The left says “hate speech” is bad and equates a differing opinion to a violent act. They want to blame the inanimate object and not the individual. To the modern progressive mindset - one shaped by very real forces and historical influences which we will get into shortly - violence is a means to an end and we’ve seen that sentiment clearly displayed in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
The modern progressive claims some kind of stochastic violence is rampant because of people like Kirk, so when it comes back at him in this repugnant way, many have justified it as proportionate to his “crimes”.
Charlie Kirk believed in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour, and many progressives do not. Instead, they have elevated evolution, “liberalism” or even the state as their god. But more than what they elevate, it’s what they commonly reject that really sets their intentions.
In the American context the main points are two things that stand in the way of progressives achieving their “liberation” from responsibility. We also argue this acts as a kind of psychological anchor to their own version of “original sin”.
the first amendment
the second amendment
In the case of the United States, classical liberalism was born from the idea we choose to follow the rules of a Godly person, which was the norm for the peoples of America back when the concept was first conceived of. Here we argue many of the ideals that led to the foundation and success of the United States were rooted in this concept of a “Godly” person.
We also suggest it is false and always has been to suggest that there was only one “enlightenment”. We wrote about that recently but it has come to our attention there’s an even sharper way to draw the distinction between the two ideas we previously tried to categorize as “Ordered Liberty” vs. “Unmoored Liberty” .
Two Enlightenments, Two Paths
The following continues the thread we’ve been tracing — the lineage of the Enlightenment, its logic and its reason, and how that inheritance shapes our present.
While this works, it’s not the push but the pull that seems to unite these actors.
In the wake of Charlie’s tragic event, we think this bears a new examination—we examine what we argue is the proper way to make sense of some of the things we’ve seen happening since.
The First and Second Amendments
From Google:
The First Amendment protects fundamental rights of expression and belief, including freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly, and petitioning the government.
The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which was historically linked to the need for a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state, according to Britannica.
First Amendment
Freedoms:
Guarantees several freedoms, including the ability to:
Religion: Prevent the establishment of a religion and protect the free exercise of religious beliefs.
Speech: Protects the right to express oneself without government interference.
Press: Ensures freedom for the media to publish and report.
Assembly: Allows people to gather peacefully.
Petition: Grants the right to ask the government to address grievances.
Purpose:
To ensure individuals can form their own judgments and have their voices heard without government limitations.
Second Amendment
Right to Bear Arms: Protects the right of people to keep and carry weapons.
Historical Context: The amendment originally referred to the necessity of a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state.
Modern Interpretation: Today, it is often understood as guaranteeing an individual's right to own arms for self-defence.
To understand what animates the modern progressive “left”, they do not like either of these amendments - ones that could be argued were placed in first and second positions quite on purpose - because they see these concepts as individual responsibility, and progressives don’t like individual responsibility. They like to blame the environment, because they can draw up policies and plot paths to affect the environment, and thereby the person who lives in the environment.
Be the change, yes we can, and America was never great.
They attach these amendments to historical guilt, which is why in the retelling of the W.A.S.P. (“wealthy” or sometimes “white” Anglo-Saxon protestants) that founded America, they reject both the white and the wealth. If you happen to be both may their god have mercy on your Soul.
If they even believe you have one, that is. To the progressive you are a blank slate. The sum of your parts as well as the sum of your experiences, but anything you have that resembles a Soul is probably just an illusion. This is literally what they will repeat to anyone who listens.
It’s questionable in this framework as no one is responsible for anything, except the wealthy and white people, which is why they have to pay to change it all into something that looks nothing like the wealthy white world. The colonizers and the imperialists. The ones who own all the things and build all the stable societies - the progressives story, not mine - that need to be torn down so that all the other places in the world that don’t have such nice environments can become better somehow.
It is unclear what will happen in this world view once there are no longer nice safe and free environments to flee to. Perhaps that is the true freedom they seek.
However that’s not how they would argue their point.
They prefer to blame people like Kirk so they have someone to argue against, but only because they don’t see Christians as “progressive” enough, unless of course that someone agrees with their idols of evolution, liberalism, or the state.
The reason they need to be so active right now is they can’t blame the government itself because they need the government to take care of the environment by passing laws that completely dismantle the rights of those they disagree with. So it can’t be the government that is the problem. It’s just the people who are using it to restore order, and order is the enemy of progress.
So they must stop the people from using “hate speech”, and how dare they protect themselves from crime and tyranny with legally bought and responsibly used firearms.
Don’t they know there are criminals out there who might do bad things with their inanimate objects? It’s the guns fault. It’s the words fault.
