Being an American during the Trump administration is embarrassing....

 Yeah...I assume we all saw Trump and Vance knocking around Zelensky and going on about how he needs to be more "grateful" for support? Yeah. If I were zelensky, I'd be tempted to tell Trump to F off to his face. Of course, you cant really do that because trump is in the position to make zelensky's life miserable, but that's also why trump is being a little crap in the first place. He's trying to knock zelensky around and bully him. it's disgusting. As Vaush said in his recent segment on it, for most of us liberals in the real world, we see helping Zelensky as a moral obligation. It isn't about power. it's about standing up for a democracy being threatened by a petty hitleresque dictator. For Trump, these reaction are transactional. "What's in it for me?" "I want rare earth minerals." Like, he's treating this like it's a game of civ. You know how the real ###hole civs will be like "I want all of these raw materials and half your cities or no peace?" Yeah. 

Look, again, soft power. We rule by soft power. This is something trump doesnt understand. Because he's too fricking stupid. We had it all. We basically control the world. We get anything we want. We dont rule through outright force. We leverage relationships and soft power. Trump is throwing that away. Oh my god this guy is so fricking stupid, I can't stand it. Trump is throwing America's privileged place in the world away because he's too stupid to understand how real power works. He's making us weaker, more isolated. He's making us the bad guy. It's better for people to go along with you because you got each others' backs and have similar values than to do this show of force bullcrap.

Theodore Roosevelt said back in his day, "speak softly and carry a big stick." Trump speaks loudly and just swings the big stick at everything. He's a moron. That's his understanding of things. He's dumb. He's literally dumb.  He's literally an embarrassment to the US and western values. Then again the dude doesnt really believe in western values, so...yeah.

Helping Ukraine makes a stronger world for America and western democracy to survive and thrive. It's simple. We help Ukraine, we help ourselves. We don't, we weaken ourselves in the world. We embolden russia, and we threaten the global world order led by us, because we clearly can't, or won't, protect other countries who are aligned with us. Like really, do people not understand this? We cant be isolationist in the 21st century. yes, im not saying we have to be in every conflict ever. Heck, i dont even support putting OUR troops into this conflict. All we need to do is give them guns, and let them do it themselves, that's ALL we have to do. Why is this so hard? 

I hate this administration. It's a joke. Im rewatching this in the other window and I'm watching the part where JD vance starts doing his BS routine. Ugh. I despite these people. F this administration. Senile guy was better than this. LITERALLY. Give me senile guy back. 

Discussing why foreign aid is important from a more cynical self interested perspective

 So...a lot of Trumpers and Trump sympathetic people are really against foreign aid. They were before the election, saying "why are we spending so much overseas when people at home need help?" And I still see people say stuff like that. They're especially cheering on Elon with his cuts to USAID. So, I just wanted to briefly discuss why we should support programs like USAID from a more "America First" perspective.

First of all, let's be frank, we don't spend that much on foreign aid. We spent around $70 billion a year prior to the current administration. The biggest jump from that came from Ukraine. This isn't a huge amount. if we gave that amount back to people as UBI, every adult would get like $290. Which isn't nothing, but it isn't a lot either. So why should we be willing to pay for that stuff?

 Well first, let's start Ukraine. Ukraine is a western democracy. Russia is a geopolitical threat to Europe. They've been our geopolitical adversary since at least 1945, with maybe briefly a break in the 1990s when it looked like they might become democratic like the rest of Europe. Then Putin took over, broke democracy, and it backslid into a de facto dictatorship. What the US is doing today is eerily similar to what happened then. 

 But as you know, we dont want that. We like democracy. We like freedom. And we should have an investment in protecting democracies. NATO was founded on the idea that an attack on one is an attack on all, in order to prevent aggression, and while Ukraine isn't NATO, it is a fellow liberal democracy under attack from an authoritarian adversary who invaded them for literally no legitimate reason other than a raw land grab. We want to discourage this behavior in the modern world as this is how we start world wars. A few billion, or even a few tens of billions a year is a small investment to punish and potentially bankrupt one of our biggest adversaries. 

Beyond that, let's think about why else we would give aid to people. In a lot of ways, it's soft power, something that the current trump administration doesn't understand, as he too has this putin/hitleresque lebenstraum style imperialist idea of foreign policy. Here's the thing. Hard power is nice push comes to shove, but what's better than having the biggest stick is never having to wield it. You give these other countries a few billion a year, and they'll never turn against you. You give them nothing, and china or russia might be able to court them to their side. By helping these other countries in small ways, we sway them to our side. We stop them from wanting to attack us or mess with us, because they're not gonna bite the hand that feeds them. Again, it's soft power. If we're providing humanitarian aid to other countries like say, food, why would they attack us? The aid becomes an incentive structure to ensure that they remain friendly, since if it does not, we can cut it off. We say we'd never weaponize that, but let's face it, of course we would, push comes to shove. But yeah. it's better basically to buy the rest of the world off than try to control them through threats and force like trump is. Trump is F-ing around and we're gonna find out the consequences of that with a far less stable world if we keep it up. 

Beyond that, let's face it, a lot of that aid...actually does come back around and help us. I saw a story recently that Elon ended up firing the people working on keeping ebola under wraps. Um...you know, the disease that makes you fricking start bleeding out as your flesh is ripped apart from the inside? Yeah, kinda important we control that. But if we no longer provide aid to do that, that disease could spread and come here. Remember how COVID originated from china and then EVERYONE eventually got it in some form? Yeah. That can happen at any time. And a lot of what we do is aimed at preventing disease. We keep hearing about condoms to gaza. I think it was condoms to africa. Gee, why would we provide condoms to africa? Um...because otherwise AIDS spreads like wildfire there? You know, that really really bad disease that is really expensive to treat, not really curable outside of a couple studies that never seemed to go to market, and in the 1980s and 1990s was a literal death sentence? Yeah! That AIDS! Of course, much like with the 1980s and Reagan, maybe the fundies dont care because hurr durr shouldnt have had sex, but for those of us in REALITY, well...yeah, we kinda wanna keep that under control. So yeah...maybe we should give Africans condoms? And mosquito nets to prevent malaria? Ya know? If we don't that can come around to bite us bad. 

Like, this is the problem with right wingers. They dont think systematically. As we saw with the christian worldview, their entire worldview is based on individual action and responsibility. But in the real world, that doesn't work. Sometimes you need to be a little collectivist to actually get good results. you NEED to engineer society. You NEED to spend money on things that in a vacuum dont make much sense in order to do a lot of good. And honestly, most foreign aid is worth the investment. It stops the rest of the world from taking up arms against us for one, and for two, it aims to control the spread of a lot of diseases and other crises that could really spread and bite us in the butt. 

Again, I know that on paper it's like "shouldnt we spend this money at home?" But yeah. You look at the big picture and by doing foreign aid, we make our home safer. We limit wars. We control the spread of disease. 

Like really. These guys in the Trump administration, between cutting foreign aid and RFK being our new health secretary are practically BEGGING for a second COVID style pandemic here. They are so dumb. So dangerously dumb. And I'm not even getting into RFK basically letting measles spread like wildfire. Like wtf. We are in hell. Wtf did you do America?

Ugh. I know I sound like one of those overly intelligent, condescending, snarky liberals who people hate, but I kinda have to here. This is completely and utterly ####ed up. Like...all these functions government does, they're important, we do them for a reason. There isn't that much waste to cut. What there's a lot of is ignorance about what are tax dollars are actually going for and why they're going for that stuff. 

 There's a reason I stopped being a conservative. Once I got past my dunning kruger syndrome "peak of mount stupid" years I kinda realized that government does things...important things, and if anything if it did even more our lives would be even better. So...when you criticize the government not doing enough for you, actually criticize the government not doing enough for you and don't advocate for cutting a bunch of stuff that actually use valid purposes while not saving that much money.

Republicans trying to destroy medicaid

 So, the republicans just passed a bill in the house that calls for $880 billion in medicaid cuts. So...you know, virtually all of it. You know, because the republicans gotta cut taxes for billionaires somehow. 

So, just for the record, 72 million people are on medicaid. So this cuts health insurance for literally 20-25% of Americans. No biggie. Around 26 million people are uninsured now, so this is gonna triple it overnight to nearly 100 million people total. That's around...28-29% of the population?

Yeah, just so we're clear.

So what are these around 100 million people supposed to do? Just get a job? Okay, for most of us, especially for those who are driven by the socioeconomic conditions that drive people to MAGA because the democrats arent doing enough already...that's not going to help. I mean, most jobs in our areas are like low wage service jobs that pay near minimum wage and are part time in the first place in order to avoid having to provide insurance coverage. Insurance coverage also isnt affordable. Rememeber how I posted a few months ago how the average yearly cost for premiums is like $8k a year? Yeah, it's insane. And that isn't even including out of pocket costs.

 Oh, what's that you say? THose jobs are for teenagers, get a better job? Okay, well there aren't better jobs, and even with trump deporting illegals by the million and tariffing the rest of the world, there still won't be better jobs. because businesses dont wanna pay for healthcare in the first place. They wanna externalize costs and say you either buy your own healthcare or you go on medicaid. And we're just cutting medicaid. 

