I wrote this following poem during the Covic Scam-demic!
\r\n\r\n
A picture may speak a thousand words,
but the mask silences them all—
Not for protection, but for projection.
Not worn out of wisdom,
but as a badge of fear, conformed to noise.
Like a relic from a fading religion—
unquestioned, unchallenged, unseen.
Still worn by those whose gospel is panic
and whose prophets are politicians.
But the veil is tearing.
\r\n“And I see your face not hidden, but echoing truth:
We were never meant to be muzzled
Modern politics increasingly demands something dangerous: total loyalty.
\r\nIf you support a political leader, you are often expected to defend everything they say, everything they do, and every decision they make. Question anything, and suddenly the accusations begin.
\r\nYou are called disloyal.
You are labeled weak.
You are told you must secretly be siding with the opposition.
This expectation misunderstands the nature of leadership, citizenship, and principle.
\r\nA healthy political culture allows disagreement.
A healthy movement allows correction.
And responsible citizens never surrender their conscience to a politician.
\r\n\r\n“Support is not worship. Loyalty does not require silence.”
\r\n
Political movements rarely collapse because of outside opposition alone.
\r\nMore often, they collapse when they lose the ability to correct themselves.
\r\nWhen loyalty becomes more important than truth, movements begin to protect leaders instead of protecting principles. When disagreement becomes taboo, accountability disappears.
\r\nThe real question is not whether someone supports Donald Trump.
\r\nThe real question is whether support requires surrendering independent judgment.
\r\nDonald Trump rose to power largely because he was willing to say things others would not.
\r\nHe challenged media narratives.
He confronted globalism.
He criticized entrenched bureaucracies.
He accused powerful institutions of corruption.
For millions of Americans, Trump gave voice to frustrations that had been ignored for decades.
\r\nEntire regions of the country felt invisible to Washington. Industries collapsed while politicians spoke in abstract economic language. Cultural institutions increasingly dismissed traditional values while claiming moral authority.
\r\nTrump’s blunt and combative style cut through that atmosphere.
\r\nFor many voters, he did something few politicians had done in years: he acknowledged the problem.
\r\nThat mattered.
\r\nAnd for many Americans, it still matters.
\r\nBut acknowledging real problems does not mean every tactic used to address them is wise.
\r\nBluntness is not always the same as wisdom.
Disruption is not always the same as reform.
Trump’s political style frequently includes:
\r\n• personal attacks
• public feuds
• aggressive responses to critics
• emotional reactions in real time
Sometimes these tactics energize supporters and dominate the news cycle.
\r\nOther times they distract from policy goals, weaken alliances, or shift attention away from issues that deserve serious debate.
\r\nRecognizing that difference is not betrayal.
\r\nIt is maturity.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“You can support a movement without surrendering your conscience.”
\r\n
Trump often argues that politics is a rough arena and that anyone who criticizes him should expect criticism in return.
\r\nThere is truth in that.
\r\nPolitics has never been gentle. It is an arena where competing visions of society collide, reputations are challenged, and powerful interests defend themselves aggressively.
\r\nBut leadership requires more than simply fighting back.
\r\nLeadership requires discernment.
\r\nIt requires knowing which battles matter and which ones are distractions.
\r\nWhen every disagreement becomes personal, substance disappears. When legitimate policy objections are dismissed as disloyalty, accountability disappears.
\r\nMovements rarely collapse because of outside enemies.
\r\nMore often, they collapse because they stop correcting themselves.
\r\nNowhere is this failure more visible than in Congress.
\r\nDespite years of campaign promises about fiscal responsibility and government reform, Republicans in both the House and Senate continue passing clean Continuing Resolutions (CRs).
\r\nThese bills extend existing government funding levels without requiring reforms, spending reductions, or structural change.
\r\nThey are frequently justified as necessary to prevent government shutdowns.
\r\nBut the results are predictable.
\r\n• Wasteful programs remain untouched
• Federal spending remains historically high
• The national debt continues to expand
• Accountability is postponed yet again
What is often presented as pragmatic compromise frequently becomes political avoidance.
\r\nInstead of forcing difficult debates about priorities, Congress chooses temporary funding extensions that maintain the existing system.
\r\nThis is not conservative governance.
\r\nIt is maintenance of the status quo.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“If nothing changes, nothing changes.”
