Tension Exposed

 

I read an editorial on 3/8/26 from the online source, Townhall.com. It was written by Derek Hunter and I copied and pasted it below and will comment on it. It is entitled, The Cracks in the Democrat Coalition Were Exposed in the Texas Primary. Here it is:

Derek (D after this): “

The Cracks in the Democrat Coalition Were Exposed in Texas Primary

Derek Hunter | Mar 08, 2026

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

State Senator James Talarico beat out Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett for the party’s nomination Tuesday by a healthy, though not embarrassing, margin. Under normal circumstances, with normal people, this would just be an election where one candidate won and the other lost. But we are dealing with Democrats here, and they are anything but normal people, and that makes for abnormal circumstances.”

I accept Derek’s characterization of the Democrats as not being any longer normal people, so that abnormality (most of them are true believers in their holy cause, Postmodernist Marxism.) colors all their thinking, planning, and actions. They behavior only makes sense as the fantastic goings-on and Party feuds among true believers.

D: “Democrats are not a unified group of people; they are an ever-changing coalition of groups of people who have been carefully cultivated through identity politics to be easily motivated to action based on the irrelevant characteristics they share. It’s an army of unthinking drones who don’t really like each other and have competing interests fighting for attention. It was always a house of cards. And while it may not be tumbling down right now, the Senate primary fight in Texas exposed a lot of the cracks in what is the “coalition” that makes up the Democratic Party’s base.”

My response: The Democratic Party base is an intersectionality of alternatively competing and yet united coalition of interet groups and varying minorities, wedded to identity politics and social justice grievances, and united by their hatred of all things American and Western.

D: “Talarico is a white guy and Crockett is a black woman. While you probably don’t care too much about that, to the “progressive” left, that means everything.

The progressive movement of the beginning of the last century was started by elitists who genuinely believed they were superior to everyone else. It wasn’t based on skin color, at least not completely; it was based on education and what they perceived to be “superior intellect.” Weirdly, it was mostly concentrated in the northeast.”

My response: The gurus or intellectuals who rule this movement have always shared an aristocratic bent, that they are smarter than, more ethical than, and just superior to the masses they rule and direct, though these “united” but competing minority groups will occasionally flare up against each other, not just against their enemies exterior to their cause, beliefs, and ambitions.

D: “These people would decide who was worthy of what, especially existing and breeding. “Low intellect” people were needed to do the “dirty work” of the time, but breeding at will was not acceptable, as they would soon overwhelm the system. Boom: Planned Parenthood and a push for abortion. Black people were the worst, even though there were plenty of black intellectuals who were a part of the progressive movement, so the abortion clinics had to be put near them, and unwitting sterilizations were implemented, albeit on a limited basis.

World War II and the horrors of fellow progressives in the Nazi regime put a damper on full-scale plans for the entire progressive movement seeking control of everyone, but the philosophy lived on, if only in academia. But academia is a great platform to infect others with the obedience beliefs needed for the progressive philosophy to really take hold.”

My response: Stephen Hicks and Chris Rufo have described eloquently how the Progressive philosophy not only lived on in Academia, but Leftist elitists captured Academia and almost all private and public institutions, the peaceful, woke revolution of soft tyranny, going countrywide by 2017 or so.

D: “It now owns the Democrats. And it gained that control through identity politics – the idea that you should identify with people more based on immutable characteristics than anything else. That prioritizes skin color, gender, sexual orientation, politics and all other manner of irrelevant traits over family, friendship, similar interests or geography.”

My response: The ideology of intersectionality or identity politics which pervades the culturally Marxist Democratic Party judges people by their immutable characteristics, or pure groupist ties, and more individualistic, less severely collectivist connections like which are sensible traits to unite over for political action, interests like family, friendship, similar interests or geography. Eric Hoffer wrote that individualistic Americans still had a wonderful knack for associations, friendships and cooperative interests, and that would not be lost in a society of individuating supercitizens as the average voter. The immutable characteristics of each individuator would not matter much in the public arena as shared intersest, competency, content of character and clearness of vision would unite voters in a common agenda to run the country via a political party, be it conservative or liberal.

