The Left’s Invoking of Morality & Examining the Left’s Distinguishing of Patriotism & Nationalism

In the last 24 hours I have seen people on the Left make arguments built upon an appeal to “moral values.” I always enjoy the Left invoking the “moral values” argument because they never tell us where they are getting their moral values from. They invoke moral values and at the same time do everything they can to undermine traditional Christian Western moral values. Were I a cynical person I’d believe that they are cynically invoking a morality that they don’t themselves believe but know that hoi polloi believe and on the basis they expect the hoi polloi to get their minds right.

What is interesting in the two examples I am using for this article is that “moral values” are being invoked to support immorality. Our first examples comes from the French President (Macron) who married someone old enough to be his mother. Bridgette Macron had children her future husband’s own age. Be leery of the moral values of any world leader who marries someone old enough to be his mum.

Anyway, here is the French President’s quote;

Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism…nationalism is the betrayal of patriotism. By saying we put ourselves first and the others don’t matter, we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great, and what is essential: its moral values.”

Wouldn’t it be helpful here to know where Macron is getting the idea of moral values from? Was is the standard for Macron wherein he derives his moral values? Macron is a strong supporter of Abortion. Macron is a strong supporter of euthanasia. Where do these moral values come from upon which Macron makes such broad sweeping statements? If a nation holds dearest its moral values … if a nation is given life by its moral values … if a nation is made great by its moral values where is Macron finding these moral values. What is the source of Macron’s moral values that allows him to declaim that nationalism is evil?

Of course in asking about this question of where does Macron’s moral values come from – moralism that allows for killing babies and old people but does not allow for nationalism – we do not consider the absolute idiocy of opposing Patriotism to Nationalism.

First we consider the meaning of “Patriotism.”

From French patriote (15c.) and directly from Late Latin patriota 
“fellow-countryman” (6c.), from Greek patriotes “fellow countryman,” from patrios “of one’s fathers,” patris “fatherland,” from pater (genitive patros) “father” (see father (n.)); with -otes, suffix expressing state or condition.

Now we consider the meaning of “Nation” from which Nationalism comes from;

c. 1300, nacioun, “a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language,” from Old French nacion “birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland” (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe,” literally “that which has been born,” from natus, past participle of nasci “be born” (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

Clearly Macron has his head up his southern most aperture if he thinks he can make the word “Patriotism” oppose the word “Nationalism” in their essence of meaning. In other words, Macron is gaslighting people here.

It might be handy to keep this knowledge in your back pocket because it is not only French Presidents who try to pull of this linguistic charlatanism but American “Evangelicals” as well are constantly trying to play Patriotism off against Nationalism. There is even a book out by one Adam Wyatt titled, “Biblical Patriotism: An Evangelical Alternative To Nationalism,” as if Nationalism can’t be Biblical also.

This attempt to play Patriotism (Angels sing) off against Nationalism (Devil’s poke with pitchfork) is just the kind of thing that Doug Wilson or one of his CREC lapdogs (insert Crosspolitic podcast guys here) would try to sell. When one takes off the veneer what one sees is the ongoing attempt to introduce the idea that we love our own kin and family best when we allow the foreigner, stranger, and alien (Macron’s “others”) to eliminate us (White Western Christians) as a people. In Macron’s world and in the world of Evangelical leaders today Patriotism is the word used to describe what it means for White Western Christians to embrace the suicide cult that is now the new definition of Christianity and Nationalism is the word used about the evil vile people who resist the New World Order with its required ethno-masochism, xenophilia, and oikophobia.

To be a good Patriot today means one gets on the trains taking you to the death camps without murmuring. To be a good Nationalist today means taking your children’s and grandchildren’s inheritance and giving it to Pablo, Mohamed, and Sanjay.

Our second example wherein we find one of the NWO elites invoking the importance of moral comes from Jen Psaki.