In the modern progressives world view the government owns the monopoly on violence, because humans simply cannot be trusted with that kind of internalized responsibility, so it must come from a higher authority.
One that is more evolved - because it has progressed.
One that has become more “liberal” because it allows more “freedoms” from the past.
One that gets enforced by the state, but only if the state is progressive like them, otherwise it represents the tyranny of the past and the original sin they’re trying to escape from.
One wonders that if chaos is all they really want why not go somewhere that it can be found in great abundance and leave the rest of us alone?
Because the “West”, has become confused. We think this is normal. We think rights and freedoms were the natural outcome from this strictly linear path. That nothing could threaten it because nothing could be worse than it.
In the debate between Piers Morgan and Don Lemon, who claimed that he’s not “partisan…” he just goes with the facts, an interesting point in the debate is when Don claims he doesn’t want to debate the past, because he’s interested in giving people the “news”, because “news” is short hand for “new”.
While that may be factually true, it is also part of Don’s progressivist mindset that the “news” must always be “evolving”. But to progressives this suggests it’s about adapting to new things, which we argue is a false reading of what gets adopted by the modernist progressive mindset, one that Don doesn’t even seem to know he has.
To Don, “new” actually means tearing down the old, which is what progressives seek to do. They seek to tear down and remake the world in their own image, because they don’t believe in Jesus Christ as God, and instead see themselves as the new gods, and they idolize their own ideas thinking they’re the only ones that make sense.
But it it really a progressive idea to suggest that for something new to happen the old must be expunged? Is that really the act of creation, or is it actually just about disruption?
Reflecting on the modern left’s reaction to recent events, including the social media ranters and the social justice Tic-Tockers, but also some of our youngest leaders in both the media and congress it is now abundantly clear they’re operating from a fundamentally different worldview.
To them, the problem isn’t the person; it’s the thing—the gun, the money, the system. Humans, in their view, are merely blank slates, shaped entirely by circumstance. Right and wrong aren’t universal truths but are determined by what’s available at the moment.
If it’s wealth, equality demands no one have more than another.
If it’s a weapon, the object itself is to blame, not the one wielding it.
This relativism—where there’s no absolute right or wrong, just numbers and outcomes—leads to a dangerous place. It justifies silencing dissent, even violently, because their version of reality, unmoored from timeless wisdom, sees challenge as a threat, not a dialogue. The irony?
They claim righteousness while abandoning the very ethical foundation that allows such claims. It’s not progress; it’s a regression into chaos.
In the common progressive mind this all makes perfect sense because for a long time the “left” opinion has been the predominant ideology, but that’s not how they see it. They see it as “reason” that is “evolving” throughout the course of history.
We cannot go back, we must go forward, regardless of the collateral damages to individuals and individual rights. Don’t they know we must escape this human condition? This cage? How dare someone tell a little boy they can’t be a little girl, or that some ideas are better than other ideas. That’s the past, and the past hurts feelings and keeps the world from receiving our new pharmaceutical communion with the bio-digital convergence.
In fact those people are probably the problem. If only they would come to realize how wrong they are about everything so the government can proceed to fix every problem with more bureaucracy. We’ll figure out how to pay for it and how to decide who should get what job later after we redistribute what is left after the glorious revolution.
If this sounds familiar it should. This is the same sentiment that spurred the French Revolution, but not the American one.
The American Revolution was based on Anglo Protestant values:
Google:
Anglo-Protestant values emphasize individualism, a strong work ethic, self-reliance, and the belief in the ability to improve the world through human effort. This tradition, which developed from Puritan and Calvinist Christianity, also promotes values of liberty, unity, prosperity, and a certain moral leadership rooted in scripturalism. These principles have profoundly influenced political, economic, and cultural life, especially in the United States, fostering anti-hierarchical, anti-communalist, and individualistic orientations.
Key Aspects of Anglo-Protestant Values:
Individualism: A central tenet, emphasizing personal responsibility and freedom from excessive state or hierarchical control.
Work Ethic: A belief that diligence, discipline, and frugality in one's "vocation" or "calling" are virtues, contributing to both personal and societal prosperity.
Liberty and Self-Reliance: Rooted in a belief in human agency and a desire to create a better world, fostering liberty against monarchical states and promoting independence.
Scripturalism and Contract Orientation: A deep reliance on scripture and a contract-based approach in both politics and commerce, informed by the literacy and scriptural focus of this tradition.
A "City on a Hill" Ideal: The belief in the ability and duty to strive for a "heaven on earth," serving as a moral example for others.