D: “You can see the impacts of this poison by how leftists will be wildly upset over the death of someone like Renee Good, who literally ran her SUV into a federal agent, or George Floyd, a junkie criminal who overdosed. In Democrat controlled cities across the country, leftist drones took to the streets in outrage over those deaths without recognizing or showing any concern for the scores of dead bodies in those cities. Scores of murders of people within walking distance of them did not motivate them to even vote differently, for people who might try to put an end to that slaughter, because a lesbian or a black man died in a way that the left found exploitable.”

My response: Leftists are expert at feigning outrage when one of their group’s members is killed, and their fake anger is not out of compassion for the fallen victim, but this protest or anger is a vehicle for gaining national power over their enemies, and to enslave the people even further.

D: ‘With that tribalism comes a lot of power to motivate people; to get them to vote against whatever “boogeyman” you’ve created for them, usually white people, specifically white men. In Texas, a white man was on the ballot and the establishment Left really, really favored him over the black woman, so they concocted a scam to make it seem like President Trump was trying to silence him.

That scam, run by Talarico’s campaign and fellow white guy Stephen Colbert, worked. Every single bit of it – that the FCC was threatening CBS if Colbert had him on – was a lie, and everyone knew it was a lie, but it was a useful lie, so it was reported as truth. Money flowed to Talarico over the lie and it carried him past Crockett, who could do nothing but watch as her pointing out the lie of this scam had her treated like a Republican by the corporate media. They wanted their white guy and they got their white guy.”

My response: The Democrats in Texas likely favored Talarico over Crockett because they thought he had a better chance than her of winning conservative white voters in a state-wide election; I believe their favoring Talarico over Crocket was that calculated.

D: “Well, black women were very unhappy about this, having been conditioned to believe they can only be represented by someone who looks like them.

In the aftermath, black women were posting to social media about how they felt betrayed yet again (after Kamala) that a candidate who looked like them lost, because that candidate looked like them. There was no entertaining the idea that Crockett was a horrible candidate, mostly because Talarico was too; it had to be about race and gender. They were pledging NOT to vote for Talarico because of this feeling.

While that feeling will likely pass for most of them, the sentiments behind it are a problem for Democrats. Talarico is an awful candidate, and “evangelical pastor” who seems to spend a lot of time talking about how God is non-binary, Jesus was trans and the Bible is largely about using the power of government to force your will on others and justify abortion. Christians don’t recognize Talarico’s religion, and that won’t fly very well in Texas.

All of this was known; Talarico’s “sermons” were all online, but Crockett couldn’t draw attention to them. They were running in a Democrat primary where that would hurt her. But Republicans can. Just as Crockett couldn’t point out the vagaries of Talarico’s sexuality – he’s not married, effeminate, very, very concerned about the Alphabet Mafia (particularly the “T”), and he sends gaydars buzzing from coast to coast. That would have sunk her in a Democrat primary, but it raises questions about character and honesty, even if no one cares about what he does in private, in the general election.

Jasmine Crockett couldn’t run an honest primary campaign against James Talarico because she would have damaged both of them, thanks to left-wing identity politics. Now, black female pundits are turning on Hispanics for not voting for Crockett. The vote for Prop 8 in California back in 2008 already exposed what many people knew – black and Hispanic voters are not big fans of gay marriage. While the marriage issue may have subsided, the underlying animosity hasn’t – the idea of “the downlow” is still a very real thing in certain communities and cultures.

That fact, coupled with all the racial animosity and tribalism Democrats use to herd people into various groups – the divide TO conquer gambit, as it manipulating group against group is easier than convincing individuals – created a Democrat Party made up of a fragile coalition of groups that, thanks to the manipulation of “progressive leadership,” don’t really like or trust each other all that much.”

My response: The Democrats/Progressives have held their rainbow coalition of various minorities together so far, but perhaps Derek is correct and that unity is now cracking and may disintegrate, hurting Democratic plans to win elections in Texas or anywhere.

D: “When Biden was forced out of the race, the last person the liberal establishment wanted was Kamala Harris, as they knew she was a horrible candidate and an awful campaigner. But they could not pass over a black woman for a white man without losing the black vote, especially the black female vote, which is the most loyal to the party. They’d painted themselves into a corner.