“This is not normal, moral, human behavior.”
Jen “Circle Back” Psaki
ormer White House Press Secretary
Complaining about Conservatives refusal to believe the Paul Pelosi story


Now, what standard do you suppose Jen uses to determine “normal, moral human behavior?”


I love it when the left appeals to normal, moral human behavior.

Keep in mind this is a woman who believes in abortion up to birth, sodomy, transgenderism and who knows what else. This is a woman who worked for perhaps the most in your face immoral administration that has ever existed and she wants to lecture Americans on “normal, moral, human behavior.”

The hubris is skull breaking outrageous.

Ben Shapiro Has Advice For How “Christian Nationalism” Should Roll

“This is why when people on the right use the phrase Christian nationalism, people on the left hear, ‘ah, we’re talking about religious fascism.’ Well, no, when people say Christian nationalism typically what they mean is not that the official church of the United States should be the Catholic Church, or that the church of the United States should dictate terms of service in the United States. What it means instead, when people say Christian nationalism is that undergirding the values of the United States are a set of Judeo-Christian values, and when you jettison those values you destroy the United States.”

Ben Shapiro

1.) I agree that Christian Nationalists are not and should not be looking for an official Church of these united States. In my estimation Christian Nationalists should be looking that the nation should swear allegiance to Jesus Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords and then be ruled consistent with His Law-Word. We should be done with the dishonoring pluralism that allows false gods to populate God’s land (“The earth is the Lord‘s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.”– Psalm 24:1) with the result of the war of all against all. There is no social order harmony where there are gods owned by the social order who grossly contradict one another in their salvation, character and ethic.

2.) Remember, all Nations are headed by some God or God-concept.  Our nation bows the knee to the god of pluralism and that god is ultimately controlled by the FEDS since it is the FEDS who have the final word as to how far any of the gods and/or all of the gods can walk in the public square. The Mormon God says “polygamy” but the FEDS say “no polygamy.” The Christian GOD says “no sodomy” but the FEDS say “sodomy.” The native American God says “smoke peyote as a religious rite” but the FEDS say “no smoking peyote as a religious rite.” The Muslim God says “Sharia Law” the FEDS say “no Sharia law.” You see, in our Pluralism the FEDS are serving as the God over the gods. We are as a religious people, with a religious State, as you can find anywhere else. It just so happens that our God is Pluralism and the God who is pluralism is controlled by the FEDS. So, naturally if the State is going to be religious (and all States are) Christians should desire a Christian Nationalism where the State bows to the authority of Jesus Christ as expressed in the Scripture. If the State is always hopelessly religious (and it always is) than why should Christians be satisfied with anything but Christian Nationalism (they shouldn’t)?

3.) The idea of “Judeo-Christian” values has been a mistake from when it began. We are a Christian people with Christian values. Not a Jewish people. Keep in mind that the Judeo-Christian values that Mr. Shapiro speaks of slams together on one hand the ultimate value of worshiping Jesus from the Christian side while on the other hand the ultimate estimation of the Judeo part of the equation is to affirm that Jesus is burning in hell in excrement for all of eternity. How does one arrive at “Judeo-Christian” values given that reality. No, the values we need are not “Judeo-Christian” but just plain Christian values.

So, by all means a return to Christian Nationalism. A return to the time where nearly all of our State Constitutions had language of loyalty to the Christian God as stated in the documents themselves as requirements for service in the State governments.

4.) I would contend that it is precisely because we have embraced “Judeo-Christian” values we have destroyed these united States.

Ben Shapiro writes again,

Again, I think it’s bad branding because I think it’s exclusive in a way it doesn’t need to be. Specifically because, even if you’re not religious, you can agree with the basic idea, even from a natural law (understanding). I mean, this is Catholic Church doctrine. You don’t have to be Catholic to believe that natural law actually undergirds the idea of family, undergirds the idea of God as an important part of public life. You don’t have to be some sort of crazed conservative nut to believe a country ought to control its own borders and that culture matters. All of these things matter.