So wtf? Are we just supposed to be okay with almost 30% of our population being uninsured? Is this what MAGA voted for? I ask you this. if you're MAGA, did you vote for this? Surely, the die hard fiscal republicans did, but the swing voter concerned about their economic prospects? Did YOU vote for this? Obviously no. 

And yet this is what you get when you vote for MAGA. Curious. it's almost as if these guys were full of crap all along. 

Let me ask you, West Virginia. You're like the poorest state in the nation just about. You guys have no jobs, you live practically on welfare and disability. You vote red because the democrats keep wanting to kill the coal industry and you think it's your birth right to dig dirty flammable rocks out of the ground even though it wrecks your lungs....i bet most of you guys are on medicaid. Are you guys okay with Trump cutting your healthcare access? Did you vote for this?

 I swear, this is gonna make the population shift so hard toward the left in 2028, I could even see WV shifting blue after this one. okay, that might be a bit far. But yeah. if we still have free and fair elections and trump doesnt just abolish them and crown himself king (and let's face it he's going that way), the republicans are gonna have a rude awakening as most of the country turns on them.

 You guys thought you had it bad under Biden? Man, I know Biden aint great, I kinda felt your pain on that one...but once again, are you really fine with Trump screwing you over so hard?

This is what happens when you vote republican. Take note. It's like putting your hand on a hot stove. Now, what did we learn today? That stove burns when you touch it. Will you touch it again? No? GOOD! We need to see some learning cause and effect here, because i swear, most of you guys out there in american seem to have the attention span of a gold fish and your knowledge of these things isn't...the best....let's put it that way.

I hate to be this condescending and insulting of peoples' intelligence, but sometimes I have to be. Yall really voted for this MFer again, and I warned you it was a terrible idea. I told you he would try to destroy democracy. I told you he would do psycho stuff like this. I wasn't kidding. I dont like dems either. Dont get me wrong, I'm right there with you (somewhat) in thinking the democratic party sucks and their candidates are boring milquetoast trash who doesnt improve our lives. But keep this in mind. Whatever agreement I come to with middle America on this, I'm criticizing the dems FROM THE LEFT. I want them to be MORE progressive. I want them to give people UBI, universal healthcare, free college, higher wages, better work life balance. I want to go back to the philosophy of the new deal, but MAKE IT BETTER THAN IT EVER WAS. You know? The goal for the right over the past half century, and arguably the past century, has been to dismantle the new deal. They're finally going for it. And the results are going to be DISASTROUS for average americans.

You guys gotta fight back. Legally of course. When I say fight i dont mean it like orange man does where he's basically saying "march on the capitol." It's more "march to your election place in 2/4 years and vote these frickers out." But yeah. Fight. These guys will screw you in every way they can. They ain't playing. The American people have to put their foot down and say this is not okay. 

We should be going for UNIVERSAL healthcare. Not repealing coverage for 72 million Americans. This is INSANE. We're going backwards as a society, and I dont like it. None of you guys out there in middle america should like it either. THis is why you vote for left, not for rich demagogues who promise to "make america great again" by deporting illegals and slapping tariffs on everything, as if that helps anything. The "Trump economy" was "good" in his first term because he wasnt successful in repealing anything, and all he did was inherit the obama recovery and allow it to continue for 3 years until covid hit. Oh...and btw, the reason egg prices are so high? Bird flu. And to my knowledge, we just fired the people who were trying to contain that.  COVID 2 electric boogaloo on the horizon? Yeah. Buckle up. This ain't pretty.

 Dont vote for these frickers ever again. PLEASE.

Discussing DOGE cuts

 So, Andrew Yang talked a bit about DOGE on his podcast today, and as someone who believes in a very similar ideology as him on the concept of government efficiency, I wanted to give my thoughts. So, Yang doesn't seem fully against DOGE, but he has the same issues everyone else does. he does believe in cutting things, making government more efficient, but he seems to think Musk is moving too fast, and probably cutting useful things, and making too many promises he can't keep. I agree. However, I feel like my own stance on DOGE is harder than Musk's is.

Here's the thing. Yang did mention this a little himself, but republicans here are driven by ideology. They fundamentally do not believe in government. They believe in cutting government to the bone. They are right wingers. They believe in cutting government in a reflexive, ideological way, and don't care about what the government does and if the cuts hurt people. Because they believe government shouldn't be doing these things. Many small government types are actually minarchists. They believe in cutting government as much as possible and making it as limited as possible. They dont believe in safety nets. They dont believe in government agencies. Cut it all. They don't care. They dont even know what these agencies do. They just see it as waste reflexively and just wanna hacksaw the whole thing away. People like Elon might even go further. Dark Enlightenment ideology is functionally anarcho capitalism. That dude who gave Musk the chainsaw the other day? That's Javier Milei who is the president of Argentina. He's an ancap. He doesnt believe in government. he also believes in cutting the whole thing. There's a reason Argentina currently has a poverty rate over 50%. Argentina ain't as rich as the US in the first place, but cutting all government will do that. 

I also don't believe that much waste in the government exists. I've looked into the government budget for things to cut to fund UBI. There isn't that much to cut. Most of what I cut are tax credits and welfare programs that UBI replaces. There isn't a ton that CAN be reasonably cut. The government's biggest expenditures are things like social security, medicare, medicaid, and the military. There's very little waste there, outside of maybe the military. Social security, that's old and disabled people. They can't work. Cutting off their checks is a death sentence. Medicare is healthcare for old people. Medicaid is healthcare for poor people. I know some wanna cut medicaid and make people get healthcare through their jobs, but how well is that working out? Businesses don't wanna pay for peoples' healthcare, and the robber barons in the healthcare industry are taking people for all they're worth. I do cut some of that stuff to fund universal healthcare, but that's because...i want the government to provide healthcare for more people. And if you cared about efficiency, you would probably do that because we lose hundreds of billions of dollars to crooked contracts and administrative bloat as a result of our for profit healthcare system. Again, it might not make much sense to a right winger, but the best way to make government efficient is to make government do more things and take over healthcare entirely. I take the same approach with UBI. Normally, I wouldnt touch welfare. You cut welfare, you're dooming millions of people to poverty. Musk doesn't care. He's a billionaire robber baron. Him being so rich is why everyone else is so poor. Where do you think the money's going? To the rich! All this talk of cuts is cutting YOUR stuff so HE gets richer. Perhaps we should talk about Musks's tesla contracts if you wanna touch waste. But back to welfare. I wouldnt touch that stuff UNLESS we do a UBI. And even then, the answer is a scapel not a FRICKING CHAINSAW. You wanna cut things in a way to make sure the net effects are better. You can't just cut everything, that's insane! Of course, Musk and Trump ARE insane, and don't care about the consequences of their actions, and that's bad. 

At the end of the day, DOGE is floating giving taxpayers checks to give them their money back. They're literally floating $2 trillion in cuts. That's NEVER gonna happen unless you cut the stuff I just mentioned and screw people over. And at that point, getting $5k back is insulting. Imagine losing, say, $25k in social security, but oh wait, you get $5000 back from DOGE. F off with your checks elon. I don't even want them, and I'm the UBI guy. I mean, this is exactly the kind of crap that many on the left fear UBI for. Because they fear we're gonna cut the entire safety net, screw millions of people, and then, oh wait, here's a couple thousand dollars. Gee. Thanks...jerk. 

Honestly, the only thing of the above things that might yield any significant economic benefit is cutting defense spending. I know the military is bloated as fudge. They regularly fail audits. I know people who were military who mentions that yeah they just throw away money because if they save it, their budget gets cut the next year. Still, how much is waste? Probably not a ton ton. Maybe a couple hundred billion or something. That's it.

So...all of this talk of cutting stuff is just...blowing smoke. There is very little waste, fraud, and abuse in government. Maybe you can cut 2% of the budget or something, so, say, $130 billion of a $6.5 trillion budget, but that's the numbers we're talking about. Any more than that and you're cutting into useful functions that actually help people and screwing over people on our safety nets. of course, that might be the point. The right doesnt believe in safety nets. They've been wanting to undo the new deal for going on 90 years now. Trump explicitly stated America was great before 1913 at this point. He wants to go back to the freaking gilded age! He wants to screw over millions and millions of people. 

When you want to talk about DOGE, that's what we're talking about. When I talk about say, modern and effective government. I'm talking in a "yeah, instead of having these bloated piecemeal programs why dont we have universal healthcare? Instead of having all of these alphabet soup government agencies and welfare programs, why don't we replace a lot of that with UBI? We would spend MORE actually, but we would also have BETTER programs. The way elon's doing things it's gonna end one of two ways, either he cuts very little as there's little to actually cut, or he's gonna take a hacksaw to the government, cutting away useful functions that he simply doesnt believe in because he's some crazy dark enlightenment inspired robber baron who wants to implement tech feudalism on America and go back to the gilded age. You're not actually going to find much waste fraud and abuse, and you're probably hurting more people than you help. 

Really, this entire DOGE thing is insane. The worst thing is, I don't think anyone actually voted for this. They voted to bring the cost of eggs down, not this crap. Most people like government. And among the ones who did, most are just ignorant of what the government does, or like musk, dont care. They just want lower taxes. Screw you I got mine.