Now, the party is painted into corners all over the country, with radical leftists challenging incumbents on the basis of identity as much as anything else. With each loss, another constituency is further alienated, and with every victory, another radical further alienates voters and damages the Democrat brand elsewhere in the country.

Democrats are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. It couldn’t happen to a nicer, more deserving group of people…”

My response: It would be great news is the culturally Marxist mass movement was finally fizzing away but I would not count them out yet.

D: ‘Of course, none of this matters if Republicans can’t get their acts together, achieve important victories on the economic front and elsewhere, and learn to message to voters not only just how awful what Democrats seek to do, but the good that Republicans will do. And they have to mean it. Those last two points may well be the best thing Democrats have going for them this cycle. Time will tell.”

My response: Yes, conservatives and Republicans are quite capable of screwing up their chance of winning the midterm elections, so they had better get the message out just as Derek suggests, and they also need to rally the base to get the vote out, and ask President Trump to campaign coast to coast as if he was on the ballot himself.

Rank Ethical Speculation

 

I had two flashes this morning (3/8/26), both of which I am converting into blog entries.

This second intuitive flash, rank ethical speculation per se, is my thought that God, the universe and humans, the universe, can only be put right and kept right, if humans or other rational beings, moral, limited and biological, exist.

The universe is made right and kept right somehow through the existence of, the tribulations endured by and the willed efforts made by mortals. Both the existence of and the moral exertions undertaken by such mortals require the existence of actions (and responsibilities incurred for choices made) implemented by intelligent beings, mortal, wielding free will, rational and yet born depraved. God needs us to exist, to sin, and then learn not to sin, so that by their moral exertions, humans globally, communally or individually make the universe function, recovering, keeping or regaining natural, moral and spiritual health.

Crudely put, human existence is like a sewage system lagoon, purifying all the wastes from the universe piped into such a putrid lagoon.

A more noble way of stating it might be that there cannot be morality or spiritual goodness that is earned without intelligent beings who choose to—or not to--lead ethical lives, that there is no impactful, substantive morality, without those of free will suffering mortal doom.

Forever

 

I see humans as limited, mortal, inherently imperfect. I also love the Bible and Judaism and Christianity, but I hesitate to accept the prevalent theological account, the all or nothing excessive divine reaction to and judgement accordingly meted outs against puny humans after death for their voluntary offenses and or willed compliance with divine wishes.

Christian and perhaps Jewish cosmology that establishes that the unrepentant sinner without grace burns in hell forever, and that the virtuous, faithful near-living-saint who accepts Jesus or Yahweh wholeheartedly into her life and heart is saved forever.

My take is that the good deities, in the name of being just and fair, with their keen sense of moderation, proportionality, and fair punishments and rewards, mete out to humans, a divine justice that is, for most humans, after death comes, delivered to each of the departed as their punishment or reward, negative or positive sentences which are of limited duration, not in effect forever.

This could lead to a belief in something like the reincarnation of soul—it could but need not too--because in one life time, humans of such deep, natural depravity, reared in cultures of extreme primitiveness and barbarism, that we expect short-lived, children of blighted, confused, limited consciousness, to make responsible choices, to make voluntary moral and spiritual choices, with forever after-death ramifications, such excessive sentencing is not required, in most instances, and it is not deserving as such drastic permanent, divine sanctioning. Should divine sentences at judgement day be eternal?

The Bible account of burning forever or going to heaven forever seem too extreme to me, and undeserved on either end, going to hell or going to heaven.

Immortality

 

Some secular humanists, including transhumanists, want to live forever, and are funding scientific research to that end.

I believe that would be a terrible mistake to wish for, or even implement, even if it becomes scientifically and biologically feasible one day, and that may come about.

My repulsion towards such meddling with human mortality limits is that is grounded on two premises.

Psychologically, we are tied to the generation, the culture, the epoch in which we lived our long lives. To go beyond that and live forever is to violate some natural and likely supernatural laws about there being a season for everything, a time to live and time to die. If these were the conditions, instilled in us by our Creator as optimal for a human to gain and keep self-esteem and know happiness when a mortal in body, and as a possessor of a limited soul or consciousness best happy when living and dying when one should, then living forever is most undesirable and to be avoided.