Bret responds,

Of course Ben thinks Christian Nationalism is exclusive. It is exclusive and would read out of the movement those who want to continue to embrace the pluralism that comes with the embrace of “liberal democracy.” Liberal Democracy, which Ben supports and which has brought us to the place we are now at cannot be embraced in order to cure what ails us. It is what ails us.

And natural law? In this postmodern climate which classical liberalism has achieved there is no putting the toothpaste of natural law back in the tube to serve as a guide to our social order. Natural law is dead and the only thing that could bring it back to be a governing reality is brute force.

I also disagree with Ben about his “crazed conservative nut” part. I do think in our current climate that many people believe only a crazed conservative nut would think that “a country ought to control its own borders and that culture matters.” For pete’s sake we have scads of people now all around us who believe only a crazed conservative nut would think that there are only two genders and that race is not a merely social construct. If they can think that how much easier is it for them to think that only crazed conservative nuts believe that a country ought to control its own borders and that culture matters.”

No, Ben. Neither Natural Law nor shared Judeo-Christian values are going to save us now.

Examining Michigan’s Proposal 3 On Abortion — Part I

This election cycle Michigan voters will be voting on whether to be a state that allows the torture and murder of the judicially innocent or whether Michigan will end the scourge that is abortion.

The scales in this state are already tipped in the favor of the baby murderers as the proposed bill was seemingly turned over to Mephistopheles to write the language of what is being proposed. Plus, we here in Michigan have already had Michigan Supreme Court Justice Bernstein stating publicly that;

“Ultimately, it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination, it will be the Michigan Supreme Court that will have the final word, in a woman’s right to choose in the state of Michigan…”

Please understand dear reader what is being said here. Michigan voters could resoundingly turn down proposal 3 and it will make no difference because “ultimately it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination.” If the baby murderers are defeated at the ballot box they will just run to the courts to force infanticide on the whole state.

Be that as it may, I thought it would be good to give a series looking at how bad proposal 3 really is. We will break this down little by little.

Article 1, Section 28 Right to Reproductive Freedom

(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom,

Bret responds,

I am just curious as to where this fundamental right to reproductive freedom comes from? Who has granted us this right? Where can I look it up to find the details? This is the “Who says so” question. I mean if this whole proposal is premised on the idea of a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” it ought not to be too much to ask where in the hell this right comes from. I’d prefer to see it in writing if it is not too much trouble. Keep in mind also, that the SCOTUS ruled in Buck vs. Bell decades ago that every individual does not have a fundamental right to reproductive freedom.

Secondly, here allow me to not how amusing it is to be talking about “reproductive freedom” when in fact what is being advocated is the erasure or reproductivity. I mean, this is an abortion proposal after all. So, are we really talking about freedom of reproductivity or are we talking about the freedom to not reproduce — to kill our offspring?

(2) which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.

Here we find a new, unlimited constitutional right inasmuch as we are using the language “all matters relating to pregnancy.”

All matters relating to pregnancy? Now, I don’t want to get to pedantic but as newborns could be said to be a matter relating to pregnancy does this language allow Mommies to kill their babies after they are born since the birthed child remains a matter relating to pregnancy?

Now, don’t you respond with “that’s obvious.” It’s obvious to me that killing in utero children deserves the death penalty for those who practice such heinousness. As such, nothing is “obvious” to me.

We would note that by creating a right “to all matters relating to pregnancy,” abortion, sterilizations, and a myriad of other matters (like sex) can have zero restrictions. Since sex is still related to pregnancy the language of this proposal could make any number of current sexual crimes open to legality. All a defendant (rapist?) would have to say is that “Hey, all matters related to pregnancy are my rights under the amendment of reproductive freedom”

The Sturm und Drang of Joe Biden

“But first, we must be honest with each other and with ourselves.

“Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal.

“Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic….

“But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country….

 “And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people….
“They refuse to accept the results of a free election. And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.

“MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards — backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love.

“They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.

