And the LORD said to Moses, “You will soon rest with your fathers… Deuteronomy 31:16

15You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a ripe old age. Genesis 15:15 (God speaking to Abraham)

Then Abraham breathed his last and died in a good old age, an old man and full of years, and was gathered to his people. Gen. 25:8

So Isaac breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his people, being old and full of days. And his sons Esau and Jacob buried him. Genesis 35:29

And when Jacob had finished commanding his sons, he drew his feet up into the bed and breathed his last, and was gathered to his people. Genesis 49:33

“For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; Acts 13:36

A common phrase in the Old Testament for death is “to be gathered with his fathers” or “gathered to his people.” We can pass right over this without pausing to reflect on the pregnant meaning of the text. In death the saints are not placed in an undifferentiated and mass people, but rather they are gathered to their clan, family and people. The assumption clearly is that grace runs in covenantal lines. Even in death the covenant bonds of Christian family are not extinguished.

The after life then is not merely a mass collection of individuals but will be characterized by the eternal reunion of families as in Christ. This language underscores that God works covenantally in salvation. The Christian expectation is that God saves us, our children, and our grandchildren to a thousand generations and further that those familial generations will be gathered in the after life as family.

At that time the circle will be unbroken.

That this mindset continues right through to the last book of the Bible is seen by the presence of all those nations as nations in the New Jerusalem. (Revelation 21:24-24; 22:2)

Not even in death are we atomistic individualistic integers. The family continues. This bespeaks an importance on family that contemporary Christianity has lost. We don’t speak of loved ones dying in Christ as being “gathered to their people,” or “gathered to their fathers.” Instead we speak about an abstract heaven.

Clearly the Biblical language is that one of the glories of death is taking one’s place again with one’s peoples.

God Himself identifies Himself as the God of families. The God-Man Jesus Himself brings this forth when He quotes from Exodus 3:6 saying to His enemies,

³¹ But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ³² ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

God, in His calling, calls families to Himself and those identified with their redeemed families in life continue to be identified with their redeemed families in death, if only because in Christ they remain alive, and that in their family relations and identities. This is why it can be said that when we die we are “gathered to our fathers,” / “gathered to our people.”

We are who we are because of the givens God has placed us in. Those givens are matters like our racial / ethnic heritage, our gender, our relationships — first as children and later as cousins, fathers or mothers and aunts or uncles. We are who we are because of those God given “givens.” Death does not annihilate the “givens” with which God bequeathed us. The idea that we are “gathered to our fathers” insinuates all that and more.

Even, and perhaps especially the relational given-ness of marriage doesn’t go away in the after-life. Many will appeal to Matthew 22, where Jesus says to His enemies who denied the resurrection and who were trying to flummox Him with their causitry,

³⁰ At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 

Note that this passage is commonly taken as a defeater for the kind of reasoning used above. However Jesus is not denying that the deep seated affections and relationships created by marriage are eliminated but only that the institution itself will be eliminated. It is easy to imagine that the scaffolding of the relationship will be sloughed off while the relationship will continue to exist in the life beyond this life. This understanding would comport with St. Augustine’s observation,

“Marriages are on account of children; children on account of succession; succession on account of death. But in heaven, as there is no death, neither is there any marriage.”

True… there is no marriage, however that is not to say that the relationship established by the institution of marriage is negated. It is not to say that Husbands will not still have an especial closeness with their wives while on earth in the life after life. To deny this turns the life after life into a Gnostic and atomistic paradise.

The idea here is that if it is I as I who is entering life after life, then it is the I who existed with all the givens and realness of this life — but as glorified. Otherwise it would be some other I besides I myself who is experiencing life after life. In the life after life I will remain WASP, male, son, brother, husband, uncle, cousin, father and friend. The “givens” given by God in creation will be carried over into the fullness of redemption, except as glorified.

All of this is just a matter of reading the less clear Scripture in light of the more clear Scripture. Scripture explicitly teach that families and nations exist in the life after life. We can’t be gathered to our fathers in death without the idea that families continue. As such, the passage where Jesus deals with the Sadducees on the issue of marriage shouldn’t be allowed to overturn nations in the New Jerusalem in Revelation anymore then we allow Arminians to misuse passages to overturn the clear teaching of the Doctrines of Grace.