To stay to long, or beyond what is allotted to us, may lead to our feeling damagingly lonely and isolated from our generation, the vanished world that we knew in our youth. Our concomitant unhappiness and sadness may then become inverted into rage, resentment, malice, insanity even.

We dread dying, and are terrified of the end, but, really, we must be assured and settle for knowing we will live on spiritually; that is the way of the world.

God, deities and angels, who live billions of years, perhaps forever, and yet are pure love, pure individualism, wholesome, unlimited consciousnesses: these immortal individuals are built to handle cosmic, eternal isolated; they are so lonely and alone, that we could not maintain psychological health as they do living forever. We are not built to withstand the pressure of being loners on such a prodigious, profound scale and level. We are not built to handle such an enormous psychological burden, and it would be unwise to seek to do as divinities do, to live forever, or an inconceivably long time, because we are not accepting our natural and supernatural limits, which God wants us to do.

We are in great peril, should we start to ignore God’s injunction to humans to die and die gracefully when our time is up.

Motivated

 

I was listening to Chris Stigall on Salem Radio in the morning of 2/12/26, when he and his guest, who he was conversing with, brought up an important, alarming point. The guest was noting that Democrats are much more politically motivated, astute, and structurally self-framing to work together quickly, repeatedly, permanently ready to trigger a huge rally by loyalist support in public, going public in unison to get their political agenda passed to sway the majority of the voters to their way of doing things. Their political action machine is far superior than is the disorganized, undeveloped, faltering, intermittent Republican and conservative effort to get out the vote, and to rally the public to adopt a conservative agenda. Democrats on average are much better at being organized, united and orchestrated about any issue arising. Can this advantage be reversed? Yes, but it won’t be easy, automatic or without the need to constantly work at it.

Republicans, naturally are more individualistic, focused on their ow private affairs, and dislike participating in civil engagements, joining political organizations, running the government as active citizenry. That natural penchant is allowing Democrats to have their way in the public sphere. Republicans are much more detached from being permanently involved in government affairs, far more so than their Democratic rivals, the more groupist, social Democrats.

That is a huge political disadvantage in the realm of governance for Republicans who mightily struggle to awaken, energize and convert the loyalty of their supporters and the rest of the public to adopt their agenda. Conservatives lack the political savvy and machinery to win the people, to transform their public messaging, into an efficient, effective, productive political push and grass roots movement to sway the public and public policy.

Democrats and leftists are in campaign mode perpetually, so they win more fights than they should. To compete and win, Republicans and conservatives too need to be in perpetual campaign mode on every level of government from local elections to congressional legislative sessions.

If Aristotle is correct and I think he is, the ethical citizen is supposed to also play his role as a responsible citizen so that the government and its legislated and thus implemented policies are a logical outgrowth of the communal, ethical stance held by of the majority of the private citizens, who are in agreement as to how private virtue makes good public policy, for ethics and politics are inextricably linked.

I do not recommend that conservatives legislate morality but instead suggest that their political vision and policies choices are roughly consistent with the ethical views shared by the majority of their followers.. To shape public policy, conservatives and Republicans must copy Democrats and leftists who are in campaign mode perpetually, so that is why it is easy to rally them on any issues their leaders deem critical so they are able to ignite passionate calls to action for their habituated followers to loudly, immediately clamor in public, bringing daunting pressure and media attention to it the issue under discussion

. These advantages Republications and conservatives do not have because they are not in campaign mode all the time, and they ignore public affairs: a grievous mistake because bad actors and bad values have wrecked America as a result. We must not blame the sorry state of our country so much on the bad actors and the bad policies, but mostly I condemn disengaged, listless, unimaginative conservatives for not doing their duty to be active in public affairs, their unfulfilled mandate to run thing on all levels of government and society all the time.

Republicans and conservatives do not unite or stay united, and if they do, as they have done successfully more lately, they are pleased with their temporary victory about one issue or law, and then go back right back to their private lives with no interest in public policy, going back to being disengaged, feeling their fight is over, and it is never over. People will only change the culture and the politics on all levels of governing if they run things at every level, all the time. If good people and wise policies are not being made law, bad people and bad policies will proliferate excess government growth and senseless, liberty-robbing laws and do.

