to those who are similar to us in ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion, and views. In this interactive session we will learn how to challenge our false centers, avoiding the pitfalls of tokenism and one-up helping relationships, in order to create authentic friendships and community at the margins.

____________

Bret responds,

How about the false centers of those running this seminar? They have a false center that insists that one can’t have a true center unless others have the same center they have. Their social world is limited to those who agree with them that social worlds should be diverse. Are they going to be friends with me when I tell them that they are not as diverse friendly as they would like to think they are? If they were really diverse friendly they’d give me a hug every time I told them that these ideas are self-contradictory. Are they going to embrace when I skewer their multiculturalist religious faith tenets? Will I be part of Chris and Heather’s “community at the margins?”

IWU Day of Courageous Conversation Session Descriptions

Loving Refugees;

Student led, facilitated by Dr. Bart Bruehler: This event will seek to raise awareness of the global refugee crisis through stories from IWU students, Gabriella Garver (alum), Ryan Smith, and Whitney Renfroe, who have helped with refugee care in Pennsylvania, Greece, and other locations.

————
Rev. Bret McAtee responds,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PzT8vEvYPg

Will awareness be raised by handing out this booklet to each attending student?

https://www.amazon.com/Refugee-Resettlemen…/…/ref=sr_1_sc_1…

Mrs. Corcoran reveals that refugeeism to the States has an agenda that is committed to overturn historic and traditional American culture.

Also, will anyone go into the fact that this global refugee crisis has been intentionally created in order to salt historically White Anglo-Saxon Christian Nations with people of a different ethnic and religious origin to the end of creating a New World Order global arrangement?

 

 

 

 

 

Multiculturalism as the New Religion in Town

Religion — Any system of faith and worship. In this sense, religion comprehends the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as of Christians; any religion consisting in the belief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers. Thus we speak of the religion of the Turks, of the Hindoos, of the Indians, etc. as well as of the Christian religion We speak of false religion as well as of true religion.

1828 Webster’s Dictionary

“The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth. . . . We must, therefore, worship the State as the manifestation of the Divine on earth, and consider that if it is difficult to comprehend Nature, it is harder to grasp the Essence of the State. . . .[T]he State is the march of God through the world.”

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

It is my conviction that Religion is an inescapable category. All men organize their social order in subservience to, as Webster tells us, “belief of a superior power or powers governing the world.” Thus, all cultures are naught but the expression of the religion of the people who comprise that culture. Culture then is the religion of a people put into real life social order animation.

One thing we should immediately note is how ridiculous it is to make blanket condemnations as “all religion being bad.” Christians often do this by saying things like, “I don’t have a religion. I have a relationship.” Religion is an inescapable category and so while some religions are worse than others (and all are worse than Biblical Christianity) the reality is that all people and peoples are religious. This is true also of those (usually the atheist crowd) who say “I don’t have a religion.”  That this is true is explained by the fact that it is the religion of people who condemn religion that accounts for their condemnation of religion. The idea of something (in this case “religion”) being “bad” requires a moral foundation upon which to make such a pronouncement and that moral foundation is nothing else but an expression of a religion. In their statement, “I don’t have a religion,” or “Religion is wicked and accounts for all the evil of the world,” they are their own superior power that is governing the world (see Webster’s definition) and so their egoism is their religion. 

For most moderns the State is their god and so provides their religion as the Hegel quote indicates. For those non-Christians who haven’t taken the state as their god, the result usually is that they are their own gods, determining good and evil. As such their individual egos are their own religion. Religion is an inescapable category.

Given all that the above is true we might ask ourselves what is the religion of our culture. Below provides just a bit of a teasing out of the answer to that question.

I.) The Religion of Modernism

Multiculturalist Diversity

The irony here is lodged in the fact that the pursuit of multiculturalism finally arrives in the embrace of a monoculture as everybody is straitjacketed into the singular embrace of a uniform multicultural social order where the equality of all cultures create and reflect the monolithic religion behind multiculturalism.

II.) The Temple / Church of Modernism

US Government outlets (Civic bldgs., Schools, etc.)

All religions have a Temple or gathering place where the worshipers come to worship and be catechized. In the West, the Government facility has replaced the Temple as the Church of Modernism. In Church facilities, we educate our young into the state religion.  We send our tithes and offerings to the Church every year. We place our dead heroes in Temple like structures (think of the Lincoln Memorial). It is all really quite religious as in the State we live and move and have our being.

III.) Priest Class

Bureaucrats / Teachers / Ministers / Professional Class

All religions have a Preistcraft. Modernism as a religion is no different. The Priest class serves to guide the people in how to satisfy the god and how to practice the religion. The Priestcraft have a self-interest in perpetuating the religion since their lifestyle is dependent upon the religion being kept stoked. In the West, the God state is served by a Preistcraft that now includes almost the whole white collar professional class. Because of the totalitarian presence of the State nearly all the white collar professional class is beholden to the religion of multiculturalism and so supports it and inculcates it in all their doings. From Shrinks, to Shysters, to Ministers, to Teachers, to Businessmen, to Medial Doctors, to Academia, they all are tasked with serving multiculturalism as the religion and the State as God.