\r\n
One reason public frustration has intensified is the growing perception that both parties ultimately protect the same institutional structure.
\r\nDemocrats openly advocate for expanded government programs.
\r\nRepublicans frequently campaign against those programs.
\r\nBut once elected, many Republican lawmakers quietly manage the same system they promised to reform.
\r\nThe rhetoric changes.
\r\nThe outcomes often do not.
\r\nThis disconnect is why so many Americans feel betrayed.
\r\nElection after election, voters are promised meaningful fiscal reform.
\r\nYet once in office, leaders frequently choose the path of least resistance and label it pragmatism.
\r\nClean continuing resolutions have become one of the clearest examples of this pattern.
\r\nThey represent:
\r\n• avoidance of hard decisions
• fear of confrontation
• unwillingness to force real debate about priorities
If nothing changes, nothing changes.
\r\nAgainst that backdrop, a small number of lawmakers stand out—not because they are flawless, but because they are consistent.
\r\nSenator Rand Paul and Representative Thomas Massie routinely oppose clean continuing resolutions and bloated spending packages.
\r\nThey demand:
\r\n• recorded votes
• constitutional process
• transparency
• genuine fiscal restraint
They do this knowing the political cost.
\r\nOpposing spending bills can isolate lawmakers from party leadership. It can threaten committee assignments. It can reduce political support.
\r\nYet Paul and Massie continue voting against legislation they believe violates fiscal responsibility.
\r\nThey stand on principle when it would be far easier—and far more comfortable—to comply.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Integrity becomes controversial when it threatens business as usual.”
\r\n
Instead of engaging their arguments, party leadership often responds with personal criticism.
\r\nThomas Massie has been mocked, insulted, and publicly ridiculed.
\r\nRand Paul is frequently portrayed as an obstructionist rather than someone applying constitutional scrutiny.
\r\nYet the core question remains unanswered:
\r\nIf runaway spending is the problem, why attack the few people trying to stop it?
\r\nFiscal responsibility is widely praised rhetorically.
\r\nBut when someone actually attempts to enforce it, they become inconvenient.
\r\nPolitical discourse is already volatile, which makes accuracy and restraint even more important for leaders with large platforms.
\r\nIt is worth stating clearly: Rob Reiner is alive.
\r\nOnline rumors claiming he had died or been attacked circulated briefly on social media, but those claims were false.
\r\nReiner has long been a vocal critic of Donald Trump, and the two have exchanged harsh words publicly.
\r\nBut Trump himself escalated the rhetoric surrounding Reiner in a controversial statement, saying:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star… reportedly drove people crazy with his massive, unyielding case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
\r\n
He later added:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“I wasn’t a fan of Rob Reiner at all in any way, shape or form… he became like a deranged person. I thought he was very bad for our country.”
\r\n
Whether someone agrees with Reiner politically or not, mocking someone around rumors of their death crosses a line.
\r\nLeaders do not have to respect their critics.
\r\nBut they do have a responsibility not to inflame misinformation.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Truth should not be optional—even in political conflict.”
\r\n
Frustration deepens when messaging becomes inconsistent.
\r\nTrump has also made controversial remarks regarding the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, suggesting Americans should move on from the issue despite the many unanswered questions surrounding it.
\r\nAt one point he dismissed the controversy by saying the country should essentially “get over it.”
\r\nFor many Americans, that response is deeply unsatisfying.
\r\nThe Epstein case represents something larger than politics. It raises fundamental questions about whether powerful individuals are protected from accountability and whether victims will ever receive justice.
\r\nSeeking answers is not partisan.
\r\nIt is moral.
\r\nTrump has also floated a controversial immigration proposal sometimes described as a “gold card” program, where wealthy individuals could essentially buy a path to U.S. citizenship.
\r\nCritics argue that such proposals create a system where wealth determines who gets to become American, allowing rich foreigners to skip the long legal process that millions of immigrants must endure.
\r\nThe idea sparked backlash from across the political spectrum.
\r\nMany asked a simple question:
\r\nIf citizenship can be purchased, what does that say about the meaning of citizenship?
\r\nFor immigrants who spent years navigating the legal system, the idea of wealthy elites cutting the line appears deeply unfair.