You know, "No Time to Die" hits differently now that Amazon bought the 007 series

 So, most people who know me personally know I'm a huge James Bond fan. I got into the series via the N64 games goldeneye and the world is not enough and corresponding movies, and was a rather die hard fan in my teenage years in particular. I will say my zeal for it moderated over time, as the zeitgeist moved onto the craig era, and then video games declined in quality and eventually stopped being produced, but there was a time in my life that I was as zealous for the series as I am for Rammstein musically. 

With that said, like many fans, I kind of had a mixed view on the Craig films. Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall were all really good, but then Spectre was kind of controversial due to how they changed characters vs the old 1960s version of events. And then with No Time To Die, the series REALLY went off the rails. Spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen it but it has been out for a few years now so if you didn't watch it it's kind of your own fault at this point, but they gave Bond a family and then killed him off. 

Honestly, even though I largely liked the movie, I kind of hated the ending. Because, really? It was so non canonical. In the OG 1960s version of the movies, Bond gets married, Blofeld kills his wife, and then Bond gets revenge in the next film before moving on and just being the cold womanizer who clearly shows no emotional attachment toward women. In a sense, it was designed to be a character flaw, with the casino royale with vesper thing happening off screen prior to Dr. No, and his wife dying killing any humanity he had left. I know Craig was a reboot and all, but yeah, to have it become its own self contained arc with such a tragic ending was a bit jarring and yeah, I kinda disliked it A LOT and kinda thought it was almost blasphemy to me.

There has been a lot of debate over where Bond went next. Honestly, there was a precedent in the book source material for No Time to Die. Bond's final confrontation of blofeld in a similar Japanese castle setting that No Time to Die took place in did end with bond being presumably dead, but he did kinda survive, and there was one more book after where he basically lost his memory, was captured by the Soviets, brainwashed, and turned against the British government. Had it been up to me, Bond 26 would start with that kind of plot point. Bond isn't really dead, he survived, and then more stuff happens. It wouldn't have been a very clean opening sequence for Bond 26, but it would've been the best writing angle one could approach it from. 

Well, unfortunately, now Amazon has bought the series.  Yeah, you can't make this up, the guy who looks IRL like villain Ernst Stavro Blofeld basically controls the James Bond series. He's the second most Bond villain like billionaire I can think of, the other being the chainsaw wielding maniac currently cutting away at the federal government in a 1933 German style coup. 

And Bond fans are kind of feeling like this is the death of the series as we know it. It's not truly dead, but it's the deal from hell that no one wanted. I personally have issues with it simply because I hate streaming exclusivity and now we'll lose Bond to another fricking streaming service we'll have to pay $10+ a month just to watch. Will we even get DVD releases any more? if not I'm out. But beyond that, Amazon seems to have a bad reputation. When they get creative control of a franchise, they basically ruin it according to sum. They run it into the ground with tons of mediocre spinoffs and mini series that no one wants, poor casting decisions, etc., and yeah. 

Like, you gotta understand. The film series has been with EON and the Broccoli family for like 60 years, and now they're just retiring and stepping out of the picture. It's literally the end of an era. And now, people are actually starting to be glad that they killed off Bond in No Time to Die. If it is the end of an era, and Amazon is gonna butcher the series from here on out, it's kinda good they put the old bond out to pasture. It delineates the end of an era from what comes next. And now, we fans can just sleep soundly knowing that the Bond series as we knew it is dead, and that whatever comes next is gonna be something else entirely. It's as if it's gonna be a completely different series now. And many of us old timers don't even have to touch the new stuff with a ten foot pole. We just enjoy the old stuff as it exists, and what happens from there happens. 

As such, decisions that at release with NTTD were controversial, and I kinda hated him, but now, a lot of us are happy that Bond went out that way, so that we don't have to suffer what comes next. It was a death with dignity. Let Bezos butcher it all he wants. It's dead to us old time fans now. RIP James Bond, 1962-2021.

Discussing how 2024 was "rigged"

 So, I'm going to make it clear, I believe the results of the 2024 results were as legitimate as legitimate gets, BUT...just because the results are what they are...doesn't mean the other side played fair. You know what I mean? It's like the democratic primaries. The democrats like Clinton and Biden win legitimately, but then they play dirty politics at times to get the result they want. Well, it can be argued that Trump did it here.

Kyle Kulinski had a guest on his friday program where he interviewed someone who claims that trump "stole" the election. How? Via voter suppression. Now, I don't deny that this happened either. It happens. And it's not just a trump thing, it's not just a republican thing. Basically, the argument centers around how the republicans filed lawsuits to get ballots thrown out in 2024 and if they were counted, harris would've won WI/MI/PA/GA. I don't deny this. All of those states were pretty close. But again...this isn't just a trumpian thing.

Remember "voter ID" laws? I remember back in 2012, republicans wanted to pass voter ID laws here. They made all of these claims about election fraud and dead people voting and illegals voting and how we need a voter ID law to ensure that people are who they say they are. The real reason the GOP wanted these laws was to disenfranchise minorities. They even gave the game away at one point, claiming that mitt romney would win PA because of these laws. Yeah, republicans are scummy like that. They don't play fair.

Hell, around this time, and in the aftermath of that election, I kind of realized that democrats, at the time at least, seemed to be a majority of the country. And that the GOP mostly held the massive institutional power they did through things like gerrymandering and voter suppression. If things came down to a popular vote the democrats would win handily. But the republicans kind of find ways to gerrymander congressional districts and nerf the voter turnout of democrats through suppression tactics that they can win.

This is why in 2016 I kind of realized that what we need is an election cycle with massive turnout, one that overwhelms the republicans and creates another 2008 style blue wave that btfos them. Then we get in, undo their nonsense, and are able to actually undo their stuff. Sadly, the democrats are incompetent and half of their problem is they can't get critical mass to overcome this stuff. 

Like, seriously. I do wanna point that out. yes, republicans engage in voter suppression. However, they ALSO kind of diminish their own turnout by being weak and unappealing. They generally CAN win if they are able to drive out their base in large enough numbers. Until this election cycle, I would argue that the democratic base is actually much larger than the republican base. We are the majority. We are the coalition of the ascendant...but we have to want it, we have to fight for it. And democrats suck at doing that. They keep being like "well we need to compromise and run to the center", and "well we can't really actually fight them on things" and "well HR1 sounds like a good idea in theory, but we just can't get past that darned filibuster..." and crap like that. So even when they have power, they don't do anything with it and then the GOP goes for the touch down. It's like every year is a down in football. We end up doing crap plays and making no progress and then we get stomped by them. The GOP are the eagles, we're the chiefs, to make a modern super bowl reference. It's a joke. 

So..I do wanna point out that, yes, voter suppression may have played a role in 2024, but that doesnt mean that the results arent legit, and that the democrats havent kinda played themselves into this corner. Even now, they're SO FRICKING WEAK at calling out the GOP. AOC is doing good, she's on fire right now, some people are finally saying, gee maybe she should be our nominee in 2028. But the party as a whole? CHuck schumer is just wagging his finger over something trump did like a week ago while talking in his boring monotone voice and the party is apparently mad at organizations like moveon and indivisible being like THROW A FRICKING PUNCH ALREADY! 

Ya know, I really wonder if the democrats actually WANT to win, or if they ARE really just paid, controlled opposition in the pockets of billionaires. Their resistance against trump is pathetic. They dont fight. The NAZIS, THE LITERAL NAZIS, are at the gates, and they're sitting around with their thumbs up you know where being like "oh gee, idk what we can do here." DO EVERYTHING YOU FRICKING CAN! We need 215 AOCs in congress STAT! 47 AOCs in the senate. The progressive wing is the only one doing anything because it's like they're the only ones who care!

Honestly, it really does make me mad. I really think this wouldve been avoided had the democrats just done good politics in the first place. You know, lead with Bernie,  prime younger candidates like AOC and Andrew Yang for positions that could give us good leadership. But no, they had to do their own suppression BS AGAINST THE PROGRESSIVES. That's why i think they're paid to lose. Because they're pathetically useless against the GOP but vs progressive dems? They fight us like the GOP fights the dems. 

And honestly, this is why i think much of the public is so passive in this age of trump. Faith in democracy has been falling for a while. I believe trump is a symptom of this. He's BEEN a symptom of this. People despise the democrats because push comes to shove, they're almost as bad as the GOP with this stuff. They'll shut down real left wing populist movements to force corporatists almost no one wants on us, they structure their own primaries to prioritize the concerns of more conservative and moderate voters, and then they frame the narrative around those guys. Ya know, "OMG THE BLACK VOTE! THE BLACK VOTE! YOU SEE YOU WHITE PROGRESSIVE, YOU JUST DONT GET BLACK PEOPLE." 

Counter point: "WHY THE HELL ARE OLD BLACK VOTERS FROM SOUTH CAROLINA THE MOST FRICKING IMPORTANT VOTERS WHO DECIDE THE NOMINEE FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY?! IS SOUTH CAROLINA A SWING STATE? NO? THEN SHUT UP!" It's like the equivalent of republicans prioritizing massachusetts in their primaries and then forcing some rockefeller republican no one likes on people (hello, 2012...we democrats won that one...). Like, really, these MFers end up disenfranchising ME where by the time we actually get to my state of PA, the nominee was chosen MONTHS ago! And then they go on to lose PA to agent orange because actual swing voters dont like them here!