1.) Ordination in heretofore Conservative denominations was always for the purpose of protecting the Church from wolves in sheep’s clothing and from sheep who were not qualified to be shepherds. Clearly, ordination, for several decades has failed in this regard as evidenced by ministers in heretofore denominations which were considered “conservative,” who are now embracing Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, the myth of white privilege and systemic racism. Minister who have been ordained in previously thought of conservative denominations have been found out to be anti-Christ thus teaching us that Ordination is a joke.

2.) The failure of the Ordination process is are least partially attributable to the fact that the right questions have not been asked of ordinates. For example, the ordinates are not asked if they can provide a working knowledge of Marxism and then why Marxism is not Christian. Ordinates are not asked to explain materialism and whether or not that is consistent with Christianity. Ordinates are not asked to explain the precepts of the ancient heresy of Gnosticism and then to explain where they see Gnosticism in the church in the West today. (The modern Reformed Church is just covered with Gnosticism.) Ordinates should be being grilled on what the Frankfurt school is and then being expected to analyze it from a Biblical perspective. If I had my way, ordinates would be able to articulate the differences between Barthianism and Christianity explaining why Barthianism is not Christianity. In brief, the worldview of candidates should be thoroughly and exhaustively vetted. Candidates for ordination should be asked questions on epistemology, ontology, axiology, and teleology. If they can’t handle these questions and a host of others that could be easily elucidated then they should be turned down until they can answer those questions.

3.) This means asking questions only about a candidates familiarity with the Bible, his knowledge of theology proper, his reciting of Church History, and a few questions on hermeneutics is no longer enough to tell us if a candidate should be piloting a pulpit. We are seeing that a candidate can have a working knowledge of these areas and still be either seriously heterodox or even a heretic. As the ability to connect the dots between these areas mentioned in #3 and the areas mentioned in #2 is shot the ordination process has to expose the inability to connect those dots.

4.) The ordination process should also include some time that asks the candidate to compare and contrast the following schools with Biblical Christianity,

a.) Radical Two Kingdom (R2K) theology
b.) Federal Vision
c.) New Perspective on Paul
d.) Dispensationalism — both historic and progressive
e.) Baptist New Covenant theology
f.) Neo-orthodoxy

5.) Candidates should be queried about their reading habits. How much do they read. What do they read. They should be required to provide a reading list from your last 6 months being told that they should be expected to be asked about the information in those books combined with an analysis of those books from a Christian understanding. I don’t care if they are reading “50 Shades of Grey” as long as they can tell me what is wrong with it.

In all my time of being exposed to ordination processes I’ve never seen one candidate I could have or did vote for. I’ve seen candidates who couldn’t tell me the three great imputations in Scripture. I’ve seen candidates who admitted to me that they didn’t read and didn’t like to read. I’ve seen candidates who couldn’t tell me what original sin was and its effects. I’ve seen several of these same candidates though who sure knew what racism was and how they were committed to fighting racism once they got their Churches.

It is clear something has to change in our ordination process because right now those entering into our pulpits, exceptions notwithstanding, in Reformed churches are pathetic. I suspect that is primarily because our Seminaries have become pathetic but that is for another post.

1.) The Cultural Marxist left showed up at the debate last night thinking it would control the agenda through Wallace. Because that is true Trump was left with no choice but to constantly interrupt so that the Cultural Marxist left couldn’t control the debate last night.

2.) That #1 is true is seen in the Presuppositions embraced last night by Chris Wallace as seen in his questions,

a.) Man made global Climate Change is real
b.) White Supremacism is as responsible for rioting as BLM
c.) On Charlottesville Trump said that there were good Nazis present
d.) Wuhan threat is real / Wuhan narrative is real
e.) Masks work
f.) That there is any Constitutional question that exists that denies to Trump is job to name a SCOTUS nominee
g.) Critical Race Theory training seminars in the Federal Government are in point of fact nothing more than racial sensitivity programs

There may have been one or two questions that presupposed Conservative talking points but on the whole Wallace was a man of the left in his questions last night.

Because of this Trump really was debating both the moderator and Biden and if he had not been as combative as he was the night would have gone far worse for Trump. Only by interrupting could Trump control the debate so that his points would be made instead of the Lefts.

3.) “Once again, a woman could pay more money (for health insurance) because she has a pre-existing condition of pregnancy.”

Joe Biden
Comrade Wallace Presidential Debate

Note here something monumentally important. By calling “pregnancy” a “pre-existing condition” Biden is categorizing pregnancy with disease as if pregnancy is like having cancer or lupus.