Anti-Hierarchical and Anti-Communalist: A departure from Catholic traditions, promoting an individualistic and egalitarian rather than hierarchical or communal focus.
Historical Influence:
These values have been central to the Anglo-Protestant cultural identity in America, shaping institutions and providing the foundation for a national identity characterized by liberty, unity, and power. Sociologists like Max Weber studied how Protestant ethics, particularly the Calvinist work ethic, enabled the rise of capitalism.
Cultural Context:
The term "Anglo-Protestant" and the associated concept of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs refer to a powerful cultural and historical group in America whose ancestral roots lie in Northern Europe. Their influence extended across various domains of society, from politics to business and culture.
But let’s really pick this apart, because nuance is key.
What is the difference between the “Anglo-Saxons” of Britain and the “Anglo-Protestants” in America :
Google:
Anglo-Saxon values describe the pre-Christian, Germanic social order of loyalty and hierarchy found in early Britain. Anglo-Protestant values, in contrast, emerged centuries later and are often associated with White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) in the United States, who emphasized Puritan - influenced values of individualism and moral righteousness within a specific dominant culture. The core difference is that one refers to ancient, pagan Germanic societies, and the other refers to a modern, culturally dominant group defined by their Protestant faith and Anglo-Saxon heritage.
Anglo-Saxon Values
Historical Context: Refers to the values of the Anglo-Saxons who settled in Britain after the Roman Empire's withdrawal, prior to the Norman conquest in 1066.
Religion: These early Anglo-Saxons were Germanic pagans, believing in many gods and superstitions, not Christianity.
Social Structure: Society was centred on loyalty to a lord and a hierarchical social order, where a man's worth was tied to his ability to serve his lord.
Key Characteristics: Values emphasized strong social bonds, loyalty, and military service, with social prestige being a significant aspect.
Anglo-Protestant Values
Historical Context: This term is more modern, emerging from the Protestant Reformation (over 400 years after the Anglo-Saxons) and later fused with "Anglo-Saxonism".
Religion: Rooted in the Protestant faith, particularly the influence of Puritanism in the American colonies.
Social Structure: The term often describes a dominant cultural group in the United States—the WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) —who influenced American laws, culture, and social structures.
Key Characteristics: Associated with values like individualism, moral righteousness, and a focus on common good, often within a wealthy, privileged, and influential social elite.
Key Differences Summarized
Time Period: Anglo-Saxon values are ancient and pre-Christian, while Anglo-Protestant values are modern and post-Reformation.
Religion: Early Anglo-Saxons were pagans, whereas Anglo-Protestant values are derived from the Protestant Christian faith.
Nature of the Term: "Anglo-Saxon" refers to specific Germanic peoples, while "Anglo-Protestant" (often in the WASP context) describes a particular cultural and social group defined by their ethnicity and religion, especially in American history.
And now we come back to the heart of the matter.
Where do “rights” come from, and how is the death of Charlie Kirk, and the subsequent fallout, showing us that everyone in the “West” already knows they come God.
So why are so many people making this about Israel when we already have the killer in custody?
Anglo Protestant vs. Judeo Christian Enlightenments
Disclaimer: I will now write from the first person, because this is simply what I see. I am in no way shape or form suggesting I know what is in any individual persons heart, because the only thing I believe for certain is that I am not God.
But there are a lot of people right now who are claiming to have this kind of divine knowledge, which is why I feel the need to explain what is happening out there before people fall for this trap, though it is beyond my knowledge who is setting it, but it is clear that something is very wrong, and people are acting extraordinarily weird.
Because I see Jesus as the Intelligent Designer of our universe for reasons I have gone over endlessly on this Substack publication, I know too that there are powers and principalities beyond my comprehension working on the world in this time, something I only know because it was revealed. Ephesians 6:12.
The point of this article is to further elucidate why I think it’s happening, not to judge any individual person or group of people. But if you want to know why someone appears to be doing something, it certainly helps to ask what they believe, because it is a factually true statement that people act out what they believe.
So why are so many people unable to make sense of the current moment, and why are so many scapegoating Israel, and the entire Israeli population, when we’re being presented with a story like what just happened with Charlie Kirk?
Because it is palpably full of holes. None of it makes any sense. And when things don’t make sense—when the government is acting is such a way that they appear to be hiding something to protect the image of someone that is claiming to have nothing to do with it, people are starting to question the motivations of those parties.
Lastly I will say that the timing is the biggest culprit for reasons that we will now try to explore.
Is America Built On Judeo-Christian Values?