So yeah. With all of that said. I'll admit that yeah, there is voter suppression from the GOP. It's as American as apple pie. I didn't even get into jim crow and literacy tests and our entire sordid history with that. It's actually normal for that to happen. Still, if the democrats ever wanna undo it, as I said, what they need is a massive blue wave to give them power, and then they need to actually DO SOMETHING WITH IT! And that's where they suck. I do believe that in 2016 and 2020, dems were still statistically favored to win. Trump ended up overperforming because the GOP drives up the enthusiasm of their own base, while the democrats throw cold water on theirs. And when you throw cold water on your base...you get...shall we say...shrinkage. Like losing a few million votes that you got in the previous election cycle. 

Seriously campaigning with liz cheney. The cringey "opportunity economy" bullcrap. WTF WERE YOU THINKING?! Really. I keep saying it. I think the real problem is these guys are paid by billionaire donors to lose. They dont fight. They push cringey candidates with cringey campaigns and cringey platforms and then lecture and browbeat voters into voting for them...and then they lose because no one actually likes these guys. That's the real lesson here. Yes, if the GOP didn't do XYZ voter suppression strategy, maybe Harris would've won. Maybe if she didn't campaign with liz cheney she also would've won. Maybe she would've won if she distanced herself from Biden on economics and israel. Maybe if the democrats didnt force the 82 year old with dementia onto us in the first place, they would've won. You know? You can say ANY of these things, and they're all valid. 

Again, the GOP does whatever crappy tactics they can get away with. Our side refuses to fight. They play to win. We rule police, dont do anything, and then get played into a corner. And now we're basically being checkmated. Way to go, way to go. I'd almost have more schadenfreude if the people who werent suffering from this are the same constituents you failed in the first place.

Building up my own worldview

 So, it kind of has occurred to me that I did this exact exercise once before. I outlined the christian worldview more succinctly and then built up my own worldview. However, i felt like discussing worldviews again is important due to current events, and I do want to offer a relatively abridged version of my own worldview. Without further ado, let me outline my own views.

 Philosophy

 Unlike the Christian worldview, i start with philosophy. As I see it, I am a thinking being. As Descartes would say, "I think therefore I am." So I can acknowledge that I, as a thinking being exist. I can also take note that I operate within this persistent environment that we call "the universe" or "reality." While it's true it could be an illusion and there could be other, greater realities out there, I can't observe them with my senses, so they're not really relevant here. 

I seem to exist on this planet earth. I am a human. Like humans, I was born of other humans and have parents. The universe doesn't seem centered around me, as there others like me, but I am the center of my own frame of reference. Solipsism could be real, but I consider that in the same category as the reality as we know it isn't real. Sure, it could be the case, but I actually think that it would take more effort to demonstrate that than just accepting what's in front of us. None of these claims are absolute and irrefutable, but I need evidence to believe something else. 

On the subject of knowledge, we can know things through observation, science (which is a controlled observation to test things), philosophy (taking what we know and applying logical principles to reach conclusions), and math (the same thing but with numbers). I tend to trend toward naturalism, but I do not deny that the supernatural or anything outside of naturalism can exist, I just need evidence that intersects with this plane of existence to believe in it.

Theology

 As such, functionally, I will accept an agnostic athiest position on god. I don't deny god can exist, but once again, I need evidence that intersects with this plane of existence. We don't have strong evidence that does so though, and most arguments in favor of god seem to fall flat on their face in practice, so I'm going to be inclined to be skeptical. 

I will take note that here there is a bit of a difference between my formal position on this subject and my personal position. Applying the christian logic of natural revelation and special revelation, I would say via natural revelation, agnostic atheism is the most intelligent view. But I do believe I have had a personal case of special revelation in the form of an anecdotal experience. However, I can't prove it, and I feel crazy even discussing it publicly, so I won't. It's not firm enough to be evidence enough for all to see, but it is firm enough for my own personal belief system. 

Biology/history of universe

My views conform to the scientific consensus. The universe as we know it is 13 billion years old. We don't know what came before, or if "before" even existed due to the relativity of time. It could be created, but we don't know it. It could also be natural. We don't know and we shouldn't inject weird claims based on religion or spirituality into it. That's not a good way to know truth.

Life somehow came about. Once again, we don't know the exact method, but that doesn't mean we should inject religion or spirituality into it. A lack of knowledge isn't grounds to impose a heavily biased worldview that has no evidence itself. It's better to recognize that we don't know than to inject an agenda into anything. 

But yeah, life seemed to start simple, but has evolved over time. Simple one cell organisms became more complex, eons passed, various forms of life came and went, and around 200,000 years ago, our species, homo sapiens, started to appear. We're an ape type species from Africa. We have since spread across the planet and adapted ourselves to six of the seven main continents or land masses on this planet.

History of civilization/basis of morality

Humans have always lived in groups. The fact is, it's a survival strategy. Life in a state of nature is, as Hobbes would put it, "nasty brutish and short." We die early and easily alone out there. Humans band together because it's in our rational self interest to do so. In doing so, we need rules. So we come up with stuff that's really basic common sense like "don't kill each other", or "don't harm each other." We don't always agree on specifics, and disputes between humans are as old as humans themselves, but still, there are some things we can likely agree upon. Like killing is bad. Harming others is bad. Infringing on others' liberty without a valid reason is bad. Happiness is good, pleasure is good, having your physical needs met is good. 

As such, we form moralities. I'd argue that the goals of these moralities are parallel to "natural rights" theory, but without the strange divine command theory BS. Life should be protected. Suffering and hardship should be reduced. Humans should be given some level of liberty to do with their lives what they want. I won't go so far to say property should be a natural right or goal of morality. i think such an idea is harmful and property is actually a relatively recent intervention of modern civilization, and the concept we are familiar with is very modern. As such, I would relegate it to a lesser status.

Ultimately, morality is supposed to serve humans. it does not come from a god, it comes from human beings wanting to get along with each other. And because we dont agree, sometimes we need to establish societies with laws in order to do this. Ultimately rules are enforced with force. Might makes right at the end of the day, although I will say just because might can force a certain status quo on people, does not mean that it enhances human well being. As such, let's separate the idea that morality is a practice to improve human lives, with the fact that governance in states have a history of just imposing things on people whether they like them or not.

Because that's what states do. Ever since states arose 5000 years ago, people have been forced to be a part of them, and to follow their rules and edicts. These rules often don't favor individuals forced to participate, but often the upper ruling class who actively enforces and benefits from them. 

For most of human civilization, societies have been an exercise in raw force, but starting with the enlightenment, we started putting principle into it. We developed grand theories of governance about how democracy or at least a constitutional republic is better than autocracy, and how secular governance is better than religious governance, and how a system of rights, checks, and balances is better than might makes right. The results to human well being speak for themselves. It's generally preferable to live in a free society than one run by a dictator.

As I said, I will dispute the right of property as a high level right, but I acknowledge property should exist and it should be tied somewhat to work. It makes sense from a practical perspective, although I don't think there's any cosmic rule that things have to be this way. it's just a social practice designed to meet our needs at a specific point in time. 

Psychology

I believe humans are neither good nor evil as it is up to us to define and apply meaning to those terms. However, we are capable of both. We are both the arbiter of all morality, but also the ones who transgress. We are, if anything, self interested and driven by survival instincts, although this sometimes does have selective elements of selflessness for the sake of the group. Ultimately though, I would assume, in a general sense, that humans are self interested and mainly interested in their own survival and well being. After that, it extends to family/friends/tribe, and from there it expands outward. Humans struggle with universalism and dehumanize each other a lot though, which is the source of a lot of evil that happens in a modern context of civilization. This is where racism comes from, it is where war crimes come from. It's how we justify some of our worst impulses against the aims of our own morality like slavery and genocide. We wouldn't wish those things on ourselves, but those other and different from us? Yes. Humans are dualistic and can be hypocritical. They can be loving family people but also monsters who exterminate others. Take note of this, as I see people recently trying to humanize hitler and the nazis by showing him posing with children and smiling. Yes yes, he's human. Humans sometimes show love and affection, but they're also capable of great hate. Just because humans do one doesn't mean they do another. It's up to us to try to make society the best for all of us, so that we can all live collectively in peace. That which benefits the collective often also benefits individuals. Keep that in mind when having stupid debates between individualism and collectivism and big government vs small government. I know it's not in our immediate nature, but the more universal our moralities, the better for all involved.

Also, mental illness exists. Psychology is legitimate although arguably biased toward current cultural practices associated with economics. Take your pills and see your therapist ffs. You don't need Jesus (really throwing shade at christianity here). 

Sociology

I dont care about weird god ordained institutions like family, church, and work. Sociology is a practice of studying humans and their cultural practices. We have norms, which are informal rules, rules, institutions designed to meet certain human needs, what have you. 

There are three branches of sociology that serve as important lenses for analyzing society:

 Conflict theory- looks at how society, its rules and institutions, serve the rich, the powerful, the privileged, etc. 

Functionalism- looks at the practical functions societal institutions serve

Symbolic interactionism- looks at the meaning that institutions give people in a subjective, cultural sense. 

All three are useful, although for my own analyses I tend to focus on conflict theory and functionalism as I'm not super interested in the soft mushy cultural stuff. 

