The Blue Church

I was reading North’s Video: Red State vs. Blue State, Red Pill vs. Blue Pill, and Jordan Peterson’s Role Sure, it’s a good if short read, but what I want to focus on is the video he posted… and the central image on it’s title image, the blue church.

The video does mention the Blue Church, but I took a quick look-see on the internet. A useful article on the Blue Church, and it’s contrast with the Red Religion – can be found on the article Understanding the Blue Church.

Quoted below:

In my Situational Assessment: 2017, I quoted a post from Reddit:

“The Blue Church is panicking because they’ve just witnessed the birth of a new Red Religion. Not the tired old Christian cliches they defeated back in the ’60s, but a new faith based on cultural identity and outright rejection of the Blue Faith.” — /u/notjfao

A number of folks noted that they were not familiar with the concept of the Blue Church and wondered what was meant by it. The Democratic Party? Liberalism? Progressivism? As I mentioned in SA:2017, I had originally lifted the idea wholesale from that Reddit post with only an intuitive sense that it (and its juxtaposition with a Red Religion) was useful and pointed at something real.

In this essay, I dive into the concept. Below I endeavor to provide an answer that is adequate to Deep Code. I believe that the results are well worth the effort, but this is not a simple journey. Few things of importance these days are. If we want to get to the bottom of the contemporary situation, we are going to have to get comfortable going deep.

The abstract is this: the Blue Church is a kind of narrative / ideology control structure that is a natural result of mass media. It is an evolved (rather than designed) function that has come over the past half-century to be deeply connected with the Democratic political “Establishment” and lightly connected with the “Deep State” to form an effective political and dominant cultural force in the United States.

We can trace its roots at least as far back as the beginning of the 20th Century where it emerged in response to the new capabilities of mass media for social control. By mid-century it began to play an increasingly meaningful role in forming and shaping American culture-producing institutions; became pervasive through the last half of the 20th and seems to have peaked in its influence somewhere in the first decade of the 21st Century.

It is now beginning to unravel.

In part it is unravelling because of developing schisms within its master narrative, the Blue Faith. These are important, but they are not the subject of this essay. In this essay, I am focusing on what I think is both much more fundamental and much less obvious: deep shifts in technology and society that are undermining the very foundations of the Church. Shifts that render the Church itself obsolete.

If you are ready for a deep dive, come on in. The water is warm.

[…big, big snip: read the article to see what you’re missing…]

The End is Nigh

There are many reasons why the Blue Church is crumbling. Some of it has to do with an increasing friction among the diverse sub-narratives that have gathered under Blue, particularly where the fundamental incoherence of “identity politics” is reaching a tipping point (and is being pushed into what feels to me like a nihilist endgame by the alt-right). However, while this tension is important, I don’t think it is fundamental. Instead, to identify the real existential threat to the Blue Church, I return to our our two core concepts: technology and complexity.

One primary driver behind the collapse of the Blue Church is the swift replacement of the very mass media it is premised upon with a new symmetric kind of media — the Internet. This new media presents a niche for coherence that is very different from the one that gave rise to the Blue Church. It is a fundamentally different landscape. Like polar bears condemned to extinction by a thawing ice cap, the Blue Church’s days are numbered by the relentless erosion of broadcast mindshare to the new much more symmetrical media of the Internet.

As I discussed in Situational Assessment: 2017, I assign a significant portion of the surprising victory of the Trump Insurgency to the fact that the transfer of power from broadcast to digital has crossed the tipping point.

It is this technological transition that leads me to the conclusion that while the Blue Church (and its allies in the Deep State and the Establishment) can certainly struggle and hold for a while, their day is done. The climate is changing and they must adapt or die.

And then there is the question of complexity. The Blue Church emerged in response to the explosion of complexity of the 20th Century and the capacity of mass media to form a control structure that was adequate to that complexity.

It worked. But the 20th Century didn’t stand still. In fact, it accelerated. In the face of this ongoing acceleration, the Blue Church control structure is no longer adequate. The level of complexity of the 21st Century is simply outside of the control capacity that is possible within the form of the Blue Church. Unless we abandon the Church and move to a new approach, our race into the future will be increasingly out of control.

However, and this is a profoundly important point, we currently know of no form of control structure that is adequate — even in principle.