Republicans and conservatives too must educate and habituate their supporters to be ready all the times, at a moments notice, forever going forwards, to hit the streets, flooding the public with the emails, over-running congressional phones numbers, media reports and social media clamoring to loudly, on an ongoing basis, to quickly, massively, routinely, mobilizing their supporters and followers –who are eager to be mobilized and answer the call to perform public service--to bring quick pressure to sway public opinion and public policy.

Once Republicans and conservatives as a whole are competing with the Democrats and Leftists, conditioned and willing to speak and move as one voice and one mind to preach the party line on any issue or event, as their Leftists bosses command followers to think say and rally, protects, demonstrate etc, then Republicans will more legislation battles, and capture more elected seats.

Also in evidence is the lockstep unity of Democratic legislator sin legislatures state and nationally stay on message with one voice, all obeying the group messaging. The followers of Democrats and leftists are ever ready to organize, protest, hit the streets—in other words, they are constantly ready and do in unison spring into action, springing into action to bring pressure upon politicians and the media, including swaying public opinion and controlling the day’s narrative on social media and all media.

This guest and Stigall were expressing frustration that Republicans and conservative-oriented, committed constituents failed to be ready at a moment’s notice to ratchet up pressure, phone calls, emails, contributions and pressure campaigns on politicians to push the conservative agenda.

I have explained elsewhere that Progressivism or cultural Marxism in America, which is synonymous with Democrats and Leftism, are true believers, and their mass movement and holy cause, postmodernist Marxism is the source of the unbreachable unity, willingness to self-sacrifice for the spread and perpetuation of the cause, and be ever activistic to spread this cause tyrannically, culturally and socially all over America until The American Way is vanquished and but a memory.

Conservatives can only match that zeal, total unity and unswerving dedication and loyalty as united millions of individuating anarchist supercitizens. Then we will have the unity, the strength the will and the perpetual desire to be in politics to fight to keep our great exception country, its constitution, its freedoms, its civil society, its free markets, its magnificent culture.

I do not recall if these two pundits wondered out loud why Democrats are so politically organized, disciplined and motivated to push their interests on every level of government while Republicans remain unmotivated, not politically astute, not active, not obsessionally but persistently passionate and ready to engage,, rally and pressure every time it is vital to do so. I think I know why liberals are motivated and conservatives are not

For 25 years or so Democrats and liberals have been moving leftwards; they are true believers in their revered cultural Marxist ideology and that political way of life which renders these devotees collectivized to expend themselves tirelessly to spread their holy cause, its tyranny, its violence, its terrorism, across the land. They are more than motivated: they are hyper-motivated. Without questioning and with bottomless zeal, they hear, believe, obey and execute the commands to action from their ruling elites, ordering them to spring into action at a moment’s nitice.

Conservative, still more individualistic and private, are not ideologues and not political so they lack fanatical motivation to get political and stay political rallying not as one voice whenever needed.

Conservatives need to and are hard-pressed to match that level of motivation and eagerness to fight for the cause they promote. It is difficult for an essentially private person and individual to dedicate time, thought and effort to push a political agenda. Conservatives must learn how to be principled but not fanatical political activists, all the time, on all levels of governing but as individuating anarchist supercitizens, not as true believers with nationalism, communism or fascism as their sacred cause.

If one is becomes an individuating anarchist supercitizen, one becomes able and strong-willed enough to energize the self without receiving orders from a guru running one’s mass movement. Superrcitizens will be political all the time at all levels to make sure the system is clean run, fiscally sound, kept limited in size and scope, and well run, but mostly they will be private individuals running their private lives at the same time. They will have the energy, will, and versatility to balance and juggle both, their private and public roles and duties.

They will be idealistic and yet practical and moderate enough to work with millions of other supercitizens to develop, plan and execute a national plan good for each individuator and good for America.

Supercitizens will run the school boards, serve as dogcatchers, township clerks, city council members, filling all bureaucratic and elected roles all the way to president and foreign affairs secretary.

Progressive true believers are vigorous and energetic because they are in the active phase of pedaling their holy cause. Their guru has ordered to be active, so they are. True believers, otherwise in quiet political eras, are listless, silent, basically meek and fatalistic.