“They look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on January 6th — brutally attacking law enforcement — not as insurrectionists who placed a dagger to the throat of our democracy, but they look at them as patriots.”

Joe Bite-Me
Pederast of these united States

1.) I was born in 1959. Never in my lifetime has a US President — sitting or retired — ever spoken of 75million voting members of the American Public in such a manner. Further, having an earned degree in History I can tell you that not even the tyrant Abraham Lincoln spoke in public of Southerners the way that Bite-Me spoke of Make America Great Again Republicans. Bite-Me used the kind of language in this Philadelphia speech that is reserved for how Presidents speak of enemy combatants when on a war stance.

2.) From a political perspective this is all about distraction. Bite-Me knows that the mid-terms are promissory of electoral disaster given his policy failures on inflation, crime, illegal immigration, Afghanistan, Ukraine, supply chain deterioration, Hunter Biden and his laptop, and nearly everything else to which the man has put his hand. As such, Bite-Me needs the national conversation to be about something else besides his failures. The answer that lies most immediately at hand is Donald Trump. Bite-Me obviously believes that Trump is enough of a lightning rod to distract enough people from voting Republican and so mitigating somewhat the looming mid-term electoral disaster that is certain to descend upon the Democrats. Bite-Me is seeking to change the conversation in his favor from the evils that bespeak the current political landscape to the evils of Donald Trump and his minions.

3.) Most have not missed the blood red lighting background that shrouded Bite-Me’s speech. Obviously, that was not accidental. It gave the whole speech a kind of Rocky Horror Picture show macabre appearance. I suppose some would contend that the blood red lighting was a type of predictive programming intended to suggest to some unhinged Democrat (but I repeat myself) from among the rank and file to take mayhem and violence into their own hands as perpetrated against some poor unsuspecting Make America Great Again devotee.

4.) Note that the speech takes the usual page out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rule for Radicals.” Bite-Me’s speech is classic,

“Pick the target (MAGA), freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. ”

Also, there is the Alinsky type move to “Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.” This is something that the Dems have been masterful at since the election of Trump.

5.) It is easy to see how this kind of language potentially creates some kind of incident (false flag or otherwise) wherein Bite-Me goes on National Television and “postpones” the mid-term elections. Now, that may seem over the top and normally I would concur but if you had told me four weeks ago that Bite-Me’s “Justice” Department was going to raid a former President’s home I would have also told you that you needed to back off of your conspiracy theories.

6.) In the end Bite-Me comes across as P. G. Wodehouse’s “Oswald Mosley” character, Roderick Spode. Wodehouse’s Spode was someone who took himself very seriously but was so buffoonish and comical that only other ne’er-do-wells and those who long lacked a father figure would be the ones hanging on Spode’s speeches and following Spode about in their silly uniforms. In short Joe “Spode” Bite-Me is becoming a fictional character out of a Wodehouse novel where only losers take the character seriously.

With this speech and Bite-Me’s recent casting of aspersions on the Make America Great Again rank and file as being “Semi-Fascist” (A semi-fascist I take to mean is someone who only makes some of the trains run on time some of the time) we have put the Banana in Banana Republics.


SCOTUS Claims Divine Speech

“But when the government speaks for itself, the First Amendment does not demand airtime for all views, after all, the government must be able to ‘promote a program’ or ‘espouse a policy; in order to function.”

Stephen Breyer
SCOTUS Justice

9-0 ruling — Boston City Hall vs. Shurtleff

1.) Thus proving my long held contention that the Federal Government serves as the God of the Gods, taking upon itself the privilege of having all final words. The FEDS are God speaking and when God speaks nobody is allowed to promote a counter program or espouse a counter policy.

2.) This in turn proves that the FEDS support an established religion. That established religion is Statism. If the State cannot be gainsaid then the State is the god of the government and the god of social order. Freedom of religion is a myth where the State is God.

3.) If the FEDS allow some groups to speak they must allow all groups to speak but if the FEDS themselves speak then their word is the word of God.