\r\nIt also raises uncomfortable questions about whether American citizenship is becoming a commodity rather than a covenant.
\r\nVice President JD Vance, speaking at Turning Point USA events, has framed immigration and national identity in terms of keeping only the “best” people in the country.
\r\nHe has argued that America should prioritize retaining high-value contributors while implying that some people—even legal residents—should potentially leave if they do not meet that standard.
\r\nCritics argue that such rhetoric moves dangerously close to defining citizenship based on perceived usefulness rather than equal protection under the law.
\r\nAnother example of inflammatory rhetoric came from Matt Schlapp, the chairman of the American Conservative Union (ACU) and the longtime organizer of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
\r\nDuring a debate about a bombing incident involving a girls’ school in Iran, Schlapp responded to criticism about civilian casualties by saying:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“They’d be alive in a burqa… this is a barbaric society.”
\r\n
He also argued the girls would have grown up:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“in a barbaric, unequal society behind a burqa with no ability to make career choices.”
\r\n
The comments were widely criticized because they appeared to dismiss the deaths of young girls by implying their lives would have been worse if they had survived.
\r\nWhether one condemns Iran’s regime or not, dismissing the deaths of children in geopolitical arguments deeply disturbed many observers.
\r\nWhen these issues are raised, something else often happens.
\r\nCritics are not debated.
\r\nThey are labeled.
\r\nThe tactic resembles Rule #5 from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which encourages activists to ridicule and isolate opponents rather than engage their arguments.
\r\nOn the political left, critics are often labeled:
\r\n“racist”
“sexist”
“bigot”
“xenophobe”
But increasingly, critics on the political right encounter their own version of this tactic.
\r\nIf someone questions corruption or policy decisions involving the Israeli government, the accusation frequently becomes “antisemitism.”
\r\nSerious discussions about foreign policy, corruption, or geopolitical alliances are sometimes shut down before they even begin.
\r\nThe result is the same regardless of which side uses the tactic.
\r\nDiscussion stops.
Debate ends.
Tribal loyalty replaces truth.
Demanding truth is not obsession.
\r\nIt is not conspiracy.
\r\nIt is not disloyalty.
\r\nA system that protects the powerful while lecturing the public about trust cannot sustain credibility.
\r\nAccountability must be applied consistently.
\r\nSelective outrage weakens movements.
Selective silence erodes trust.
Selective outrage and selective silence erode credibility faster than opposition attacks ever could.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Selective outrage destroys credibility faster than opposition attacks.”
\r\n
Scripture consistently honors those who stand for what is right—even when they stand alone.
\r\n“You shall not follow a multitude to do evil.”
— Exodus 23:2
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”
— Isaiah 5:20
“Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction… narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life.”
— Matthew 7:13–14
Throughout Scripture, the individuals honored by God are often those who refused to follow the majority.
\r\nDaniel refused to bow before Nebuchadnezzar.
Elijah stood against the prophets of Baal.
Jeremiah spoke truth to kings who wanted silence.
John the Baptist confronted Herod.
And Jesus Himself stood alone before both religious and political authorities.
Standing alone does not automatically make someone right.
\r\nBut standing on truth often results in standing alone.
\r\nStanding on principle often brings isolation.
\r\nIt invites mockery.
\r\nIt provokes anger from those who benefit from compromise.
\r\nPaul understood this reality well:
\r\n“If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.”
— Galatians 1:10
Integrity is expensive.
\r\nBut compromise is costlier.
\r\nSupporting Donald Trump does not require defending every decision, excusing wasteful spending, or ignoring contradictions.
\r\nA healthy movement allows internal correction.
\r\nAn unhealthy one punishes it.
\r\nYou can:
\r\n• appreciate Trump’s disruption of entrenched political power
• reject endless spending and clean CRs
• defend lawmakers who stand on fiscal and constitutional principle
• demand truth and transparency from everyone, regardless of party
These positions are not contradictions.
\r\nThey reinforce one another.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Real loyalty allows correction. Blind loyalty forbids it.”
\r\n
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction.”
— Matthew 7:13
The narrow path is rarely crowded.
\r\nThat does not make it wrong.
\r\nIf conservatism means anything at all, it must mean:
\r\n• saying no when spending is reckless
• telling the truth when lies are convenient
• honoring principle even when it costs political capital
Rand Paul and Thomas Massie are not perfect.