As for the interaction between society and individuals. I do believe that society and other external stimuli do HIGHLY influence who a person becomes and their actions. I believe so to an extent that I'm not really sure free will exists. It really is hard to tell where determinism determined by biology and social influences end and where free will begins. As such, I oscillate between compatibilism and determinism a lot. I would say my naturalistic views trend toward determinism but my unproven spiritual views do imply some level of free will exists, although I'm not sure to what extent.

Law

Law is effectively applied morality for the masses. Everyone has their own subjective standards, peoples' ideas conflict, and ultimately, we need a set of laws to have something relatively objective to measure our standards against. Unlike in christianity, i dont see god as some ultimate lawgiver, nor do i value the views of authoritarians. While people can impose such views and insist might makes right, im educated in an enlightenment era tradition that recognizes that true morality comes from the people, and the consent of the governed. As such, societal laws should be determined democratically. Rights should be protected to avoid governmental overreach. Ultimately, law should also be universal as it applies to everyone subject to a government. All humans should be treated equally under the law. All should be given rights. It's the best way to stop the abuses that happen with tribalism and factionalism discussed in the psychology section. Laws should also seek to conform to the goals of morality, such as extending life, reducing suffering, and giving people liberty and the ability to pursue their own happiness. 

Politics

Politics essentially discussions and disputes that happen regarding law in society. Different groups have different visions for the way society should be, and given we live in a democratic society, the views that get the most votes tend to be put into law. I would argue that discussion of law and politics centers around the way things are. Some people see problems and want to change things to make them better. Let's call these guys progressives. Some are happy with the way things are. let's call them conservatives. Some are unhappy with previous changes and want to go back to some form of the past, let's call these regressives. 

My own political orientation is progressive. I generally believe in the improvement of society, and perfecting our laws and institutions to serve people better. I support sweeping change, especially on economics, although I'm more moderate and "conservative" on social issues and foreign policy issues. 

Ultimately, after a faction that is progressive implements their ideas into law, they become conservative. Then new progressives pop up and want to improve things further while other former progressives become conservatives and happy with the status quo. Former conservatives may become regressives, feeling that society went in a bad way and that they want to go back to how things were. Even though I'm progressive, I'm not necessarily implying any moral connotation in a vacuum. I have some views that are progressive, some are conservative, and some are even regressive. I do think that over time we should be progressive, but that doesn't mean that all change is good, you know what I mean?

Overall, I would say progressives are a minority in the US, while democrats are mostly conservative and republicans are mostly regressive. I WILL judge here. We do need a progressive approach to economics in particular, and soemtimes socially too. On most views im not progressive on I am relatively conservative, and in the modern context, I feel like the democrats are the true conservatives in society. Meanwhile the republicans are regressive and seem to want to go back to everything bad about the past. Gilded age economics, fundamentalist christian social views, even monarchy as of late, it's getting scary over there. 

So yes, I support a largely progressive/conservative mindset depending on the issues, and largely align with the democrats, although I dont always align with them either as I am far more progressive than them economically, and slightly more conservative than them socially. 

Economics

Like everything else, the economy exists for humans, humans don't exist for the economy.  I believe capitalism is better than socialism on the whole, although as Noebel pointed out no system is fully one or the other, and I tend to ultimately support a mix of capitalist and socialist elements as he uses the terms. 

I see capitalism as good primarily from a functionalist perspective, not a moral one. Economics is largely amoral for better or for worse, with most people acting in their self interest for better or for worse. While society does benefit to some degree from individuals acting in their self interest, often times they do not, and as such, the system requires heavy regulation. 

I also do believe that calling property rights natural rights on par with the likes of life and liberty is a perversion of what rights are, and this distortion of our comtemporary morality does a lot of harm. Functionally, it forces people to work, forces us to be wage slaves to corporations who don't care about us, and this is where a lot of the evils from capitalism actually come from. As such, to fix this, not only do we need a modern regulatory state, but we need a basic income with universal safety nets to actually ensure that the economy works for people, and that peoples' rights (outside of property...) are actually properly respected. Property is a mere means to an end, not an end in itself, and while some level of inequality is justified as a way to motivate people to work, the excesses of our society, both in the wealth that exists among the rich, and the poverty that exists among the poor, are NOT justified by this need, and a basic income should correct for that.

I envision a society where everyone is well off enough to meet their needs, and is free to live as they want, whether they work and not work. I dont see work as a great thing in and of itself, it's just how we do things in order to make the stuff we want and need. The only value in work in my opinion is the product. As long as the product is made, I don't really care if people work or not, and if anything, I think a society in which we work less and work is more voluntary is an inherent good as work is an inherent threat to our liberty and right to pursue our own happiness. 

In this 21st century moment, I actually support an economic bill of rights to guarantee the following:

An income at or above the poverty level

 Healthcare

Education

Housing

Leisure/work life balance/freedom

History

As a progressive, the arc of history is long but it bends toward justice. Early civilization was very nasty and brutish, but humans have greatly improved our morals, laws, and institutions over time. Hopefully, we keep doing so and don't let the regressives win and pull us back into another dark age, that would be bad. But yes, once again, progressive orientation. We started out bad, then got better. We still have more progress to make, although I hope that the regressives don't/didn't vote our rights away. Ironically, despite autocracies enforcing morality on people, i see them as very amoral and immoral. They dont care about the people, they care about themselves, at our expense. So, while I say that history tends to trend toward progressivism over time, sometimes we regress. And we might be doing that now in American society. I actually fear for our future the way the current administration is going...

Conclusion

 And yeah, that's my worldview in a nutshell. I think this is a bit more streamlined than my last iteration of this, and obviously, it is going to reflect advancements in my thoughts over the past few years, especially 2025, as we enter the second trump administration. But yeah, that's my worldview. it's mostly humanist. It's a lot better than fundamentalist christianity, that's for sure.

Why I don't view any form of Christianity as worth following

 So, part of the reason I retreaded Christianity lately is because I also had an argument with a friend about of this. With that said, I'm not posting this to be petty or anything, but because I really do believe in my views and I do think they should be discussed as they are the kind of views that I would normally express on this blog.

As I see it, Noebel's big pitch to me about it really resonates. Either young earth creationism is true, the world is 6000 years old, adam and eve were real people who committed real sins, everything wrong with the world is because of sin, and as such, we need a redeemer to set things right, with that redeemer being Jesus, or the entire worldview falls flat on its face. I don't believe in compromise, in reinterpreting scripture, what have you. If you wanna do that, that's fine, but I personally don't think any version of the religion is worth following. It just seems philosophically inconsistent, and while some people can make it work, as I said, I see such christians as outliers from the trend. They dont fit in any category, they just exist. And that's fine. But it's not for me. 

A lot of this argument happened because he was discussing some book talking about leaving christianity and it pushed some weird argument about how just because christianity is morally flawed at times doesn't mean that people should just LEAVE it, after all, other moral systems are flawed to.

But...to me, this is just this weird christian apologetics thing. Like, as we can tell from the noebel book in dissecting it, their entire pitch comes from presuppositionalism. They come at the subject from a position of faith, and selectively interpret the rest of reality around their faith. And honestly? A lot of christians who approach these subjects come at the subject similarly, they have SOMETHING that drives them to be christian, it's often beyond reason, and then they interpret reality around that belief. And people struggle sometimes to see past it. And that's where apologists try to get you. If you're questioning, they'll try to do damage control to get you to leave entirely. perhaps not all of them will be as rigid as noebel where it's all or nothing. They might suggest you adopt another version of the religion that reinterprets things to meet their super special version of it or something.

I just view such rationalizations as an exercise in futility. if you're having an existential crisis, what you need to do is calmly and objectively EVALUATE EVERYTHING. I questioned EVERY ASPECT OF MY WORLDVIEW and I reached atheism at the time through an objective analysis of the entirety of the evidence. The fact is, people who leave christianity don't really have a moment where they actively leave. They have a period of questioning where eventually, they just realize they have no further reason to believe, and they accept it. Christians will try to avoid reaching this point at all costs. The entire religion is based around this idea that above all else, you BELIEVE. And if anything is unforgivable in the religion, it's apostasy. There are entire sects of religion that will disown you if you leave. In the past, you'd even be tortured and killed for it. in many christian sects, those who leave apparently have eternal hellfire waiting for them at the end of their life, and many ex-christians still suffer religious trauma from those views. 

But to me, I actually think that something happens to a person when they reach that point. It's a lot like that moment when Goku watches Krillin be killed by Frieza in DBZ. Or Gohan watching Cell stomp on android 16's head. You snap. You suddenly experience a radical transformation that changes you as a person. The veil is gone. You no longer have any blinders on. Again, to go back to dero's 1984 video, i find it amusing how he sees the bible as "the truth", while society puts everyone in VR headsets and tells them what to do. I dont deny society has many layers of indoctrination to it, but what really pushed ME to take the headset off was...leaving religion. That's why this blog is named what it is. Because I left the cave, and I'm not going back. The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 13:11: " When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." For me, leaving religion was putting away such childish things. There's no value in it. There's no reason to hold onto harmful views that hold you back. Let go, and become an intellectual super saiyan.