  1. Our entire approach to managing complex systems like our environment is flawed. Until the late 20th Century we could get away with this flaw because we weren’t powerful enough to matter. This has changed and as Joe Brewer has been writing about beautifully, we need to level up quickly. We need to switch from trying to manage complex systems with complicated control structures and invent entirely new techniques for intrinsically up regulating the complex systems that make up our natural world. We don’t yet know how to do this.
  2. Complex systems that include human beings are different. Unlike atmospheres and nitrogen cycles, people can forecast, strategize and adapt hyper-rapidly to our environment. Dave Snowden calls this anthro-complexity. We have to innovate an entirely new approach to governance that is adequate to the challenging set of problems posed by anthro-complexity. We really don’t know how to do this.
  3. Finally, we have to come to terms with the real nature of technology, the difficult to predict feedback loops of how we affect technology and how it affects us. And then we have to figure out how to navigate the actual consequences of exponential technology — on ourselves and on our lived world. Most people aren’t even prepared to think about how to do this.

In the context of these challenges, the Blue Church is simply in way over its head. The world is just too big and moving too fast for this kind of control hierarchy to keep up — even when it is trying to do its best, it is going to get in the way. Addressing these challenges is going to require the innovation of an entirely new approach to how we collectively make sense of and act in the world.

Quote ends

So dieth the Blue Church.

But the Christian church remains as clueless and as impotent as in the 60’s (…the 1860s…), even as her enemy begins to literally dry up and blow away.

I recommend that Christian laymen don’t waste time, looking for their church authorities to do a thing beside feather their nests and cringe before Establishment figures.

(Yes, I mean the disgusting PC establishment that’s falling apart before our eyes: THAT is who our pastors and priests crawl before. Even the hierarchically-minded, pyramid-of-power Catholics are increasingly disgusted with such raw, craven cowardice!)



“No Half-measures”: A Roman Tale, and a Christian Addendum

(Below is a modified version of my sci-fi post, with the fictional elements removed or reshaped.)

From Romans vs Samnites, the “Caudine Forks”

[Snipped: quite a slick military maneuver, used by the Samnites to defeat the Roman Army]

Gaius Pontius, head of the Samnites, who was marveled at the ingenuity of the Romans in the fall into the trap, sent messengers to elderly father Erennio for ask about what to do. Erennio Pontius advised him to make an honorable peace with the Romans, but Gaius did not accept the advice, and urged again the father, he told him to kill all the Roman soldiers, the two options put forward by Erennio were both wise; the first to put into account the gratitude of the Romans for not humiliation and therefore the possibility of a lasting peace, the second, with the destruction of the army, would have prevented the Romans any reaction of revenge for many years to come.

Meanwhile the Roman consuls sent messengers to negotiate the surrender, that would allow their army to return to Rome unscathed. Gaius Pontius did not accept either the father’s advices and he chose the worst solution; he made peace with the Romans who re-instated the treaty of 341 BC, providing in the same treaty the humiliation of the vanquished with the disarming of the legionaries, 600 young Roman hostages to guarantee peace and the passage of all the legionaries under a yoke of spears, the so-called “Caudine Forks” (Forche Caudine).

The Roman historians, also Tito Livio, were quite reluctant in reporting the episode of Caudine Forks. All the Romn soldiers, the commanders at the head, were forced to go under the yoke of spears between two enormous wings of Samnite soldiers. Tito Livio describes the humiliation in his “Ab urbe condita libri”:

“They were made go out of the embankment, dressed of only tunic: the hostages were delivered in the first place and led away under custody. Then they commanded the lictors to get away from the consuls; the consuls were stripped of the command shell …
Before the consuls were passed half-naked under the yoke; then all those who held a degree suffered the same ignominious fate; finally the all legionaries were passed under the yoke. The enemies, armed, surrounded them; they covered the Romans with insults and taunts, and they even stuck up the swords against many Romans; some Romans were injured and killed, if their attitude was too embittered by those outrages and it seemed offensive to the winners. »

Livio does not tell that all the Roman soldiers were sodomized, and who rebelled he was killed mercilessly.