\r\nBut they are consistent.
\r\nAnd consistency, in an age of performance politics, is rare.
\r\nWinning elections matters.
\r\nBut how we win matters too.
\r\n“What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God?”
— Micah 6:8
Supporting a leader does not require surrendering your conscience.
\r\nSometimes real support means saying:
\r\n“This is wrong.”
\r\nThat is not betrayal.
\r\nThat is backbone.
\r\nA movement that cannot tolerate principled dissent will eventually collapse under its own contradictions.
\r\nThe American people are not asking for perfection.
\r\nThey are asking for honesty.
\r\nThey are asking for leaders who will say no when saying yes would be easier, safer, and more profitable.
\r\nUnity built on denial is not unity.
\r\nIt is fragility pretending to be strength.
\r\n“Let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.”
— Galatians 6:9
Truth does not need a majority vote.
Integrity does not need permission.
Principle does not need applause.
Stand anyway.
\r\n“Support is not worship. Loyalty does not require silence.”
\r\n“You can support a leader without surrendering your conscience.”
\r\n“Integrity becomes controversial when it threatens business as usual.”
\r\n“Selective outrage destroys credibility faster than opposition attacks.”
\r\n“Truth does not need a majority vote. Principle does not need applause.”
" }, { "id": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/articlesplus/34", "url": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/fi/blog/general/34-perception-truth-and-spiritual-sight-belief-prayer-media-and-the-question-of-the-law-of-attraction", "title": "Perception, Truth, and Spiritual Sight Belief, Prayer, Media, and the Question of the Law of Attraction", "summary": "", "date_published": "2026-07-22T17:42:06+00:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-06T00:17:35+00:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Greg Loucks" } ], "tags": [], "_articlesplus": { "article_id": 34, "subtitle": "", "type": "blog", "categories": [ { "id": 117, "title": "Culture & Politics", "alias": "blog-culture-politics" } ], "reading_time": 0, "hits": 130, "language": "*", "canonical": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/fi/blog/general/34-perception-truth-and-spiritual-sight-belief-prayer-media-and-the-question-of-the-law-of-attraction" }, "image": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/images/kofi/34-perception-truth-and-spiritual-sight-belief-prayer-media-and-the-question-of-the-law-of-attraction.jpg", "content_html": "The Law of Attraction is often dismissed by Christians as New Age fantasy—or embraced uncritically by others as a substitute for God. I sit somewhere in between.
\r\n\r\nI don’t believe we “manifest reality” by sheer willpower.
But I also don’t believe belief is passive.
Scripture won’t let us.
\r\nJesus speaks as if belief does something.
Words do something.
Faith moves something.
And yet—never as sovereign power.
\r\nSo the real question isn’t whether belief matters.
The question is how, why, and where the limits are.
At its simplest, the Law of Attraction (LOA) claims:
\r\n\r\n\r\nWhat you consistently focus on—emotionally, mentally, and imaginatively—tends to shape your experience of reality.
\r\n
Most LOA teachings include these core ideas:
\r\nThoughts influence outcomes
\r\nBelief precedes experience
\r\nEmotion “charges” intention
\r\nInner alignment precedes outer change
\r\nSome describe this spiritually.
Others psychologically.
Others pseudo-scientifically.
Many Christians recoil at the phrase “the universe responds.”
\r\nI do too.
\r\nBut replace “the universe” with God’s created order under His sovereignty, and suddenly the Bible sounds… uncomfortable familiar.
\r\nJesus says:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”
\r\n
(Mark 11:24)
Proverbs teaches:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Death and life are in the power of the tongue.”
\r\n
(Proverbs 18:21)
Paul writes:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”
\r\n
(Romans 12:2)
James warns:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.”
\r\n
(James 1:8)
Scripture consistently treats belief as formative, not decorative.
\r\nBut never autonomous.
\r\nMany popular LOA teachers make a critical shift:
\r\nThey move from participation → sovereignty.
\r\nSome examples:
\r\nTaught that imagination is God
\r\nClaimed “you are the operant power”
\r\nTreated Scripture as psychological metaphor only
\r\nFrames “Source” as impersonal
\r\nRemoves moral will
\r\nEliminates suffering’s redemptive meaning
\r\nReduces reality to reward mechanics
\r\nIgnores injustice, tragedy, and grace
\r\nMakes success proof of alignment
\r\nChristian faith cannot go there.