 Once you conquer a worldview that tells you that if you dont believe it, you're going to hell, you'll be able to see through everything, if only you put in the effort. Not all ex-christians do. A lot of them get lazy and leave religion but somehow end up with a lifetime of societal indoctrination unchallenged. But my deconversion will always remain with me, even believing in some level of spirituality again. Because at that moment I snapped, the veil lifted, and I was finally able to see the world for what it truly is. 

As such, screw Christianity. Again, not trying to insult anyone who seriously believes in it. I find christians often confuse attacks against their belief system as attacks on their identity. This is not intended to do that. But yeah. it's not for me. I'm never going back to it. I literally don't see any value in holding Christian views, and while I'm not about to take away anyone's freedom to believe in that stuff as each person's journey is their own and people deserve the intellectual liberty to believe whatever they want to believe, but I see the belief system as authoritarian, restrictive, regressive, and harmful to humanity. Above all, it isn't even intellectually valid or true. Delving back into it recently for the recent blog posts makes me realize how much of it seems to be about selectively and dishonestly pushing evidence that supports such a perspective, while ignoring and downplaying that which doesn't. I have no use for it. And at this point, given I don't believe in the core narrative, I have zero reason to EVER go back.  

Understanding the Christian worldview

 So...in light of the current zeitgeist that is upon us, I feel that we need to "understand the times." For that, I'm going to take a page from "Understanding the times" by David E Noebel, a book that has been influential on me in the past, and actually explain the Christian worldview to you as he tells it. I feel this is important to do because we really need to understand this crap in the current political climate. We need to understand how crazy these Christian nationalists are, and how they think. And given I don't feel like the left truly understand what we've been dealing with until now, I figured I would explain it. 

I've discussed the book before, but long story short, it discusses six worldviews that it sees as in competition with each other. Well, really, its 5 worldviews it sees in competition with Christianity. Those being secular humanism (atheism), cosmic humanism (new age), marxism-leninism (leftism/socialism), postmodernism (basically "wokeism"), and islam (speaks for itself). The goal is this book was to inform christian teenagers of these other worldviews, in order to stop them from losing their way when they move on to college and the like, as a shocking number of young adults actually do lose their faith in Christianity.

I myself am part of those statistics at this point. Despite the book's guidance, I also shifted my worldview and my ideology as I got older, and now bat for the other team. While my worldview is not 100% consistent with secular humanism, it does make up the bulk of my positions, especially in the realm of politics. As such, I would kind of like to tilt the whole game on its head and dissect the fundamentalist Christian worldview for you guys, so you understand its BS, and how crazy it really is. 

David E Noebel splits worldviews up into ten parts: theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics, and history. As such the Christian worldview is a cohesive way to see the world that starts from the big existential questions like how did we get here and does god really exist, to specific questions like how we view history, and what our law, politics, and economics should look like. As such, this stuff is REALLY relevant to the modern culture war, and really, it's the blueprint for a lot of Christian nationalist BS that the right is pushing these days. Without further ado, I'll briefly sum up all 10 aspects of the Christian worldview and give some thoughts on them.

Theology

Christian theology is rooted in theism. They derive their belief in God from two sources: natural revelation and special revelation. Natural revelation is what we can deduce from the universe about God. This is why fundie Christians lean hard into arguments from design. They believe that the universe speaks to the fact that it is created. However, they recognize that natural revelation is insufficient for finding the character of God, so for that, they lean into the Bible, as if God spoke its words to humans themselves. 

It should be noted that in the Christian worldview, they start with theology, rather than philosophy. Whereas a secular worldview might start with philosophy as the way to deduce things about the world, the Christian worldview sees God as preceding the world that he created, and that the proper starting point for understanding the universe is from God. I would argue that this leads to a lot of circular reasoning, because the Bible's claims don't mean much if it can't be verified in reality. But for them, God exists, because the Bible says that God exists, and the Bible is special revelation from God, and so on and so forth. If one does not accept this starting point, I'm sure the rest of it doesn't make much sense either (heck the fact that I later shifted my philosophy to trying to find god through evidence found in the universe is actually why I was willing and able to reject this entire worldview).

 When I really think about this, basically, the Christian worldview is based on presuppositionalism. They just assume that God exists and that the Bible is real, therefore God exists and the Bible is real and if you dont accept that, nanana, you can't really know anything.

 Philosophy

 So, the book basically claims that reason and faith can be reconciled. They'll argue that the Christian worldview does not reject reason and evidence, but that their view of the world is justified through the evidence. And yet, in my experience, any time science comes to a conclusion that they do not like, the Christian worldview will reject it. They'll reject evolution and talk about how the scientists behind it are frauds looking to prop up a naturalistic worldview. They'll reject climate change by making weird arguments from design about how that can't be true. And the thing is, they can talk all day and night about accepting science, and they often will, assuming it does not conflict with their faith. However, when it does conflict with their faith, they'll reject it. This is because their worldview is functionally based on presuppositionalism. If the evidence conflicts with their faith, they'll just reject and cast doubt on the evidence, claiming that can't be right, because that means their entire worldview is wrong. As an ex-believer...yeah....no crap. For me, I deconverted explicitly because I found that the evidence does NOT align with their worldview, and understanding the science properly, I kinda realized that either I had to reject the evidence in front of me in order to accept something based on faith, or I had to reject this faith based worldview that came more and more in question.

 Still, when the facts go into their favor, or they can twist them into their favor, they'll often use that against naturalists. For example, understanding the times explicitly mentioned the mind body problem as proof of a consciousness beyond the mind. From a secular perspective, the answer to that claim is that just because we don't understand how something works doesn't mean that the Christian perspective is correct, but Christians will just spin everything in their favor. Christians will argue not just in favor of dualism, but a specific version consistent with their philosophy, while rejecting the secular position that just because we dont understand something doesnt mean we should make assumptions, or even an alternative perspective. They just shoehorn their faith into literally everything to make it sound more convincing than it really is.

Ethics

 Christians will argue that some level of morality is found in nature, citing the same functionalist basis of morality that I would in that some rules seem universal to all cultures. However, why is this? Well, in the Christian worldview it's because of God. It can't be because of, say, evolution and survival instincts or anything like that, no. They just shoehorn their religion into everything like a bull through a china shop. And then they turn around and say that without some authority to set the standard of all morality, we're left with only subjectivism. So basically, the fact that humans agree on things has to come from God. They later go on to argue special revelation from the Bible in favor of specific moral codes. 

Ironically, despite accepting that humans sometimes come up with moral standards on their own, they also accept that humans are sinful and subject to "wickedness" as well. They point out that everyone will make up their own moral code, and that only God's moral code is the correct one. 

This leads to the sin dynamic where everyone's morality leads to us falling short of God's standards, and how because God's law is perfect, that we need to be judged for our sins redeemed by Jesus, who is the only person who never ever broke the code in their worldview (they did mention some character aspects of god in theology, like him being a judge and a redeemer all in one). Of course, it's kinda funny they say everyone else makes up their own moral codes that people dont break, but everyone break's God's...except...god. So why is God's better than anyone else's? Because he knows better? because he is the creator of the universe? Because might makes right? 

Meanwhile when I deconverted i kinda realized not even all Christians follows the same exact set of morals and people disagree widely in interpretations and implementations of the code. They deal with conflicting principles which they claim don't exist because if they admit their code has flaws they might have to admit it's not as perfect as they say it is. Like, take homosexuality. The Bible is clear that it's a sin. but then you got some christians who say it isn't because blah blah blah interpretation. And then you had me who going by the spirit of the law realized that the anti homosexuality culture of modern christianity was leading to hatred and bigotry that Jesus would not want.

At the end of the day, we're all back to just following our own morals whether we realize it or not. It's just that some of these guys think they speak for god and that the bible has special truth for....reasons. Again, the entire thing seems based on presuppositionalism and not evidence push comes to shove. 

Biology

 You know, it seems strange that in the Christian worldview biology comes AFTER ethics, given, you know, my own understanding of ethics actually goes back to biology for me, but again, God centered worldview so to them if your moral code is a bunch of absolutism that comes from God it doesn't matter, but yeah for them biology comes AFTER ethics. 

And here we get spicy Christian infighting. You see, Noebel is a creationist. His worldview stems from creationism. He literally accept's the Bible's account of creation, and that the universe is young earth creationist in origins. Theistic evolutionists, on the other hand, try to compromise and recognize evolution exists and that God guided it. However, Noebel does not seem to think that such a view is consistent with God's character (since it relies on the "survival of fittest", which seems cruel to him), and that it seems inefficient as it would require constant meddling with the process to get the result god wants.

Even more so, Noebel rejects evolution because it would mean that the Adam and Eve story in Genesis didn't happen, which weakens the Christian worldview significantly. I mean, there are massive cosmic downsides to accepting evolution from a Christian perspective. Without original sin, the entire Christian worldview doesn't make sense. It means that we didn't sin originally, that the world didnt start out perfect and become flawed through the corruption of sin later on, and that maybe we dont need Jesus and redemption. Without genesis, the entire Christian worldview collapses like a house of cards, because that one card is load bearing for the entire philosophy.

Instead, fundamentalist Christians would rather cast doubt on evolution itself, poking holes in it, questioning the motivation and character of those who pushed such theories in the first place, and acting like they're frauds. I remember learning about how the so called cave men who were bridges between apes and humans were like frauds from scientists who wanted to make a name for themselves.