Secondly note that Biden is faulting insurance companies for not covering something after it happens. For example, after your house burns down you don’t go to the insurance company and say, “I’d like to buy some fire insurance for my house,” and then expect that newly purchased policy to cover your house that burned down the previous week. In the same way expecting insurance companies to provide health insurance to cover conditions that occurred and were in place before someone signs a policy is not insurance. It is madness to expect a insurance company to sell you a policy to cover something that occurred before you bought the policy. Insurance companies couldn’t survive that business model.

4.) You will remember that while Wallace tried to admonish Trump for always interrupting, Wallace said nothing to Biden for calling Trump,

a.) A Liar
b.) A clown
c.) A racist
d.) Trump is trying to generate racist hatred in this country
e.) You’re the worst president America has ever had.

Wallace was worried about Trump violating the decorum of the debate but said nothing to Biden regarding his slander of the President which violated the decorum of the debate.

5.) This was Biden at his most despicable last night. There is also points for dementia incoherency in this.

Here Biden is blaming Trump for the dead relatives of the American people.

“The reason it’s (economy) shut down is because, look, you folks at home. How many of you got up this morning and had an empty chair at the kitchen table because someone died of COVID? How many of you are in a situation where you lost your mom or dad and you couldn’t even speak to them, you had a nurse holding a phone up so you could in fact say goodbye?”

Joe “Dementia is real stream of consciousness thinking” Biden

6.) Trump at his most frightening last night,

“Well, we’re going to deliver it (the vaccine) right away. We have the military all set up. Logistically, they’re all set up. We have our military that delivers soldiers and they can do 200,000 a day. They’re going to be delivering…”

DJT

7.) Trump’s slam on Biden’s empty campaign venues was hilarious. The man is genuinely funny.

8.) Biden’s constant playing of the “race card” was obnoxious. On that basis alone no white person with half a brain in their head should vote Biden. This race card business, is, for those with eyes to see, promissory of the eventual genocide of white people.

9.) As far as I am concerned the news from last night’s debate was Trump insisting that the election was already shot in terms of providing any legitimate results. Trump said twice, regarding ballots and the election,

“This is not going to end well.”

Trump basically guaranteed election inconsequentiality. I’m not blaming him but he is saying he will not trust the outcome because the cheating has already destroyed any possibility of being able to trust the result. Trump also admitted that the reason he wants SCOTUS #9 is to adjudicate the election results. In my estimation that was the big news of this debate. Of course creating distrust in election results is part and parcel of the color revolutions elsewhere around the world.

I just finished listening to National Pinko Radio (NPR) latest yellow journalism hatchet job on the Dorr Brothers and their second amendment pro gun activism. Like the previous three installments NPR uses innuendo, subtle mocking, interviews with enemies of a basic Christian world and life view as well as interviews with folks who left basic Christianity angered by its “failure” as experts or as people with inside baseball knowledge on the alleged worldviews of the Dorr Brothers. Chris and Lisa of NPR are subtle about their yellow journalism. Their yellow journalism is not the screaming headlines of William Randolph Hearts but instead they offer the kind of yellow journalism that works by misinformation, disinformation, guilt by association, and not giving the context that would help the listener understand the matters asserted. In other words Chris and Lisa of NPR are giving just one more version of Lugenpress journalism.

The NPR vaudeville program opens with spotlighting the Dorr Brother’s Father (Paul Dorr) burning library books. Mr. Dorr made a bonfire of four children books teaching little children the normalcy sexual perversion. Mr. Dorr was taking a page from the students at the Berlin School of Physical Education [Hochschule für Leibesübungen] who, in 1933 raided the Institute for Sexual Research [Institut für Sexualwissenschaft] in Berlin plundering its library and then burning the perverted books on perversion as collected by the sodomite Jewish physician Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935). Hirshfeld, like Mr. Dorr’s library in Iowa, was devoted to advancing the sodomite agenda while fighting for the normalizing of sodomy in the social order. That the Elder Dorr had to burn children’s books mainstreaming sexual perversion of the worst kind, proves that the burning of Hirschfeld’s books didn’t stop the sodomite agenda.

NPR by opening with the Elder Dorr is seeking to establish a “guilt by association” narrative between Father Dorr and the Dorr Brothers. But what guilt upon the Dorr Brothers is Chris and Lisa seeking to establish? Is it the guilt of the Dorr Brothers being opposed to four books all sharing the same theme as one of the books titled, “Two Boys Kissing?” Now, the Dorrs know their own business but were I the Dorr Brothers I would go on the public record of supporting the burning of children’s books that teach our children the normalcy of “Two Boys Kissing.”