The two legions were released and retreated to Capua, but they did not dare to enter the city, such a shame for what they had suffered. The people of Capua went to meet them, dressed and refreshed them, the weapons and even consular flags were provided. The legions encamped outside the city walls even in Rome. The city dressed in mourning, the shops were closed, the Senate suspended the work, everyone took off jewelry and amulets. Consuls and centurions closed in their house refusing to leave. Two new consuls were appointed by the Senate: Quintus Publilius Philo and Lucius Papirius Cursor, who had to rebuild from scratch the army.

It was then that a motto spread among the Romans, still widely used, that relates the luck of someone with the measurement of his backside: those soldiers who had a large backside had been more fortunate in comparison to others.

The clashes continued between the Romans and Samnites with mixed fortunes and they lasted until the 305 BC when, in the battle of Bovianum, the Roman legions, led by Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus, defeated hard the Samnites that the following year entered into an onerous peace by ending the second Samnite war.

For more on the Samnite Wars, see

Two Roads

The main point I want to stress is that you either treat the defeated enemy with magnanimity, or you raise him to the ground. Merely humiliating him and then letting him go is lunacy.


If you want a unified monocultural homogeneous state, then you go [the extermination route.] Such a state, once the conquest is completed, is quite difficult to overthrow or break apart (see: China & Japan.) But it’s expensive to set up, in both time and money.

Vast multicultural empires don’t last: but in the short term, they are quite profitable precisely because you need not devote a large chunk of your budget to the suppression/oppression/extermination of minority cultures & races.

The Imperial Application


Meanwhile, in the World of the Real

Note that even small-scale extermination campaigns are expensive, and requires determination to see them through. The Israelite’s never did exterminate the Canaanites and numerous other conquered peoples, preferring to enslave them or demand tribute instead. And thus, they failed to unify under a single God and a single Law, eventually leading to their fragmentation, assorted delusions and fantasies, and crushing defeat.

Fortunately, the Kingdom of Christ is about the expansion of a particular law code & ethic, rather than a particular nation or race. Humans of the wrong genetic inheritance, language, or culture are not the focus of the drive to exterminate: other gods, other lords, and other legal codes are. There is no need to destroy the human servants of other gods and other laws, when they can be simply bypassed and the fight taken directly to the enemy deity.

Increasingly, it’s about the transmission of true information, not swords and guns, and not state security officers or even mainstream media outlets.

(Waves to the Secularists, Marxists, and Muslims.)

You don’t even need to think hard, to know why the Gospel — ‘good news’ — is the weapon of choice for Christians, rather than the large fists that the pagans adore. Winning long-term is the point, not short-term emotional satisfaction!

So long as obedience to God brings greater profit and success than obedience to any and all substitutes, it will continue to grow nicely…

……until you start exalting the gifts, rather than the giver.

After gaining wealth and power and honour and comfort, the temptation to slack off and/or credit your genes, your intelligence, good luck, etc rather than obedience to God will grow quite a lot.

And then, after you break faith, you get to rediscover the wonders of poverty, the marvels of both lawless anarchy and lawless tyranny, and the joys of abject failure and public disgrace.


It happened to the Hebrews, and the Puritans. To the Roman Christians, and the American Christians, and the European Christians.

And once again, blessings are replaced by curses, unearned mercy with well-earned justice.

For there are no half-measures with God.

Un-repented Sin Poisons the Future

This article, Black History Month and the mind of Christ, focuses on the real and poisonous sin of white Christians in the southern US. This is true and good, and the prime example of the charge: but the lessons can be extended.

We don’t expect our conservative, Bible-believing, patriotic champions to preach things like this:

We do not believe that “all men are created equal,” as the Declaration of Independence declares them to be; nor that they will ever become equal in this world. . . . We think that our own race is incomparably superior to any other. . . . As to the Negro, we do not know where to place him; perhaps not at the bottom of the list, but certainly not near the top. We believe that fusion of two or more of these races would be an injury to all, and a still greater injury to posterity. We think that the race-line is providential, and that . . . any . . . great intermingling [of races] must have its origin in sin.1

These sentiments were not whispered in a corner, but came in one of the most prominent Christian publications of the day, and from a prominent Southern Baptist leader who had been president of both Mercer University and the University of Georgia, Henry Holcombe Tucker. Nor was this during the slave era itself, but almost two decades thereafter, in 1883.

Nor was this sentiment at all uncommon. This was the majority opinion among leadership and the people alike. In fact, it is suspected that this very article was published because someone had questioned whether Tucker had gotten soft on the race question. These sentiments were given to prove his bona fides.