\r\nNot because belief is weak—but because God is personal.
\r\nThe Bible never promises:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Think correctly and you’ll get whatever you want.”
\r\n
It promises something harder:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Delight yourself in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart.”
\r\n
(Psalm 37:4)
That verse doesn’t mean God grants pre-existing desires.
It means He reshapes them.
Which raises the question you keep circling—and rightly so:
\r\n\r\n\r\nDo we align with God’s will because we choose it… or because He already saw we would?
\r\n
Scripture says: Yes.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“You did not choose me, but I chose you.” (John 15:16)
\r\n
“Choose this day whom you will serve.” (Joshua 24:15)
This isn’t a contradiction.
It’s a mystery.
No.
\r\nAnd that’s good news.
\r\nBecause limits protect us from illusion.
\r\nPaul prayed for healing. It didn’t come.
Jesus prayed in Gethsemane. The cup remained.
Unanswered prayer is not failed belief.
\r\nSometimes it is deep formation.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”
\r\n
(2 Corinthians 12:9)
Quantum physics is often abused in LOA circles, so let’s be careful.
\r\nWhat quantum mechanics actually shows:
\r\nObservation affects measurement at subatomic scales
\r\nReality is probabilistic, not purely deterministic
\r\nEntanglement shows non-local correlation, not control
\r\nWhat it does not show:
\r\nThat thoughts create matter at will
\r\nThat consciousness commands reality
\r\nThat desire collapses the universe into obedience
\r\nStill—quantum theory does challenge rigid materialism.
\r\nIt reminds us the universe is:
\r\nMysterious
\r\nRelational
\r\nNot fully visible
\r\nWhich sounds… biblical.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Now we see through a glass, darkly.”
\r\n
(1 Corinthians 13:12)
This is where your earlier work on perception and spiritual sight matters.
\r\nBelief doesn’t create reality ex nihilo.
It filters reality.
Jesus says:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“According to your faith be it done unto you.” (Matthew 9:29)
\r\n
Not because faith is magic—but because faith determines what we can receive.
\r\nA closed heart cannot accept grace.
A hardened mind cannot perceive truth.
A fearful spirit cannot rest.
If “God” language feels heavy, start here:
\r\nReality responds to alignment, not force
\r\nIntegrity precedes peace
\r\nLove expands perception
\r\nHumility deepens clarity
\r\nChristianity simply insists:
\r\n\r\n\r\nAlignment is relational, not mechanical.
\r\n
Prayer is surrender, not scripting.
God is Father, not field.
If you prayed.
Believed.
Spoke life.
And still lost—
You didn’t fail.
\r\nFaith is not leverage.
Prayer is not control.
Trust is not outcome management.
Sometimes the miracle is who you become, not what changes.
\r\nI believe there is truth in the Law of Attraction.
\r\nBut only as a shadow of something deeper:
\r\n\r\n\r\nA universe held together by Word,
\r\n
ordered by wisdom,
responsive to faith,
but ruled by love.
Not the universe answering us—
\r\n—but God inviting us to see clearly.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Those who have eyes to see, let them see.” (Matthew 13:16)
\r\nI. A DEVOTIONAL SERIES
\r\nSeeing Clearly: Faith, Belief, and the Shape of Reality
\r\nFormat: 7 short devotionals (one week)
\r\n
Each includes: Scripture · Reflection · Prayer\r\nDay 1 — Belief Is Not Neutral
\r\nScripture: Proverbs 23:7
\r\n\r\n\r\n“As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.”