They also split evolution into "microevolution and "macroevolution", claiming that yes, microevolution, ie, the mutations that we can see happen, but that doesnt mean we can just go from one species to another over time. In reality, microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing, just on different time scales, but again, fundamentalist Christians just reject the time scales altogether.

 Beyond that, again, Christians just end up poking holes in evolution by making claims of "blind watchmakers" and talking of "irreducible complexity", as if evolution cant explain certain mechanisms in nature such as how eyes developed, or flagellums in some microscopic species. 

All in all, I could go on about all the arguments they use, but they seem to conform to a pattern. They'll ignore any evidence that challenges their worldview, while pushing evidence that appears to support it, and casting doubt on the entire thing because basically it doesn't fit their preconceptions for how the universe works, because if it turns out evolution is real, then the Christian worldview probably is false. 

For me, this is like a "no crap" moment of "yeah, christianity is false", but these guys are literally presuppositionalists who appear to just deny reality whenever it conflicts with their worldview, so they'll just continue to be skeptical of evolution while promoting their perspective. 

For all the flaws they point out in everyone else's views, they tend to have this entire thing be built like a house of cards on a bunch of assumptions that rely on faith. 

 Psychology

 Hoo boy, if you thought this was bad so far, it gets even worse here.

Here, they start talking about mind body dualism again, which isn't that bad in and of itself, but the they start going into human nature, and how humans are naturally alienated from God because of sin, and goes on to say that humans feel guilt for this sin.

In doing so, they seem to fundamentally reject the concept of mental illness. They see psychologists as trying to overly treat people for mental conditions when in reality all they need is good old Christianity. They need to be reunited with God and form a relationship with them, and that will solve the guilt that they feel, which will resolve their mental problems. I wish I was making this up, but this seems to be the gist of their worldview. 

 They also go on to discuss "the problem of suffering" and how reducing suffering isn't really a goal for human, because suffering is used by God to bring us to him and to guide us in our lives. As such, we should bear suffering with a smile on our face and embrace it. 

 They then go on to discuss how people are happier as Christians and how religion allows them to be happy even when suffering exists, and that religion helps them bear suffering. While I don't deny this myself, I also kind of see it from more of an "opium of the masses" thing where instead of, you know, fixing the problem, we just accept that the world sucks and passively refuse to do anything to improve it.

Really, this whole section makes me really realize how F-ed up this entire worldview is.

Beyond that, they also take a jab at sociology, rejecting the concept by suggesting that people are responsible for their own decisions and situations, and denying the idea that society determines anything, and consider blaming the system a "cop out." This is because, as we get into the next section, if we admit that society might be at fault for things, that denies the doctrine of free will, which removes responsibility from people for their sins. This also causes the Christian worldview to fall apart, as free will is paramount to the worldview to function.

Didn't I tell you that basically they'll just selectively deny anything that conflicts with their presupposed worldview? Yeah. And this is why it seems so hard for Christians and conservatives to be willing to accept the social sciences as valid. 

Sociology

 I kinda got ahead of myself here, but once again, they seem to emphasize personal responsibility and free will over society determining anything, because once again, conceding ground here throws their entire core worldview going back to the Bible into question. Still, they're not extremists and focus on so called "Christian pluralism", which rejects both an extreme individualistic and extreme collectivistic view of the world, and that "both individual and societal groups are accountable to God." This later becomes the groundwork for why all of society must abide by Christian ethics and is functionally where Christian nationalism comes from. 

Beyond that, they seem more focused on focusing on "biblically prescribed institutions" that make up society like "marriage and the family", church, the state, and labor. Yes, work is biblically prescribed as well. As we'll be able to see later, and as I have never shut up about since leaving Christianity, work is quite central to the Christian's worldview. 

I mean, between this and psychology, we're starting to see the direction that this is going where it's going to turn into Christian nationalism. We got ethics that come from God and are absolute, we got the idea that society is responsible to God, and we're starting to see these institutions that have religious origin falling into place.

With that said, things are going to get much clearer since the next few topics are, functionally, political.

 Law

 So this is where Christian nationalism really dials itself up to a ten. It basically says that human made sources of law are doomed to fail and that we are all subject to God's laws. They point out two versions of law, natural law and biblical law. Natural law are god's laws that we can deduce from the world around us. While I do acknowledge that there are some universal standards that we humans all end up falling into out of structural functionalism, I think it's a lot more subjective than Christians think it is. In the christian worldview, most humans know of natural law, but they choose to disobey because they are sinful and in rebellion against god. This is how they thread the needle between natural law existing and humans constantly doing bad things.

Beyond that though is biblical law and that's more special revelation from God. They point out that governments should "encourage people to obey divine law." They also take a jab at how those darned judicial activists "make law themselves" with their 1960s+ era rulings that legalize things like abortion and gay marriage. Yeah, so basically pushing judicial conservatism there...

Beyond that they talk of duties and rights, and how God gave us certain rights that come from the Bible, although then briefly discusses the founding fathers a little bit. In terms of duties, we have a duty to "live for god." Beyond that, they give a warning about how "god's justice cannot sleep forever" and that God might eventually punish the US for transgressions against his law.

Again, this is where we really get into the basis of christian nationalism. In the christian worldview, all legitimate law comes from God, human made law is doomed to fail, it's up to society to follow God's laws, and if we don't, eventually we will face consequences for this. You get a lot of the old testamentish stuff that happened with israel here, you know, if society obeys god, they will be rewarded, but if not, they'll be punished. 

 Still, they do acknowledge at the end that not all christian morals can explicitly be enforced in the law, and that we should only ensure that "order is maintained and human rights are protected." So they do end up going in a small government conservative direction toward the end there. You do realize this christian nationalist perspective is intertwined with the republican party and has been so since the 1980s or so, right?

 Politics

"The Christian worldview sees government as an institution established by God", is how the chapter starts. And it sums up the view. God put authority into place all of us, and lawmakers are to be consistent with his laws. They have a strong law and order orientation; both here and in the law section there's heavy emphasis on earthly authorities protecting "innocent" people from "the lawless" and promoting "justice" as they see it.

A strong natural rights orientation should be noted here, with the book explicitly supporting natural rights theory, and arguing that those rights come from God directly. They advocate for limited government, believing that power is a corrupting influence and is best spread out across the institutions in society (quick, someone inform donald trump, who is now to the point of floating being a monarch). They also argue that government primarily exists in order to protect peoples' natural rights.

They also explicitly endorse a christian nationalist perspective for the US, quoting a bunch of founding fathers and claiming that they got their inspiration from Christianity. An actual secular political science course will actually refute much of this, but once again, Christians selectively interpret things in their favor when they can while denying reality when it conflicts with their presuppositions.

Beyond that, they seem to condemn other worldviews, claiming that "human governments almost wind up overstepping their god-ordained role.", and that they tend to abuse their power. They also caution against "utopianism" from worldviews like humanism and marxism-leninism, in which in trying to make the world a better place, humans end up making it hell on earth instead. Only God should have power, and America should functionally have limited government....unless enforcing God's law of course.

Which is where we get a lot of the small government mentality within the fundamentalist Christian perspective and its marriage with the modern republican party. Of course, this book was written 20-30 years ago depending on which edition you read. Obviously, this part needs to be revised to justify the trump cult, although I do have some thoughts on that myself that I may express in a future post.

Also, if God's law conflicts with human law, Christians are expected to side with God over humans. Once again, I wonder how this works with fricking Donald Trump trying to seize power for himself as if he were some sort of king. 

Economics

Here, they explicitly argue that the Bible supports capitalism in the modern world because it supports property rights and encourages work ethic. While they admit that Christianity is split between capitalism and socialism, and we see some Christian infighting on behalf of the author in advocating for the capitalist point of view, they do acknowledge that there are a lot of socialist christians. However, much like with the christians who support "theistic evolution", they seem to think the socialist christians are quite frankly wrong and misguided.

The thing is, just like with politics, they fear large government and economic centralization, fearing that humans will abuse their power. While I can't disagree with them, hell, even I advocate for some form of capitalism even after deconverting, even knowing extensively of its laws, I can't really be in favor of free market economics.

They seem to admit that capitalism is imperfect, and that no economic system truly delivers justice, but they still let their fear of socialism going wrong push them toward capitalism. Again, I don't fully disagree with this analysis myself. 

However, what I will disagree with is their fetishization of property. Again, these guys see property as a natural right, and see the commandment against theft as being an explicit endorsement of a property system. Due to their small government approach, they believe in mere stewardship of legitimate property, supported by a "duty to work." Whereas my own moral system will view these institutions for that which they bring to serve humanity, yeah, again, we see strong lockean/protestant work ethic vibes here. They see an inherent moral rightness in the idea that hard workers be rewarded, while those who are lazy shall suffer. After all, the Bible demands it in their view. 

Beyond that a lot of their arguments are framed from relatively structuralist perspectives. They dont embrace a hardcore MORAL stance on capitalism outside of the work ethic it seems, as they, again, try to acknowledge that a large contingent of christians fundamentally disagree on this one and prioritize their ethics differently. 