And many like examples there are. One need only consult my recent book on slavery and the churches’ central role in the sins of it, or one of countless other books on the subject.

Yet many conservative and Christians recoil at the mention of the subject today, considering it merely a political wedge driven and exploited by leftists. Well, it is that to a great degree, but who is to blame for that phenomena? It is our reticence to embrace the issue in the right way—even sometimes in any way—that has given them both the wedge itself and the space in which to drive it. Our silence, our reactionism, and our over-defensiveness are factors that keep driving us backward and downward.

The problem is not that we are white or not black ourselves, not that we have not stopped with such overt racist beliefs, and not even that most of us have not stopped even tolerating such nonsense in our presence. The problem is that we are slow to acknowledge—even to be willing to hear—how openly repugnant and vile were the basic beliefs of our beloved forefathers regarding race, and that we are in general completely closed to the belief that the scope and degree of the degradations of the past have any bearing at all upon today.

Repentance is needed, or death awaits…
(My bold.)

For Christians who wish to have true progress in our churches and in our society, the stance of entrenched, defiant ignorance is no longer an option. As I have said many times now, if we do not embrace this issue and heal the divide in a biblical way, we will suffer the fate of all the liberal churches. The secularists will win, and they will take over our churches. The path to changed hearts, biblical free markets, freedom, and justice goes through learning, humility, and repentance.

Not only that: without repentance, the white conservative churches will most certainly begin to die. Eventually, they will become mere recruiting centres for the right & alt-right, a dead husk.

(Black churches, by the way, would do well to dig out their own sin. There are different roads to death, tailored by Satan for every man and church, family and nation…

But it is by obedience to Christ — and the crushing of sin under our heals, in imitation of Christ — that hope and life resides!)

With God, there is life: but to gain the favour of God, we must crucify the wicked man within us. We all must do this, black and white alike: but the particular evil in question differs.

We can’t worry too much about the congenial evil of others, when our own evils are blotting out the Son, stopping His light from brightening our minds. We must work to insure the supremacy of Christ in our own hearts first!

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. — Matthew 7:2-3


Dying Empires, and the Need to Work

From The State Lives in the Minds of its Victims

(I bold the key idea, below)

A state is not a particular band of men, along with their weapons, cages, and other resources. It is the subject’s attitude toward those men and implements, and the myths that inform (misinform) that attitude. It is a “great fiction,” as Frederic Bastiat said, and a “dangerous superstition” as Larken Rose says. It is a victimizer’s lie internalized by the victim. It is the Stockholm Syndrome institutionalized. A state is a disease living in the minds of its victims. It is only there, in the battleground of the mind, that a state is to be truly and totally vanquished. A de-legitimized state is a contradiction in terms. Destroy a state’s legitimacy in the minds of its subjects by debunking the lies that underpin that legitimacy, and you’ve already annihilated the state itself, leaving in its stead a hopelessly outnumbered band of common criminals.

However, an even more fundamental problem than the belief in any particular state, is the belief in statism in general. De-legitimazing, and thereby overthrowing, a particular state, even a tyrannical one, does not necessarily do any good. If statism still reigns in the hearts of men, a revolution is likely to make things even worse. Immediately after the tyrant falls, people afflicted with statism will look for a new yoke and a new master, and will not be wanting for candidates. Moreover, the new yoke will likely be heavier than the one just thrown off, because the upheavals of revolution are frightening, and when people are frightened, they are more prone to give masters (even new ones) vast emergency powers. Revolutions almost always install tyrannies worse than the ones they replace.

This is a particularly pressing point, because our present tyranny is going to fall, no matter what we do or fail to do. The empire is now in a downward spiral, massively overextending itself through war and welfare (especially of the corporate variety) and massively overburdening its host population. It is only a matter of time before the spiral accelerates terminally…

Christians really need to roll up their sleeves, and get to work.


Let me point to County Rights for a useful blueprint…

God of the Gaps

From Uncommon Descent’s Film night with Philip Cunningham: Atheists’ reasons for not believing in God are not scientific, and more…

In a compiled video of 50 elite scientists, no scientific evidence was ever presented for atheism but their arguments were philosophical and theological, i.e. ‘their typical arguments are rather common and shallow – god of the gaps and the existence of evil.’