\r\nReflection:
\r\n
Belief is not decoration on life; it is infrastructure. Long before actions change, perception changes. Jesus never treats belief as optional—because belief determines what we notice, what we expect, and what we can receive. This is not magic. It is formation.Prayer:
\r\n
“God, show me the beliefs I’ve absorbed without choosing. Renew my mind where fear has shaped my sight.”\r\nDay 2 — Prayer Is Alignment, Not Control
\r\nScripture: Matthew 6:10
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”
\r\nReflection:
\r\n
Biblical prayer is not scripting outcomes. It is tuning the heart. When prayer becomes about control, it collapses into anxiety. When it becomes alignment, it produces peace—even before circumstances change.Prayer:
\r\n
“Father, teach me to desire what You desire—not because I’m forced, but because I trust You.”\r\nDay 3 — The Power (and Limits) of the Tongue
\r\nScripture: Proverbs 18:21
\r\nReflection:
\r\n
Words shape inner worlds before they shape outer ones. Scripture affirms the power of speech—but never divorces it from humility, love, or truth. Words can open doors, but they cannot replace obedience or wisdom.Prayer:
\r\n
“Guard my speech, Lord. Let my words create space for truth, not illusion.”\r\nDay 4 — When Prayer Goes Unanswered
\r\nScripture: 2 Corinthians 12:9
\r\nReflection:
\r\n
Unanswered prayer is not evidence of weak faith. Sometimes it is evidence of deeper formation. God is more invested in who we become than in what we avoid.Prayer:
\r\n
“Meet me in the unanswered places, God. Teach me trust where clarity is absent.”\r\nDay 5 — Seeing Through a Glass, Darkly
\r\nScripture: 1 Corinthians 13:12
\r\nReflection:
\r\n
Certainty is tempting—but clarity comes slowly. Faith does not promise full understanding, only faithful sight. Humility sharpens perception.Prayer:
\r\n
“Keep me curious, God. Save me from false certainty.”\r\nDay 6 — Faith Without Love Distorts Reality
\r\nScripture: 1 Corinthians 13:2
\r\nReflection:
\r\n
Belief without love becomes ideology. Truth without compassion becomes cruelty. Jesus never separates clarity from mercy.Prayer:
\r\n
“Let my convictions be shaped by love, not fear.”\r\nDay 7 — The Narrow Path of Seeing Clearly
\r\nScripture: Matthew 7:14
\r\nReflection:
\r\n
The narrow path is not about moral superiority. It’s about discernment—holding truth without losing humility, faith without losing love.Prayer:
\r\n
“Lead me in the narrow way, Lord—not the loud one.”\r\nII. A GENTLE EXPLAINER FOR SKEPTICS ONLY
\r\nBelief, Reality, and Why Christians Aren’t (All) Anti-Science
\r\nThis essay is not trying to convert you.
\r\nIt’s trying to clarify something that’s often misrepresented.
\r\nMany Christians reject the Law of Attraction because it sounds like wishful thinking dressed up as spirituality. That skepticism is understandable. But Christianity does not teach that belief is irrelevant—only that belief is not sovereign.
\r\nThink of belief less as creating reality and more as filtering experience.
\r\nPsychology already accepts this:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nExpectations shape perception
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nAttention reinforces patterns
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nMeaning-making affects behavior
\r\nChristianity simply adds:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nReality is personal, not impersonal
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nMeaning is relational, not mechanical
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nSuffering is not always a failure
\r\nWhen Christians talk about prayer, they are not describing a cosmic vending machine. They are describing alignment with something outside themselves—something moral, personal, and resistant to manipulation.
\r\nIf that feels less like “manifestation” and more like moral realism, you’re not wrong.
\r\nChristian faith is not anti-science.
\r\n
It is anti-illusion.And it’s often more suspicious of certainty than skeptics realize.
\r\n\r\nIII. VISUAL MAP
\r\nBelief → Perception → Action → Formation
\r\nHere’s a clean conceptual map you can use visually or as a graphic later:
\r\n\r\n
BELIEF │ │ (What I assume is true) │ ▼ PERCEPTION │ │ (What I notice, ignore, or interpret as meaningful) │ ▼ ACTION │ │ (How I respond, speak, choose, or avoid) │ ▼ FORMATION │ │ (Who I become over time) │ └─── feeds back into ───► BELIEFTheological Overlay:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nBelief → Faith / Trust
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nPerception → Spiritual sight
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nAction → Obedience
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nFormation → Christlikeness
\r\nBreakdown:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nWrong belief distorts perception
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nDistorted perception produces reactive action
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nRepeated action forms character
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nCharacter then reinforces belief
\r\nThis is why Scripture focuses so relentlessly on:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nThe mind
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nThe heart
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nWhat we “see”
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Do you have eyes but fail to see?” (Mark 8:18)
\r\nA Skeptic’s Q&A: Belief, Reality, and the Limits of “Manifesting”
\r\nA companion to Perception, Truth, and Spiritual Sight
\r\n\r\nQ: Isn’t this just the Law of Attraction repackaged with Bible verses?