They also argue a lot of "rich people in capitalism create wealth" style arguments, as well as deflect from the idea that poverty comes from economic exploitation by pointing out that sometimes it comes from hardship too. I mean...WHAT?! 

Either way, they seem to really be all die hard on the whole "we need work to create wealth" mentality and seem to advocate a point of view that is very much in line with the modern republican party. They seem to think that if we did not abide by these principles, that we would risk scarcity and not having enough to go around. 

They even start going into victim blaming in which they go on about poverty being a worldview problem and how a lot of poor people breed out of wedlock and that that is their source of poverty. While I don't disagree, to some extent that only happens because they force their stupid work happy worldview on us without caring about what it does for people. The system can't fail, it can only be failed and if sin is involved the poor deserve their fate I guess. 

Toward the end of they talk about how capitalism leads to freedom, while socialism puts power in the hands of the government instead. Again, I dont fully disagree with this, but I do think they oversimplify.

Which is where I'll come down on this one. While there is a lot of wisdom in this chapter that even as a humanist (or human centered capitalist) i partially agree with, there's also a great deal I don't agree with. I mean, at the end of the day, we can see how we get this system in which poverty happens because of capitalism and then the poor are blames for being too lazy and reproducing irresponsibly. And again, when sin is involved, they seem okay with it. You know, reap what you sow, what have you.

Meanwhile I dont put much moral judgment into peoples' behavior in my worldview. I tend to be a lot more critical of work and property, even if I would likely partially agree with them on functionalist grounds. Still it should be noted that using their definitions, my "humanistic capitalism" is a whole lot more socialistic than their laissez faire system is, and I do think that my economic system may be attractive to some Christians. Hell, I recently saw the pope calling for UBI AGAIN so yeah, maybe I can work with some christians after all here, even if i hate how elements of this christian worldview keep us all slaves to work and jobs because they see it as some BS divine duty to god and the justification of the property rights system. No, that stuff is a human creation, it doesnt come from God. 

Heck, I do find that whenever I agree with christians like in the realm of natural law, or natural rights, it's always from a functionalist perspective. I reject their morals, but I occasionally agree with them as far as the natural side of morality and institutions go. 

History

 This is a very weird section to have now. If I were to present my worldview in a similar 10 second way, history would be discussed much earlier, probably around discussing biology and ethics and before we start getting into the nitty gritty of social sciences. This is because for me, history is important in informing my worldview. It's important to understand how the world really works before we can start getting into the nitty gritty the details for how we should structure institutions and what the problems are. Like, in my own project, in the current draft I have, I basically discuss history immediately after discussing the rest of my worldview. I do this to set up a narrative for the greater arc of history behind capitalism, which I then use to define its problems and discuss attempted solutions at fixing it.

As such, seeing this at the end of the book is weird. Either way, maybe it is a fitting ending because it ties the whole worldview together for christians. In their words: "Either Christ is a historical figure and the Bible is a historical document that describes God's communications with humanity and records events in the life of Christ or the Christian faith is bankrupt." I mean, that's really what it comes down to. Either the Bible is actually true, or the Christian faith is false. We already know my own stance on this. That's why I left. Because I recognize it as being as bankrupt as it is. The Christian worldview is false, the history is false, the cosmology is false. 

Here, they argue that most critics of the Bible rely on flawed or outdated philosophical assumptions that aren't aligned with reality, and they basically claim the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. This is false btw. They were written 30-70 years later after a long game of telephone. They argue about the nitty gritty of how it was written and copied, trying to refute the idea that errors were made in copying and all. I mean, again, I took a Bible class in college, I understand how it all fits together, we actually have an idea of how the thing evolved and all fit together. I see nothing to view it as legitimately the word of god. After leaving those bible classes, my faith was struck a mortal blow as I basically started interpreting the bible less literally and with more loose and liberal interpretations. This is because a literal interpretation of the thing goes against reality. But again, they're trying to die on this hill of biblical literalism, while setting up the ultimatum that it's either their way or it's all BS...and here I am accepting it as all BS.

They start citing random references in roman and jewish records that jesus was a real person, but these references are also from decades later and even if the person was real, it doesnt mean the stories about him were true. 

I could go on, but I wanna focus on why they're going into this. It's because of this. Their entire perspective relies on "creation, fall, and redemption." Basically, the Bible was created in a young earth creationist sense, humans had fallen into sin, and need to be redeemed, with Jesus Christ being their human sacrifice to make it so, being the only human who lived well enough to be sinless in their view, because he was also the son of god, and god himself, because trinity. Again, this really is their entire perspective. This entire book is them distorting reality to push this idea, and ultimately, as I got more educated and started asking more questions, I started pushing back and recognizing that they were right, either the biblical worldview is true or it's all BS, and I accept it as all BS.

Conclusion

 And with that, we see what the Christian worldview is based on. It starts out as a presupposition that God is real, created the universe, and that the Bible is a reliable document, and then it distorts reality around that. It will claim to be reasonable and cite evidence when it fits its perspective, while casting doubt on it or rejecting it when it conflicts with their views.

 This would almost be laughable if it wasn't so scary. This worldview, or at least variations thereof, influence the majority of the American population. 37% of people, last I looked, are young earth creationists, which, given the modern age of scientific literacy and the overwhelming support of evolution, is indicative of this worldview. Because let's face it, no one in modern society should question evolution unless they're fronting a fundamentalist christian agenda. It's not that ideas are above dispute on a principled level, but they are on a practical one when the evidence is so overwhelming.

But it doesnt stop there. These Christians deny psychology and mental illness when it goes against their perspective. We can see this most clearly with LGBT+ issues where they just reject naturalistic explanations for homosexuality and gender dysphoria and just claim it's some major sin issue. Still, it does influence other mental illness too, and it actually plays into a guilt complex that actually does screw people up mentally itself. There's a reason I have trauma from this worldview, and I also know christians who suffer severe mental illness and its frustrating to watch them flounder around and not accept that their guilt based worldview is causing them severe mental harm and anguish. I mean, religion doesnt always solve mental illnesses, despite what this book says, sometimes it contributes to them. 

In sociology, they similarly deny sociological impacts that lead to the world being the way it is. Because their emphasis on the sin, guilt, and redemption dynamic is so acute, they will just flat out deny and downplay sociological effects that influence the world being as it is. They think that blaming the system is a cop out and that people are responsible for their own reality, only allowing for society to be judged in accordance with its conformity to gods laws.

We also see this at work in economics as, at least the author goes in a hardcore conservative direction supporting property rights and work ethic. They believe property is a right from god justified by work, and that there is cosmic morality to the principle that those who work are rewarded and those who dont are punished. This idea is very much relevant to the world today and does come from Christianity. Moreover, to go back to sociology, they'll flat out say the reason many people are poor is because they are lazy and irresponsibly reproduce outside of marriage. Once again, blaming people for their conditions if it goes against their super special moral laws.

beyond that, they really do have an authoritarian concept of morality and laws. They reject individual morality as mere opinion while putting god's law above everyone else's as the ultimate arbiter of morality itself. Even more so, they view societies as obligated to conform with god's law, threatening ruin and punishment toward anyone who denies the rightness of such laws. They dont trust human nature, they believe government is to be limited, and that sometimes the law shouldnt even legislate morality, although in a lot of ways they seem fine with it, especially with sexual sins against their religion. Despite claiming to be for small government, however, this seems mostly a product of the times, as in the years since the book was written, the republican party has become more authoritarian, more nationalist, and at this point, openly in favor of just making trump a king or dictator. 

It is possible that this is because christian nationalism isn't the entire right wing worldview. Just as this book will note that most competing worldviews make up a multi headed hydra of "the left", with secular humanism, cosmic humanism, marxist leninism, and postmodernism being various flavors of left wing political thoughts, it's possible that the right is the same way. Christianity might be the analogue to say secular humanism. But then you might have various flavors of hardcore capitalist taught opposing marxism-leninism. You might have white supremacy, nazism, and nationalism being the counter to postmodernism. You have a lot of weird dark enlightenment alt right stuff that seems to be the grease that melds these worldviews into one, with it having christian nationalist, fascist, monarchist, and anarcho capitalist ideas all melding into one. 

Or maybe authoritarianism always was in the christian worldview and that the worldview as it is written is just a product of the conservative movement at the time and no longer relevant as it mutates. After all, if God is the ultimate authority, and puts all authorities in place, perhaps we can just go back to divine rights of kings. You know, the christian worldview used to justify that BS at one time, and perhaps it will so again. It's a mutation. A "microevolution" if you will. 

Either way. I did want to write this, because I do want to remind people of how crazy christian nationalists are. And they are nuts, and dangerous, and highly relevant to the times. They are, at the very least, one head of a multi headed conservative hydra that makes up the current trump administration and MAGA, and are possibly one of the most influential...influences (it's 2 AM, im not at my most eloquent) in the republican party today.

Either way, this is what our enemy is, and this is what we need to push back against in the country as we know it. This entire perspective, again, is at minimum one head of a multi headed hydra, if it doesn't make up the bulk of the hydra itself. I just thought people should know, to realize that there is no negotiating with these guys, no compromises. They want a world in which we're all subject to god's law. And they wanna legislate it into reality, while claiming that's just how reality works and how we're wrong and the delusional ones. Yeah.