Elite Scientists Don’t Have Elite Reasons for Being Atheists:

(November 8, 2016) Excerpt: Dr. Jonathan Pararejasingham has compiled a video of elite scientists and scholars to make the connection between atheism and science. Unfortunately for Pararejasingham, once you get past the self-identification of these scholars as non-believers, there is simply very little there to justify the belief in atheism….


What I found was 50 elite scientists expressing their personal opinions, but none had some powerful argument or evidence to justify their opinions. In fact, most did not even cite a reason for thinking atheism was true….


The few that did try to justify their atheism commonly appealed to God of the Gaps arguments (there is no need for God, therefore God does not exist) and the Argument from Evil (our bad world could not have come from an All Loving, All Powerful God). In other words, it is just as I thought it would be. Yes, most elite scientists and scholars are atheists. But their reasons for being atheists and agnostics are varied and often personal. And their typical arguments are rather common and shallow – god of the gaps and the existence of evil. It would seem clear that their expertise and elite status is simply not a causal factor behind their atheism.


Finally, it is also clear the militant atheism of Dawkins is a distinct minority view among these scholars.

See also Stephen Meyer on the “God of the Gaps”:

Ironically, although Theists are often accused of making ‘God of the Gaps’ style arguments, the fact of the matter is that, as science has progressed, it is the Atheist himself who has had to retreat further and further into ‘Materialism/Naturalism of Gaps’ style arguments. i.e. into “Science will figure a materialistic answer out to that mystery some day” style argument.


To clearly illustrate the ‘materialism of the gaps’ style argument that the materialistic/atheistic philosophy makes, the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several contradictory predictions about what type of scientific evidence we will find.
These contradictory predictions, and the evidence we have found by modern science, can be tested against one another to see if either materialism or Theism is true. This following video goes over the major predictions of each philosophy compared to the other:

Supporting documents.


Do you know what I think?
I think that the good guys are going to win – thanks to some hardworking laymen & laywomen — and the bad guys are going to lose.

I am sure that God knows the support the clergy, interested only in a comfortable life in the right circles, gave to Darwinists and atheists. Both in the refusal to fight for the truth, and their willingness to compromise more and more in order to get the approval of people who have not the slightest interest in either God, or His Commandments: who, indeed, are deeply rooted in hostility to God.

God will reward His enemies, regardless if they wear clerical robes or white coats.

“Poll: 4 major denominations support abortion”

From Poll: 4 major denominations support abortion

A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center reveals that most mainline Christian churches and many denominations agree that abortion should be legal “in all or most cases,” with the Unitarian Universalist Church leading even atheists and agnostics in their advocacy of the lethal practice.

Even though less than 50 percent of evangelicals and Catholics believe that abortion should be legal under virtually every circumstance, nearly all majorities of mainline Christian churches support abortion, with several major denominations casting their support for the controversial procedure.

“Seventy-nine percent of Episcopalians, 65 percent of Presbyterians, 58 percent of Methodists, and 56 percent of Anglicans support legal abortion ‘in all or most cases,’” Breitbart News divulged from the Pew poll.


Pew examined responses from each religious group in its U.S. during its 2014 Religious Landscape Study, and here is how they stacked up when American adults were asked if abortion should be legal in all or most cases:

  • Unitarian Universalist -90 percent
  • Atheist- 87 percent
  • Jewish- 87 percent
  • Buddhist- 82 percent
  • Episcopal Church- 79 percent
  • United Church of Christ- 72 percent
  • Hindu- 68 percent
  • “Nothing in particular”- 67 percent
  • Presbyterian Church (U.S.A)- 65 percent
  • Evangelical Lutheran Church in America- 65 percent
  • African Methodist Episcopal Church- 64 percent
  • United Methodist Church- 58 percent
  • All U.S. adults (in 2017)- 57 percent
  • National Baptist Convention- 57 percent
  • Anglican Church- 56 percent
  • Muslim- (55 percent)
  • Presbyterian Church in America- 54 percent
  • Orthodox Church- 53 percent
  • Catholic- 48 percent
  • American Baptist Churches USA- 47 percent
  • Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod- 46 percent
  • Seventh-day Adventist- 42 percent
  • Church of God in Christ- 41 percent
  • Churches of Christ- 36 percent
  • Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)- 30 percent
  • Mormon- 27 percent
  • Church of the Nazarene- 27 percent
  • Assemblies of God- 26 percent
  • Church of God (Cleveland, Tenn.)- 20 percent
  • Jehovah’s Witness- 18 percent

Setting the standard

When major denominations and societal groupings make their stance on abortion known to their congregants and members, most within those groups follow their teachings.