\r\nThat’s a fair concern—and the answer is no, though there is overlap worth acknowledging.
\r\nThe Law of Attraction (LoA), at its strongest, observes something real:
\r\n
belief influences perception, perception influences behavior, and behavior influences outcomes. Psychology, neuroscience, and behavioral economics all affirm this.Where Christianity parts ways is agency and sovereignty.
\r\nLoA often assumes:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nReality is fundamentally impersonal
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nDesire is authoritative
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nThe universe responds mechanically to belief
\r\nChristian theology assumes:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nReality is personal
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nDesire is morally shaped
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nGod is responsive but not controllable
\r\nSo while both traditions care about belief, they disagree sharply about who (or what) is ultimately in charge.
\r\n\r\nQ: But doesn’t Christianity also say belief changes reality?
\r\nIt says belief changes us, which then changes how we move through reality.
\r\nThat’s an important distinction.
\r\nChristianity does not claim:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“If you believe hard enough, anything can happen.”
\r\nIt claims:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“If you trust God, you will be changed—sometimes before circumstances are.”
\r\nThat may sound less exciting than manifesting wealth or health, but it’s also more honest about suffering, limits, and uncertainty.
\r\n\r\nQ: Isn’t unanswered prayer proof this doesn’t work?
\r\nOnly if prayer is treated as a transaction.
\r\nMany skeptics reject prayer because they were taught—explicitly or implicitly—that faith is a lever: pull it correctly and results follow. When that doesn’t happen, the system collapses.
\r\nBiblical prayer is not a lever.
\r\n
It’s a relationship.That doesn’t make it immune to disappointment—but it reframes disappointment as part of formation, not evidence of failure.
\r\n\r\nQ: You talk a lot about perception. Isn’t that just subjective reality?
\r\nPartly—but not entirely.
\r\nPerception filters reality; it doesn’t create it wholesale. Two people can watch the same event and genuinely experience different things, not because truth is relative, but because attention, expectation, and trust differ.
\r\nChristianity agrees with skeptics on this much:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nHumans are not neutral observers
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nBias is unavoidable
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nCertainty is often overestimated
\r\nWhere it differs is the claim that humility sharpens perception, rather than undermining it.
\r\n\r\nQ: What about quantum mechanics? Isn’t that often misused in spiritual talk?
\r\nYes—often badly.
\r\nQuantum mechanics does not prove:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nConsciousness creates reality
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nThoughts collapse the universe into outcomes
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nBelief rewrites physical laws
\r\nWhat it does show is that:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nObservation matters
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nSystems are probabilistic, not purely deterministic
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nReality is stranger and less intuitive than classical models assumed
\r\nChristian theology doesn’t use quantum physics as proof—it uses it as permission for mystery. A reminder that confidence should be proportional to understanding.
\r\n\r\nQ: Why bring the Bible into this at all?
\r\nBecause for millions of people, Scripture has shaped moral imagination, not just belief.
\r\nThe Bible is less interested in explaining how reality works than in forming people who can live wisely within it:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nPeople slow to speak
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nCareful with certainty
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nOriented toward love rather than domination
\r\nYou don’t have to believe it’s divinely inspired to notice its psychological insight.
\r\n\r\nQ: Ecclesiastes says the “right” is wisdom and the “left” is folly. Isn’t that just ancient superstition?
\r\nIt can sound that way—especially to modern ears.
\r\nBut in the ancient world, “right” and “left” were orientation metaphors, not political categories. They referred to direction, alignment, and trustworthiness, not ideology.
\r\nThe text is not saying:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“People on one side are right and others are wrong.”
\r\nIt’s saying:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“The wise heart is oriented toward coherence; the foolish heart drifts.”
\r\nThat metaphor becomes interesting—not authoritarian—when paired with modern insights about attention, integration, and formation.
\r\n\r\nQ: Why frame this as a crisis of “seeing”?
\r\nBecause disagreement today often isn’t about facts—it’s about what is noticed, trusted, or ignored.