Supercitizens by contrast must become politically motivated and engaged and then stay that way as a political and cultural defenders for decades to come.

None Excluded

 

I subscribe to The Cavalier Chronicle, and I check out the weekly homily on Page 7. I write out below the one from 8/13/25 edition called, What’s Your Part? Here is the homily: “Everyone Counts.”

My response: Yes, God excluded none but those who freely elect not to be in God’s circle.

Homily: “Everyone brings a spiritual something special for the benefit of others.”

My response: Each person is an individual, and if she choses to maverize, then it becomes readily apparent that each person brings something stirring and original for the benefit of others, and God and God enjoys that too.

Homily: “So don’t sell yourself short. Bring yourself—and the gifts you are—to church this week. He gave gifts to His people. Ephesians 4:1-16.”

My response: Develop that gifts that you are, the gifts that Christ gave you, and then the gifts that you are can be shared with others and with God in church and anywhere really.

Nick Shirley

 

Nick is the 23 year old, self-described independent journalist (right-wing influencer to his leftist critics) who uncovered some fraudulent front building scams run by some of the Somali community in Minneapolis.

I subscribe to his Facebook account and I agree with most but not all of his listings there. He is obviously a born-again, evangelical Christian, likely a staunch Protestant, perhaps a fundamentalist. Here is what he posted today (2/22/26) on Facebook, a meme which I wish to disagree with at least in partL Nick: “Good people don’t go to heaven. Forgiven sinners do. Salvation is by grace, not goodness.”

Let me unpack this by starting with a digression. Jordan Peterson, for years has not said yes or no as to whether he believes that God exists, let alone accepting Christ as his personal savior, and I think Peterson is evasive (One should never be evasive concerning Jesus or any good deity, lest they take offense and punish one in this world, and perhaps hurl one into hell, for we are to get hot or get cold or Christ will spit us out of His mouth.) for four reasons.

First, Peterson, as a subtle intellectual, a professor and original thinker, and an accomplished, recognized social scientist, is dispositionally averse to surrendering his ego, his pride, laying his whole ego and personhood fatalistically like a humble child at the feet of Jesus or another kind deity, allowing them to do the thinking for him, to run his life. The surrendering of the intellectual’s consciousness to God is something the intellectual is reluctant to do, and I do not believe that is what Jesus wants: we can be proud, willful, think for ourselves, and as much as we can run our own affairs, and Jesus is fine with it as long as we are working for Jesus and advancing His agenda of love, spiritual and moral goodness in the world.

Second, Peterson the scientist, may be a monist believing only that the material world exists, even though he dabbles heavily into interpreting—with much success and expertise--the meaning of sacred texts, mythological stories and metaphysical puzzles. He can’t quite nudge himself to believe that the world is dualist, and that the existence of a spiritual realm might well entail existing, present, operating and benevolent deities who run that realm. Therefore, he might consider Jesus to be a wise prophet, but not the Son of God.

Third, Peterson the metaphysical moderate—the middle is the way—as I am a metaphysical and theological moderate—even if he did believe that there is a spiritual realm, that there are benevolent deities, may not believe that there is only one benevolent deity (Jesus) or that if there are 2 or more benevolent gods and goddesses who exists and who may be worshiped alongside of instead of solely worshiping Jesus (I believe Jesus is the son of the Mother and the Father, and that he has many good deities of both genders, who are His siblings symbolically and perhaps literally, and that He is fine with people worshiping only Himself, or other deities too or inclusively with Himself.).

Peterson is much influenced by Buddhist thought and Taoism, so his metaphysical moderation makes it hard and perhaps impossible for him to commit to identifying Jesus as his exact and perhaps only route to salvation, but I do not think Jesus is as extreme as He seems to be in the Bible, or that He insists the only path to heaven is through Him alone. He may be the best path to take, but His path is not the only road to heaven.