Chris and Lisa of NPR, right out of the gate, tell us that they are all good with books for children on public library shelves teaching 4-5 year olds on the glories of sexual perversion as a lifestyle and that somehow the Dorr Brothers are terrible people because their Father burned books seeking to recruit little children for the sodomite lifestyle.

Next on this vaudeville broadcast Chris and Lisa of NPR admit that it doesn’t look like the Dorr Brothers are getting rich off their second amendment activism and then admits there must be more motivating their activism than merely getting rich. Chris and Lisa of NPR even admit that the Dorr Brothers really are not making that much money when you consider all their expenses. This admission comes after the first three episodes where Chris and Lisa National Pinko Radio was nudging and pushing their listeners in the direction of concluding with NPR that the Dorr Brothers were grifters just interested in making big bucks conning people out of their monies. One is left asking; “Which is it NPR… Are the Dorr’s just grifters doing their work just to get rich or are they principled men who believe that their work is part of setting the world right?

NPR practices guilt by association. First, as we saw already, they seek to tar the Dorr Brothers with the putative guilt of their Father who burns children’s books which seek to recruit little children into the pervert lifestyle next Chris and Lisa of NPR seek to impugn the Dorr’s with the alleged administrative failures of Patrick Parson’s Georgia gun owner’s group. Chris and Lisa don’t prove that Parson’s organization is illegitimately operated but they do what Lugenpress Journalists typically do inasmuch as they subtly engage in innuendo about improprieties of how the organization was administered. And then on top of that Chris and Lisa of NPR are seeking to paint the Dorrs with half baked innuendo against Parson. It’s classic Yellow Journalism that even Ida Tarbell would be proud of.

Next, NPR in this broadcast exposes their hostility to the kind of Christianity that was de rigueur and normative just three generations ago. Chris and Lisa subtly mock the idea of “advancing God’s Kingdom by the Law of God,” when it is the case that most American Christians of three generations ago would not have found that idea particularly odd. For Generations Christians would sing, “Onward Christian Soldiers,” with the lyrics,

1. Onward, Christian soldiers!
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before.
Christ, the royal Master,
Leads against the foe;
Forward into battle,
See his banners go!

[Chorus]

Onward, Christian soldiers!
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before.

2. At the sign of triumph
Satan’s host doth flee;
On, then, Christian soldiers,
On to victory.
Hell’s foundations quiver
At the shout of praise;
Brothers, lift your voices,
Loud your anthems raise.

3. Like a mighty army
Moves the Church of God;
Brothers, we are treading
Where the Saints have trod.
We are not divided;
All one body we:
One in hope and doctrine,
One in charity.

4. Onward, then, ye people;
Join our happy throng.
Blend with ours your voices
In the triumph song:
Glory, laud, and honor
Unto Christ, the King.
This through countless ages
Men and angels sing.

In the end this NPR vaudevillian program is just a hit piece on historic Christianity with the Dorrs as the center of the bullseye. It is all very disingenuous.

Chris and Lisa of NPR can’t let go of the Paul Dorr brush intending to tar his sons with the brush. Chris and Lisa, the NPR Lugenpress twins, complains that Paul Dorr has built his career on stopping the building of Government schools. What Chris and Lias don’t mention is that people across the political spectrum agree that the Government schools are a wreck. Why wouldn’t anyone in their right mind want to see an end to Government schools? NPR interviews some school superintendent who has been repeatedly frustrated with Paul Dorr’s success in squeezing money out of local taxpayers for new school building. That the school superintendent remains frustrated and angry at Paul Dorr and so misrepresents Paul Dorr’s tactics at stopping the tax increases should be no surprise to anybody but Chris and Lisa (the Lugenpress twins) act like the superintendent’s characterization of Paul’s methods should be taken at face value.

The Lugenpress twins (Chris and Lisa) next go after the alleged evils of Reconstructionism which they suggest is the Worldview belief system of the Dorr Brothers and Father Dorr. Allow me to say here that Reconstructionism is nothing but vanilla Christianity. It is the Christianity of those who take seriously that Jesus Christ is Lord. Now, that Chris and Lisa and countless other “Christians” might find that alarming is a surprise to nobody who is familiar with the state of the modern church in the West. NPR suggests that Reconstructionism is fading as if that is a reason to no longer be a follower of Christ.

NPR defines Reconstructionism errantly offering that Reconstuctionism believes that Christ won’t return until Christians reconstruct all of life so that all the world is Christian. Actually, what Reconstructionists actually believe is that Christ won’t return until the Spirit of Christ reconstructs all of life so that His already present spiritual Kingship is seen more and more in the world over which He is King. Christ will not return until the nations of this world become the nations of our Lord and His Christ. The Spirit of Christ will accomplish this.