IV.)  Catechism Motifs

All religions have their catch phrases and pithy motifs that the Preistcraft must teach. In Christianity one might use as just one example, “the chief end of man is to glorify God and fully enjoy Him forever.” In the religion of multiculturalism, we get mindless pithy motifs that all are to embrace such as, “Diversity is our strength,” and, “White people are evil,” and “All people and all cultures are equal.” These and like simple-minded motifs constitute the lubricant that oils the thinking of the whole social order.

V.) Mission’s Agency

United Nations,  Evangelical Church Sending Agencies, US Military

Every religion has an agency whereby the religion is spread to others who are deprived of the great religion. In the social order of the West that Missions agency ranges from the United Nations publishing arm to the most Missionary agencies of most of the Denominations that constitute modern Christianity. Christianity has been reinterpreted through the grid of multiculturalism so that much of what is pushed as Christianity by missionaries (both home and abroad) is just another expression of multiculturalism. When nations are particularly resistant to being convinced of the truth of multiculturalism then we turn to the US Military to convert by the sword.

VI.) Criminal Code

Hate Crimes / homophobia / Sexist / Racist

Every religion develops a criminal code as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. Multiculturalism, as a religion, seeks to criminalize behavior that does not support the zeitgeist. As such multiculturalism creates hate crimes that punish with extra zeal those guilty of hating beyond the normal hate that comes with every crime. Further, homophobia, sexism, racism, while not yet criminal, are so deeply taboo that to violate them puts one outside the company of “civilized” people.

VII.) Propaganda Wing

Hollywood / Top 40 / Government schools / Media Outlets

Every religion has a propaganda wing. The propaganda wing of multiculturalism is Hollywood, Top 40 music of almost all genres, and Government schools, and newspapers, magazines, radio talk show, etc. All of these are not concerned with teaching people to think critically. All are concerned with teaching people what to think. All teach people the virtues of multiculturalism. We are bombarded with messaging that informs us that all relationships are equal. That all sexuality is equal. Christian white people are evil. Patriarchy is despicable. Heirarchy is bias.

VIII.) Main Goal

Overthrow Christianity

Samuel Francis, in his “Leviathan and Its Enemies,” captured this when he wrote,

“The persistence of traditional institutions and systems of belief constrains and impedes the continuing growth of mass organizations and their operations, and it is imperative for the emerging elites to challenge, discredit, and erode the moral, intellectual, and institutional fabric of traditional society that sustains the older elites and the systems of beliefs, or ideologies, on which their rule is based.”

The goal of multiculturalism is to completely destroy Christianity as the religion of the West. It has been largely successful to that end. The emerging multicultural elites are doing all in their powers to overthrow Christ and Christianity in favor of the cultural marxism that drives multiculturalism.

VIII.) Chief method to that end

The use of Critical theory to destroy White people

Critical theory was a means developed to viciously attack any aspect of thinking that had Christianity as its origin. It presupposed that Christian thinking was responsible for social orders that enslaved. It was leveraged as upon the foundation of Cultural Marxism and so all the criticism as run through the prism of Cultural Marxism in order to smash Christianity as evil. The reason that it especially is pointed on White people is that the Cultural Marxist understood that White people have been, historically speaking, the main carriers of Christianity and the builders of Christian civilizations. The Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt school (the origin of movement multiculturalism) understood that if white people are destroyed the consequence is that Christianity will be destroyed.

This also explains the push for amnesty and the immigration crisis that the West is facing.

IX.) High Holy Days

Martin Luther King Day / 4th of July / Veterans day

Every religion has its own high holy days. Multiculturalism is no different. This explains why multiculturalism so intensely makes “war on Christmas.” Multiculturalism understands that Christmas is a high, holy day in competition with its own high holy days. The high holy days of multiculturalism celebrates egalitarianism and diversity, or the god-state and those who have died for it. (Why anybody can’t see the contradiction in praising, at the same time, both diversity and egalitarianism is quite beyond me.)

X.) Enemy of “The People”

a.) Epistemologically self-conscious Christians
b.) Trustee Family
c.) Property

Multiculturalism understands that it has enemies that it must snuff out. We noted above that Multiculturalism, as a religion, understands that its greatest threat is Christian white people. This category just refines that a wee bit further. Multiculturalism understands that the “enemy of the multiculturalist people” are especially those who are epistemologically self-conscious Christians. Epistemologically self-conscious Christians see through the three-card monte con of multiculturalism and so are understood as a threat and so must be professionally destroyed.

The Trustee family is such a distinct enemy of the adherents of multiculturalism because the Trustee family embraces hierarchy and patriarchy, and so eschews egalitarianism.

Property also is seen as an enemy of multiculturalism because property introduces a “mine, not yours” mentality which wages wars on everyone being and having the same.

So, this is a brief description of the new religion of the West. It is a description that seeks at the same time to reinforce that religion is an inescapable category that can’t be avoided. Either we will return to Christ and so have abundant life again or we will embrace some other religion of death.