From Google:
Judeo-Christian values are a set of moral and ethical principles common to both Judaism and Christianity, including the belief in one God, objective moral truths, the inherent worth of every human being, and the concept of free will and personal responsibility.
Key tenets include the Ten Commandments, concepts of justice and charity, and the idea that human beings are created in the image of God. While the term entered common usage after World War II to describe a shared religious foundation of Western civilization, the specific values and the extent of their commonality are debated.
Core Principles
Monotheism: Belief in one God, a core teaching from the Hebrew Bible that forms the foundation for both faiths.
Objective Morality: The idea that moral truths exist and are not merely subjective opinions.
Human Dignity: A belief that all human beings are created in God's image(imago dei), making every individual life valuable and sacred.
Free Will and Responsibility: Humans possess free will to make choices and are accountable for their actions, a concept opposed by purely secular or deterministic views.
The Ten Commandments:The foundational moral code, embodying principles of reverence for God and just treatment of others.
Shared Ethical Concepts
Justice and Compassion: Both traditions emphasize the importance of treating others with kindness, empathy, and a commitment to fairness and righteousness.
Love for One's Neighbor: The commandment to "Love your neighbour as yourself" is a central ethical teaching in both Judaism and Christianity.
Piety and Reverence: A duty to show love, reverence, and obedience toward God.
Context and Origin
The phrase "Judeo-Christian" was first recorded by George Orwell in 1941 and gained prominence after World War II.
It was used to articulate the common religious and ethical foundations of Western societies and to counter the atrocities of the Holocaust by highlighting shared religious values.
Debates and Differing Perspectives
The existence and specific content of "Judeo-Christian values" are debated, with some questioning the extent of their overlap and highlighting doctrinal differences between the two faiths.
The concept has been associated with the "American civil religion" and is often invoked to explain the basis of American politics, law, and morality.
Base level, this all sounds well and good, but there is one major doctrinal difference:
The God of the Old Testament and God of the New Testament are not the same God.
In Christianity, Jesus is God who came to fulfill the scriptures.
In Judaism they rejected His Divinity, while promoting their own set of values, that come out of their own Holy books.
But to be clear, Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, not the rejection of it.
16 Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.
Similarly Christ is the Foundation stone of the United States, because it was not Israel that birthed it, but rejection of the overbearing state against a people who read the Bible, and declared the British Crown and it’s application of “rights” to be unjust.
We tried to trace the timeline, and the philosophical milestones in our previous pieces on “Human(e) Reason(s)”:
Human(e) Reason(s) - Part 1
The following is a long-form exploration that I originally drafted as an 11-part series. I used ChatGPT to help structure it that way, so each section stands alone like a chapter in a blog-book, formatted for mass consumption. I’m not saying that’s what I prefer, but it’s what the market demands — and like any beast, the market wants what it wants.
But we argue the key factor is something that was addressed by Charlie, only days before his sacrifice, and it has to do with the origin of “rights”, in the American Context. While he doesn’t explicitly say what we’re about to highlight, he gets very close.
R.I.P. Charlie Kirk
First thing first. May God bless and keep the family Charlie Kirk has left behind, his wife, two young children, relatives and friends, and all the people Charlie made an impact on, and I know there must be millions, including myself. He was and is an incredible person and the damage done by this one act is seismic to say the least.
Amazingly, Tucker Carlson appeared on Fridays Charlie Kirk show on Real America’s Voice along with a man named Frank Turek who was with Charlie the day he left this world, and between the two of them they reiterated this point beautifully. (approx. 1:09:00 through 1:20:00)
We say all of this to set up this simple point. This was weird, but it’s what he says at approximately 30 seconds. “…Charlie… defended our common Judeo-Christian civilization…”.
Yes Bibi, he did. Because he defended Christianity, and it’s homeland - the place where Jesus rose from the dead - as any Christian would and should.
But let’s talk about the Jewish version of “imago dei” vs. the Christian version, because it matters where “rights” come from.
Imago Dei “Judeo” - Imago Dei “Christian”
As we’ve been suggesting there were two sides to the enlightenment. We tried to explain them as “Ordered Liberty” vs. “Unmoored Liberty”. We then broke that down even further into Anglo-Protestant vs. Judeo-Christian.
One born in the United States, founded on the ability to question authority, and crucially the concept of “inalienable rights” from a Creator (Jesus).
The other that shrugged off the idea of God as its own form of "liberation" from all gods that gave us the French revolution.
Classical Liberals try to argue they're the same thing—that somehow "natural" rights are the same framework in both contexts. This is not coherent.
In the former rights are given by God, and so is an ethical foundation.