Jesus in the New Testament sure sounds all or nothing, or we will burn, but part of that can be explained away as God detesting evil and liars, so God hates the evader, the most inveterate liar, who will not take a side. If could be that the one who speaks his truth or the Truth about Jesus as not being God, not being the only route to heaven, or denying the spiritual realm exists, that firm stance once the person repents after death and goes through Purgatory, he might get to heaven or even out of hell faster that the evader. If Jesus makes his judgements about our eternal assigned destiny along these lines, then his admonishment to humans demanding they—concerning accepting Christ as their savior or not by getting hot or cold is less about embracing fanaticism than rejecting evaders from truth-telling and clear communication of the sinners acceptance or rejection of what Jesus offers, and a clear, final assessment as to the divine nature of Jesus holding or not. As a metaphysical moderate, I consider fanaticism to be directly manifesting evil in the world, I submit. I believe that Jesus does not want us to be hot or cold because fanatical choice and commitment are the Christian ideal, so much as Jesus is fiercely, angrily coming down on evaders and their fence-straddling dodges as they hem and haws, both living a lie and telling a lie which insults and infuriates a trenchant good deity like Jesus who hates and punishes liars and those addicted to evil-doing more than anything else to be prioritized.

Four, Peterson repeatedly insists that whatever God is, God is moral goodness. I think he makes a profound point here. I think he is right and means what he says, that we can identify God not with words, names or definitions, or by just surrendering our souls to Jesus to receive His freely given grace of eternal life, a profound gift.

Rather we only believe in God, we only can know that God is present, we can only define God, and only believe in God when we live a very, very ethical life; for only that mode of existence allows us to know God, know ourselves, and allows us to name and define God and ourselves. For Peterson, God literally is love and we as individuals are only good and godly and with God and serving God when we are love and kindness, practicing excellent self-care, excellent other-care, excellent care of the deity we worships, and His or Her world, nature and the creatures of nature. This is what Peterson is saying and He should not be evasive, but spell out his view here, and I like how he defines who God and Jesus are.

Only as moral giants of love can we can define God and that is expressed ostensively. God is of perfect or near-perfect spiritual goodness and moral goodness, and the two cannot be separated.

For Peterson ,if good deities exist, and Jesus is one of them, then salvation is gained by the individual for herself as matter of grace and good works coextensively; one cannot be one without the other, and Peterson not letting evangelicals like Alex Shirley off the hook, they who downplay or dismiss the importance of perfecting oneself morally. If the Christian denies the important of earned, merited moral goodness achieved, then that cannot be the one true faith, for Jesus as a lover of truth and love will want us to be both believers and moral to be fit to enter the kingdom of heaven

Peterson should just come clean and tell the Christians that he is not one of them. I sense something similar with Robert Lawerence Kuhn with his strict agnosticism as to whether the consciousness is a hard problem with the answer to what consciousness is lying somewhere between eliminativism and panspsychism.

Kuhn too seems evasive, finally admitting that consciousness is more than eliminativism tor reductive physicalism but is something like property dualism. Kuhn likely is an atheist and a material monist, but then he should not be evasive about it, and just admit that he is an atheist and monist, that dualism is not how the world is, so there is no god to worship. Both Kuhn and Peterson may be agnostics which is acceptable to Jesus than their being evaders, for Jesus hates evil and liars or evaders above all else, so being evasive and agnostic because one is not willing to take a stand for fear of losing popularity, or influence or offending someone is dangerous to one’s social standing, so the evader is risking losing his immortal soul as an unprincipled evader, a pure liar, for he has offended God mightily.

Now let me answer Nick’s evangelical assertion. Good people go to heaven and only good people go to heaven, or have a chance to go to heaven, but, at the same time, and as exclusively and exhaustively, even if this seems absurd or contradictory, the good person must have a powerful faith in some good deity like Jesus and unequivocally accept that deity as her savior.

She is both good and a believer by believing in and choosing to reach out the good deity, by demonstrating to God her willingness be to accept God’s grace as a gift of eternal life offered freely and without merit to all that ask for it. Thusly, the person can know salvation. The moral goodness is the ethical part, the left hand part and spiritual goodness, the gift of faith allows the person to receive God’s free gift of faith, is the right hand spiritual part, and the moderate combining of these polar opposite needs allows the person to enter heaven. Then the saved, forgiven sinner achieves or is granted freely salvation by both her faith in the deity and her willingness to receive the deity’s grace and by her achieved, merited moral goodness, both critical to her being allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven.