Bobby Novak

@Ne_pas_couvrir Well, back down the rabbit hole I guess. Or maybe it's a Nietzshian abyss. Who knows? Only one way to find out though.

@ConceptualJames I saw this a lot in college but my university was home to the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID), so it kinda made sense. Why interpreting has been thrusted into the mainstream and is now a defining characteristic of the left is beyond me. Was this a plan all along?

What, in fact, is going on in Canada?

A few important points to keep in mind regarding Dr. Mohler: 1. 7 Years ago, Dr. Mohler's hand-picked professors were attempting to infuse Identity Marxism, intersectionality, and postmodernism into the SBC through his seminary - the largest Protestant seminary in the U.S. 2. Center for Baptist Leadership is led by William Wolfe, a former protege of Dr. Mohler and Pastor Mark Dever. During the same time that Wolfe was a member of Dever's church in DC, Dr. Russell Moore (another Mohler protege) played a prominent role at the church while he led the ERLC. 3. Thanks to the infusion of progressivism, critical theory, and postmodernism into Christianity over the past 150 years, the orthodoxy of what calls itself "Christianity" in the U.S. (and U.K. for that matter) is a fractured mess of Neo-Marxist slop on both the "Left" and "Right" sides of the Christian stew in America with only a few pockets of Biblically orthodox islands within the ocean of Marxianity. 4. The infusion of Marxian and postmodern concepts is not just a problem in Protestantism, it is also a problem in Roman Catholicism in America and beyond. The Rhine (German Higher Criticism) flowed into the Tiber long ago which has resulted in progressive doctrine, liberation theology, the embrace of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Hermeticism), Laudato Si', and praying on melting ice to hopes to prevent "climate change". Our "situation in life" in 2026 in America is not what it was in 1789. And maybe if Mohler, the SBC, Dever, 9Marks, Ligon Duncan, the PCA, and the rest of those who spent a decade proclaiming the need to ask Karl Marx in their hearts had spent that same amount of time preaching the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ as they did preaching the "gospel" of vengeance, we would have a much more robust Christian witness in America today. Rather than pivoting and championing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mohler instead created a few pre-packaged Integralist/fascist bullies who were primed to conduct the dialectical political warfare necessary to trigger a revolution.

@pamazusan @reddit_lies Bad. Ass.

@BobbyNovak6 @reddit_lies youtu.be/H94Jd2J-CtM?si…

JAPAN IS AMERICA'S GREATEST ALLY AND IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE.

@MDSebach @CodyLibolt Ah OK, and I'm saying, that ain't it, bud. If you wanna learn about love, read some Aquinas. What the left is doing (generally) isn't love; it's enabling self-destructive behavior. And God isn't just Love. God is also the Word, and the Word would like a word.

My point is that the Left is full of non-literalist Christians who hold that God is Love (i.e., God is a concept), universal, unconditional love no less, and who do not believe in the literal divinity of Christ - although they do worship Love - and that those people are literally out-Christianing literalist Christians: they claim to love every degenerate they can find, even rapists, murderers, and pedophiles. Those people are called Progressives and other socialists.

There is no “Christian Left” My view is that the term “Christian Left” is a misnomer. I am challenging the terminology I have seen other people use. To be precise, there is no movement that ought to be called “the Christian Left.” There are moments today that could be characterized as politically conservative and religiously Christian, broadly speaking. But there are not movements that could be characterized as politically leftist and religiously Christian. To be a leftist is to be a heretic by Christian standards. Christianity is incompatible with leftism as a set of political viewpoints, and, in fact, Christianity is strongly opposed to leftism. Faithful Christians morally must oppose leftism when it confronts them. Generally speaking, conservative political viewpoints (the American conservative kind) tend to align with Christian morality. It’s possible someone could read this post and think my position (or the implication of my statement) is “If you’re even a little left leaning on certain policies, then you’re not a Christian.“ But that is not my position, and it is not the meaning of the words in my post. For instance, the post does not say anything about whether a Christian is capable of buying into the lie of welfare statism. In regard to most topics, being “a little bit left leaning” would be a sin. But that would not indicate someone is not a Christian. It would likely indicate a lack of proper discipleship from one’s church and/or lack of faithful study of the Bible and/or poor education. No large, public movement today that is characterized as being leftist ought to also be characterized as being Christian. It also so happens that it is morally wrong to affirm any major tenet of leftism, and it is so serious of a problem as to raise questions about a person’s sanity and his general morality, including some obvious questions like: “Don’t you even read the Bible?” “Don’t you even understand the basics of right and wrong?” “Doesn’t your immorality call your conversion into question?” etc. For example, I don’t have any reason to believe any of the people who voted for Joe Biden or Kamala Harris are Christians. I don’t rule out that someone might have simply had brain damage and that was why they voted for Democrats. But this is not the most obvious option. If any Democrat voter claims to be Christian, I consider it highly doubtful. This is not intended to be a hot take. It is intended to be a clear statement of the only sane position.

@rmnb NHL: "Love big Boom. But if Boom too big. Must be penalty."

McBain admiring his pass. How is this interference? It's not even late in slow motion.

@MDSebach @CodyLibolt What are you getting at? Is it possible to be an atheist and still be moral in the Christian sense? Sure, because the Christian ontology has been largely secularized (and taken up into Liberalism). That isn't the point I was making though.

@BobbyNovak6 @CodyLibolt Who is more Christian: the person who upholds Christian moral/ethical principles but who denies their divine origin, or the person who accepts their divine origin but who doesn't uphold the principles?

@ClassicLibera12 @JohnCleese Because otherwise you get...

@JohnCleese …the New Testament is contingent on the Old Testament

Hegseth is a perfect example of the sort of Christian who loves the Old Testament more than the New Testament- because Christ isn't in it

@MDSebach @CodyLibolt You're right, the "Christian" left do think themselves the most Christian. But, their morality is not Christian because they've divorced it from the logos-centric ontology of Genesis and replaced that with an ontology derived from Kant, Hegel, and Marx. That's a big no-no.

There is only one reason that Democrats and other leftists can - AND DO - claim the moral high ground: they take Christian metaphysics and ethics seriously and sometime literally. For example, the intrinsic-value premise, i.e., the notion that all human beings are valuable by virtue of their existence, therefore deserve dignity and respect, regardless of their behavior. Save for rejecting free will in favor of determinism, the Left embraces Christian morality. Rejecting free will (on scientific grounds, no less) allows the Left to claim that the best of humanity doesn't deserve their success and happiness and the worst of humanity doesn't deserve their failure and misery (cf. A Theory of Justice, by Harvard's John Rawls). Thus, reasons the Left, successful people can be forced (morally) to subsidize the failures, since they never deserved their success to begin with ("You didn't build that") and the poor and needy never deserved to be poor and needy. Not to mention that Christians are commanded to help the needy and poor in spirit (the oppressed), so how could forcing people - DEMOCRATICALLY - to fulfill their Christian duty be considered immoral? The Christian Left may reject the divinity of Christ, but they have embraced (for the most part) the metaphysics and ethics of Judeo-Christianity, to the point that they are willing to FORCE everyone in society to "share and share alike," as the saying goes. The Left believes that they are MORE CHRISTIAN (ethically) than Christian conservatives, i.e., MORE MORAL than conservatives are. The Left is so moral, they believe, that they are willing to force successful people to serve the needy and the oppressed, because left to their own devices they would hoard their wealth and not help the needy. So moral is the Left that they are willing to force people to be tolerant of other human's quirks and foibles (e.g., LGBTQ...), since they can't help but be oddballs (or even criminals), due to determinism (and original sin), just as Christians SHOULD be tolerant of their fellow men (or trans-men). In short, Christian conservatives (and most atheist conservatives) grant the Left the validity of their Christian (altruist) moral principles/premises but then try to argue that it is immoral to force people to fund a socialistic welfare state - even though they cannot argue that Christians should not fund a welfare state, voluntarily. If Christians are commanded to be charitable and tolerant anyway - voluntarily - how can they successfully argue against being forced (again, democratically) to support a socialist welfare state? I claim that they can't.

@Van_Blogodidact This was the backup plan all along. Why create a powerful country (that's hard!) when you can seize control of an existing world power through immigration and outbreeding the locals? If the country invites you in through the front door, all the better!

Good thing Iran agreed not to build nuclear bombs. No need to worry about muslim's getting nukes anymore. 😬

@ChristianHeiens Liberalism does not become Progressivism; that's what progessives want you to think. The two are diametrically opposed. One is rooted in a realist, logos-centric worldview (derived from Christianity) where objectivity reigns The other is rooted in Hegelian/Marxist/postmodern bs

Progressivism is not some alien virus infecting an otherwise healthy liberal order. Progressivism is what liberalism looks like after it has already won. It’s liberalism’s destiny. Fundamentally, it’s what happens when all of liberalism’s enemies have been destroyed. And make no mistake, they have been destroyed. Liberalism systematically tore down the throne and altar of traditional monarchism, crushed fascism, and outlasted communism. For all the LARPing in the West (and I would argue that LARPing itself is in many ways is actually necessary), there really is no cohesive enemy left for Liberalism to do battle with. It won. And the fruits of that victory are what produced the Progressive agitators we see today. These deranged lunatics were only able to emerge when they did because there was no longer any opposition left to stand up and say “No” to Liberalism’s demands But when you declare that the most important thing is freeing the individual from all inherited restraints, then every social norm, national border, hierarchy, and tradition becomes an example of arbitrary power or oppression. It’s essentially inevitable that the whole ideology will begin to eat at things which are actually essential to the maintenance of both civilized society and humanity itself. Which is why Liberalism’s victory will be short lived. Progressivism emerged because Liberalism won. But paradoxically, it will also inevitably lose for the same reasons.

@LoganLancing It's just 3 examples of high velocity collisions doing a ton of damage 😂 KE = 1/2mv^2, mfers. Even a spec of dust orbiting the earth at roughly a bajillion mph has enough energy to crack a window on the ISS.

Retardmaxxers and griftmaxxers everywhere.

@cmichael_music @EricRWeinstein

@EricRWeinstein *convince the user he has uncovered secret knowledge*

Convince the government to starve our scientists. Convince weakened scientists to lie to the public. Convince the public to distrust their scientists.

@reddit_lies "Becoming me" Hegelian philosophy has invaded the minds of the retards and is rotting away at us from within. We will soon achieve unity with the Absolute.

What is going on?

@GadSaad It would set a precedent implying that low IQ people have no free will and are basically sub-human animals that can't be held to the same standards as normal humans. Low IQ people are still people made in God's image, like the rest of us. For that reason, throw this man in jail.

Thoughts?

@MikhailaFuller Given how utterly complex a human brain is and that to make a baby, you have to create one from scratch(!), it's mind-boggling to me that people would assume that trying to do so in an environment of artificially elevated serotonin would have no long-term consequences.

We need to stop using the word “withdrawal” and “brain changes” and start using the words “brain injury”. Because that’s what it is. These drugs, in developing brains or long term (and sometimes short term) cause brain injuries.

@comicfan303 @washingtonpost Fantastic! You know how you could really rub it in Trump's and MAGA's faces? Tell your senator to pass the SAVE act and then kick some republican ass at the polls in the next election.

@BobbyNovak6 @washingtonpost

President Trump has ramped up pressure on Republicans to pass the Save America Act, a bill that would require people to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote. But the bill might not help Republicans as much as Trump thinks. wapo.st/4t4w9Hy

@reddit_lies The difference is that the Founding Fathers led a revolution based on a realist ontology and inalienable, universal human rights endowed by a Creator. The left believes they can manifest their own fantasy world and that only leftists have rights.

When they tell you who they are, believe them.

@thepalmerworm No kids (yet), but personally, I've found myself incredibly bored with music lately which is quite devastating given how integral a role it played in my youth. I blamed it on Spotify pushing me lowest common denominator beep-boop crap, but perhaps it's time I give classical a try

I’ve said for many years that when the ability to participate in it, to read it, to hear it, to articulate and to understand it - is removed from school curricular and extra curricular - it not only means the decline of performers, artists and writers. It means first and foremost, the absence of an audience able and wanting to listen to, read and observe that language and its legacy. ‘Fluency in Traditional Arts literacy (understanding visual arts, comprehending literature, awareness & recognition of musical flow & form) these aspects of attention, memory, recall and association all require cultivating from an early age. They are also faculties of perception which, if nurtured and developed, underpin engagement, enjoyment & attainment across the curriculum and beyond.  This is not just for those wanting to participate as potential performers, composers or artists, but crucially, listeners, viewers and thinkers.’ open.substack.com/pub/thepalmerw…