In the latter, rights are “born” by liberating oneself from all gods. Evolution itself and thus the “natural” world becomes the giver of rights.
Granted the declaration of rights says "Creator" and not "Jesus", but the founders of the American project didn't have a concept of "evolutionism" - at least not in the current sensibility where it is the base level explanation for all reasoning - but they did have a concept of liberty from corruption.
And the only Creator they believed in (for the most part) was the same one that embraced "imago dei", not in the O.T. as it is commonly suggested, but through its fulfillment in Christ.
“Judeo - Christian” imago dei is Old Testament - “rights” as far as we understand it come from a combination of the our cultural story and our actions in the world. We act Godly, but we only know the God that told us we are the chosen people. Or, as many ethnic Jews do, we reject God altogether, and we start looking into the universe for signs of the return of the Messiah. This is probably why so many Nobel prize winners are ethnically Jewish. They look for answers because they know they are out there, or in here perhaps.
The point is God’s plan has not yet been revealed, but they know there is indeed a God, and His plan, they were gifted the land of Israel by divine right. However it was not all who suggested they must go to the land of Israel to prepare for the coming of God, but after the attempt to wipe the Jewish people out in World War 2, how does anyone blame them for wanting a home to return to so that they might repair the broken world?
Can you imagine growing up your whole life knowing someone wanted to kill you, just because of where you came from or who you’re related to? Just because you’re intelligent and successful? Because that is the story of the Jewish people, and they have been under attack by various groups throughout the entirety of their existence as a people.
And yet they thrive.
Some even go so far as to attempt to hasten His arrival. We call these Zealots. Some just talk about it.
Israel is indeed surrounded by enemies, and let’s talk like adults here, they are surrounded by people who really don’t like them, even more than successful Christians in the United States and elsewhere in the West are surrounded by progressives who think that having personal responsibility for our actions is a deplorable thing to meditate on. But that threat is indeed growing no matter how many progressives keep blaming inanimate objects and the free market.
But in Israel, they are surrounded. The kicker is they also surround.
October 7th was a truly horrific event, and though many are trying to draw correlations between the psychological impact of the events of 9/11 to the tragic shooting of Charlie Kirk - as if innocence itself was attacked - we really need to acknowledge many on the progressive left cheered on that day, just as they cheered on the murder of an innocent man in front of his family and several thousand onlookers.
And Charlie was indeed starting to turn on Israel. Not because, as many progressives do, he thought of Israel as being born of original sin, but because they were getting very aggressive in the region, especially towards Iran, and Charlie was very much against this action and often spoke against the backing of Israel should they attempt a regime change.
He was also largely tapped into the youth, and not only were they also against these never ending regime change wars in the Middle East, they, like much of the world outside of the United Sates, now largely see Israel acting callously in Gaza. The UN yet again has claimed, this time after commissioning a report, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
But optics matter, and these were not good optics for Israel.
Charlie was having these conversations because he was a Christian. Being a Christian is not like other religions. We argue it’s even beyond that.
The Creator in Jesus is not bound by the rules of our reality in this understanding.
He Created it, and exists outside of time and space.
And yet He also entered it, and Revealed the perfect way to live. He didn’t just dictate it, He Lived it. And He died to show us all how to carry our burdens, so that others might live through our actions, and our examples.
He is the Alpha and Omega.
That is not Judeo-Christian, it's Anglo-Protestant.
Revelation 22:13-15
13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
But at this time we cannot let our foolishness blind us to the bigger picture. We are all sinners, and none of us has the right to judge what is in another human beings Soul.
Progressives don’t really believe you have a Soul. So why not judge? And they are, and they do. But they aren’t the only ones. All people judge because we are all fallen, and we all need to look to God for wisdom.
It is true that the Jewish people and the Christians have the same God, because Christianity was born out of lips of a life of a Jew, and His name is Jesus Christ. Perhaps soon they will repent and people will stop assuming they think of themselves as the only ones who know what the worth is of another human life, but right now, they are getting destroyed in the propaganda wars, because they appear to be the aggressor and everyone sees it.
What really surprises me is not that some people on the Christian right are starting to acknowledge it. It’s that the progressive left who have been fostering actual hate towards their very own for so long that when someone finally murders a prominent Christian in cold blood - the very philosophical idea that created the modern world they despise for its perceived transgressions - they rejoice in it.
Perhaps the guillotines won’t be that far behind, only this time, they won’t be dealing with an Jewish state that will just sit there and take it.
Hopefully there will be enough moderate Christians left to save them.
It will be Judeo-Christian, O.T.
Galatians 6:7-9
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.