On this score one observes that NPR has no problem with sodomites and assorted sexual perverts having successfully reconstructed social orders in the West for the last 100 years or so. If it is sauce for the sodomites to successfully reconstruct why is it not sauce for the Christians under the command of Christ to seek to reconstruct? NPR hates Christ and it hates Christianity. They have no problem with our current sodomite reconstructed order but are having the vapors over the thought that Christ will reconstruct all of the World so that the nations of the world become the nations of the Christ.

NPR decides they need an expert on Reconstructionism in order to understand Reconstructionism and so they pull in some unknown philosophy professor who teaches at some never heard of University who just so happens to have an ex-spouse who was a Reconsturctionist. This person is someone who would be fairly labeled a hater of Reconstrucitonism and that is heard in her incoherent commentary.

NPR next takes the simplest of ideas that Government is a term that applies to many different jurisdictions and tries to turn this simple idea into something sinister. Futher this lugenpress outlet gives dark hints by the language they use that Reconstructionism is a cult. This is ironic given that NPR itself is a cult organization as seen in the way they twist everything that isn’t part of and doesn’t belong to their cult or Weltanschauung. This habit of demonizing those outside your circles, which Chris and Lisa of NPR does in spades in this interview, is a mark of all cults. It is done in order to keep the NPR cult followers from falling into the darkness of whoever they are targeting who is not a part of their cult. David Koresh did this. Jim Jones did this. Brigham Young did this. And NPR in this report is following this cult practice.

Next, by way of interview with the embittered philosophy teacher the lugenpress suggests that we live in a multicultural society. The problem is, is that is not the case. We do not live in a multicultural society. We live in a society governed by man’s always changing law. That one unchanging always changing law that governs all of our culture proves that we are indeed monocultural though those who desire this type of humanism always use the term “multiculturalism,” in order to hide their tracks.

The old canard of pluralism is then invoked and this without realizing that pluralism is a myth. No culture is genuinely pluralistic. Pluralism teaches that all religions and ways of life are allowed into the public square but that this is not true in our social order is seen in the fact that it is the State which ends up saying that some ways of life are not allowed. The State is playing the role of God saying which ways of life will be approved and which ways of life will not be approved. Right now the State, following this anti-pluralism motif, is saying that Reconstructionism is a way of life that is not approved. As it stands now the humanist state plays the role of regulator. All Biblical Christianity desires is that the Christian state be given the place to do that instead of anti-Christianity.

NPR also subtly mocks the idea that Reconstructionism, following Scripture, teaches that women should stay at home have children, raises children and serve their husbands and families. Yet, this “radical” idea was the norm for centuries and centuries up until 100 years ago or so. Prior to that time only Marxist Revolutionaries wanted to dismiss this idea. This is what NPR is… it is a cult of Marxist Revolutionaries who, following Betty Friedan, think that a woman who stays at home in order to be what generations of women before her were is a wasting her life. NPR is giving us the Revolutionary dreck of Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelly, andAlexandra Mikhailovna Kollontai.

Next the embittered divorced Professor says the right to keep and bear arms is connected to the patriarchal right to protect family. Actually, the right to keep and bear arms is connected to the clear teaching of Scripture in Exodus 22, though no one disagrees that per the sixth commandment we have a responsibility to protect the lives of others, including and especially our families, against those who would do us harm.

Next NPR quotes a snippet from some Pastor’s sermon where the Pastor is noting that Black Lives Matter is a Marxist organization that is for the destruction of the family. By their snide introduction to the clip of the sermon NPR is mocking this Pastor and this sermon yet if one looks at the BLM website one can learn that they are a Marxist organization which desires the destruction of the Christian family.

NPR includes in their vaudeville piece a former Pastor who was a Reconstruction and who eventually became disillusioned with the movement and this Pastor’s disillusionment against the ideas of Reconstruction are evident whenever NPR appeals to him for insider information. It’s a bit like asking Judas his opinion of Jesus Christ. This former minister slanders Rushdoony by saying in the interview that Rushdoony denied the holocaust. The truth is that Rushdoony never denied the holocaust. Rushdoony merely questioned the death total numbers of the holocaust. These questioned numbers were so dubious that even those who administer the Auschwitz tourist site way back in the early 90’s reduced the number of deaths in the holocaust at Auschwitz downward by 1.5-2.0 million.