“Among those who do identify with a religion, the majority view about abortion among members of a particular group often mirrors that group’s official policy on abortion,” Pew’s David Masci explained.

This is not merely a matter of shame.

It is a matter of fear!

If God’s people refuse to defy this wickedness, then God Himself will do so in person…
…and He will take special note of those who 1) bear His Name and yet 2) despise His Word.

The Powerlessness of Mere Guilt

From Merry Christmas, Slave:

There is all kinds of discussion and debate in the literature over whether slaveholders felt guilt and uneasy consciences. The indication seems to be yes, as a generality, though they often acted coldly in contradiction to whatever guilt they may have privately expressed, and also, not every claim made in support of the idea has equal merit. Perhaps the single most overwhelming piece of evidence is the “startlingly frequent declarations” among them that “when they died they would go to hell.” For example, Florida slaveholder Robert Reid judged his “prospects in this world—and no prospects in another—are all gloomy and fill me with dismay. Would I were a Christian, but I cannot be a hypocrite.” Likewise, Georgian James Barrow confessed, “I am watching for the messenger which is to remove me to the other world, but every day proves to me that I have a wretched wicked heart.” With even greater candor, one Mississippian admitted he could no longer in conscience attend revival meetings: “I used to go to the meetings with as much sincerity and soberness as anybody could. . . . I did think I was a converted man, but of course, I aint, and I ‘spose ‘twarnt the right sort, and I don’t reckon I shall have another chance.”3 A Louisiana mistress was just as clear: “Always I felt the moral guilt of it,” she said, and confessed she “felt how impossible it must be for an owner of slaves to win his way to heaven.”4


…the church was the only institution that was in a position to effect change—to advance those suppressed religious convictions and bring prophetic denunciation against that “entire secular culture.” Instead, it not only did not, it became the chief proponent of the chief sin of that culture. The guilt thesis is especially painful to accept in light of the fact that the churches were so energetic in spreading proslavery ideology in the name of Christ and the Bible.


one South Carolinian judged that his father “had too much religion to keep his negroes straight.” Likewise, a neighboring North Carolinian lamented that “Slavery & Tyranny must go together—and there is no such thing as having an obedient and useful slave, without the painful exercise of undue and tyrannical authority.”7

And the fundamental racism at the root of it was never erased either; it was a sin hanging in the very prayers of Southern slave owners: “it would be better if there wasn’t any n—–s in the world,” one said, to the virtual echo of another: “Lord send that there was no negro in all America.”8

Consciousness of sin alone was rarely a powerful enough deterrent. Money and power are a more powerful effect, as Alabama’s Henry Watson, Jr., pointed out: “If we do commit a sin owning slaves, it is certainly one which is attended with great conveniences.”9

The aforementioned Mary Burruss (later McGehee) pulled back the curtain: “Fond benevolent feelings, tender regard for the good of souls, evils of slavery, &c. &c., are all less than dust of the balance when weighed against the charms of some wealthy heiress, possessor of slaves, and the hope of winning her & enjoying the ease of the paternal mansion banishes all thought of Abolition or benevolence.”10

In the end, it seems more frequently to have been the case that greed, lust, and “convenience,” ruled the day, despite Christians’ (as well as professed non-Christians’) understandings that what they were doing was wrong, and the general silence of the churches on not only abuses, but the sins inherent in the system. Add to this the fact that the civil laws in most cases, certainly by this time, made it virtually impossible to manumit slaves even if owners had wanted to, and you had whole society that had codified sin and rebellion.

And yet all that was really needed for some people to convince themselves of their own benevolent and paternalistic intentions, was a Christmas party where their slaves got to enjoy themselves for a few hours. From this, a John Evans could walk away feeling better about himself, and thinking that his slaves could be “cheerful and happy” in their normal state of slavery the rest of the year.

All this sin was paid for in blood and pain… and the payments continue, if less severe than before.

Guilt feelings per se means little, and can be easily paid off with some words and ceremonies, be those rituals Christian or Marxist, or anything else.