NPR then goes after Rushdoony’s comments on slavery. Chris and Lisa even give us a rift of quotes from Rushdoony on the subject. However, one can read the same kind of comments from the slaves themselves in the 1930’s exit interviews done by the US Government that Rushdoony is quoted as making in lecture snippets provided by Chris and Lisa. In the 1930’s the US Government financed a project to interview ex-slaves. In those exit interviews, as done with former slaves, one hears from many of the former slaves talking about the good life they had when they belonged to their Masters. So, for NPR to criticize Rushdoony for what many of the slaves themselves offered in their exit interviews is another example of irresponsible journalism. NPR even goes so far as to say that Rushdoony’s comments are “classical racism.” Well, that is only true as that accusation comes over the lips of the Cultural Marxists. It is true, by the standards of the Cultural Marxism of the Lugenpress Rushdoony is a racist, but given that accusation is coming from Cultural Marxist who gives a rats tush if the Cultural Marxists label Christians as “racist.” Our response to this accusation should just be, “Well, I’m sure that it is the case that all Cultural Marxists think Biblical Christians are “racist.” I will take your Cultural Marxist accusation as a badge of honor.

Throughout the interview there is implicit sniping at homeschooling. Somehow it was wrong for Paul Dorr to homeschool his children with the end in view of molding them into cultural warriors. Somehow it is wrong for homeschoolers to speak the obvious by properly referring to government schools as government schools. (How could they be public schools if much of the public doesn’t attend them and viciously disagrees with their curriculum and agenda?) Somehow it was wrong for Rushdoony to be a centerpiece in the building up of homeschooling.

Now, after all that has been reported on here, keep in mind that what National Pinko Radio is trying to do is to suggest that just as Rushdoony was a racist so the Dorr Brothers are racist. Just as Rushdoony was a holocaust denier so the Dorr brothers are holocaust deniers. Just as Paul Dorr is against the vile culture of sodomy so the Dorr Brothers are against the vile culture of sodomy. Just as Partrick Parson’s organization was accused (but not proven) of sketchy administration so the Dorr Brothers could well be also guilty of having a sketchy administration of their organizations. Just as Rushdoony held to patriarchy so the Dorr brothers hold to patriarchy. Do you see all the innuendo without substance here? All the guilt by association?

Now, all this could be true, or some of it is true while other aspects is not true but the point is, is that NPR never proves anything. All they give us is smoke. All we know for sure after four “in depth” episodes on the Dorrs is that they are 2^nd amendment activists.

And we already knew that before NPR lugenpress became their series.

Oh… and we also learned that NPR hates vanilla Christianity. But we also already knew that before the series began.

“‘People of color’ was a harbinger of what later came to be called ‘intersectionality,’ a philosophical-sounding term for the political strategy of bundling different minorities into a coalition. Almost everyone other than white heterosexual males could benefit in some way from civil rights laws. Vast, hitherto, unenvisioned coalitions, perhaps even electoral majorities, could be formed by rallying other non-white groups.”

Christopher Caldwell
The Age of Entitlement — p. 120

What Caldwell is describing here is what has been called the new proletariat. It was this coalition of the aggrieved minority as combined with the feminist and the pervert class who would provide the muscle for the long march through the Institutions. The new proletariat would no longer be tied together by class status but rather the new proletariat would be tied together into a coalition by their grievance against white Christian patriarchal males who had previously victimized the new victim coalition.

The electoral majorities that Caldwell references is that very coalition that Democrats are now depending upon to catapult them into office. The Democrat base consists of;

1.) Aggrieved minorities

2.) Suburban College Educated Feminists

3.) Pervert power

The Democrats are no longer contending for the White Christian middle class in America choosing instead to label them as “deplorables,” “irredeemable,” and “bitter clingers.”

Caldwell also hints here at what he brings out with clarity elsewhere and that is the Civil Rights laws forever changed America because they institutionalized grievance and victimization. People would advance now by joining with the some identity group that proclaimed how their civil rights were violated. Those belonging to a Civil Rights created Identity group had discovered strength through weakness. This new Civil Rights ethos legalized the ascendancy of the weak by criminalizing the previous authority structures of employers, patriarchs, and Institutions that were the gatekeepers of the previous Christian moral givens of the culture. Everything was stood on its head. The shrill, the pervert, the immoral, and the irresponsible were legally protected by Civil Rights legislation from the consequences of their behavior as the expense of those who operated by what might be called the previously honored Christian code.