\r\nTwo people can have access to the same information and still inhabit different realities because:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nThey trust different sources
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nThey prioritize different harms
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nThey filter meaning differently
\r\nThat’s not stupidity. It’s formation.
\r\nChristianity’s contribution here is not superiority, but a warning:
\r\n
what we repeatedly attend to will shape what we are able to see.\r\nQ: So what are you actually asking skeptics to consider?
\r\nNot conversion.
\r\nJust this:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nThat belief shapes perception more than we like to admit
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nThat control is not the same as wisdom
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nThat humility may be a cognitive advantage
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nThat love might be a better test of truth than certainty
\r\nYou don’t have to accept Christian theology to find value in those claims.
\r\n\r\nQ: What if I still don’t believe any of this?
\r\nThat’s fine.
\r\nThis work isn’t demanding agreement. It’s inviting reflection.
\r\nIf nothing else, it asks a simple, uncomfortable question:
\r\n\r\n\r\nWhat if the deepest divide in our culture isn’t intelligence or information—but formation?
\r\nThat question is worth sitting with—whatever conclusions you draw
\r\n
Skeptic:
I read your essay. I didn’t hate it—which usually means I didn’t fully agree with it either. But I’m still stuck on one thing: why frame all this as “spiritual sight”? Isn’t that just a religious way of saying people disagree?
Believer:
Sometimes it is. But sometimes disagreement isn’t about opinions—it’s about what people are even capable of noticing. That’s what I mean by sight. Not eyesight. Orientation.
Skeptic:
Orientation toward what?
Believer:
Toward meaning. Toward trust. Toward whether reality is something we master or something we respond to.
Skeptic:
That already sounds like theology.
Believer:
It is—but not only theology. Psychology gets there too. So does media theory. So does neuroscience. They all say some version of the same thing: attention shapes perception, perception shapes behavior, behavior shapes identity.
Skeptic:
Sure. But where I get uncomfortable is when faith enters the picture. It feels like you’re saying belief gives you access to truth that others don’t have.
Believer:
I get why that sounds arrogant. But that’s not how I experience it. Faith hasn’t made me more certain—it’s made me more cautious. Less convinced that my first interpretation is correct.
Skeptic:
That’s not how faith usually presents itself in public.
Believer:
Agreed. A lot of what people call faith is actually certainty addiction.
Skeptic:
Okay, that’s… refreshingly honest. But let’s talk about the brain stuff. You reference left and right hemispheres. Isn’t that oversimplified pop science?
Believer:
If someone says, “The left brain is evil and the right brain is holy,” yes—that’s nonsense. But if you treat it as a metaphor for two modes of engaging reality—analytic and integrative—it becomes useful.
Skeptic:
Useful how?
Believer:
The left-hemisphere mode is great at breaking things apart, categorizing, optimizing. The right-hemisphere mode is better at context, meaning, relationships, wholes. Cultures—and media systems—can overtrain one at the expense of the other.
Skeptic:
So you’re saying we’ve overtrained analysis and undertrained integration?
Believer:
Exactly. We have infinite information and very little wisdom. Intelligence without orientation.
Skeptic:
But why bring Ecclesiastes into that? “The heart of the wise inclines to the right…” That sounds… arbitrary.
Believer:
It would be—if “right” meant political right or moral superiority. But in ancient texts, right and left were directional metaphors. Stability versus drift. Alignment versus fragmentation.
Skeptic:
So not “my side is God’s side.”
Believer:
God, no. That’s precisely the misuse I’m trying to critique.
Skeptic:
Then what is the claim?
Believer:
That wisdom is not just intelligence. It’s orientation. Toward humility. Toward coherence. Toward love.
Skeptic:
Love as an epistemology?
Believer:
In a way. Love keeps perception from collapsing into domination. It asks, “What am I missing?” instead of “How do I win?”
Skeptic:
I can respect that. But I still don’t buy prayer, especially when it starts sounding like manifestation with religious language.
Believer:
That’s a fair critique. Some Christians do treat prayer like manifestation with better branding.
Skeptic:
So how is it different at its best?
Believer:
Manifestation says, “Align reality to my will.”
Biblical prayer says, “Align my will to reality as God sees it.”
Skeptic:
That’s… a meaningful distinction.
Believer:
It has to be. Otherwise suffering becomes a moral failure. And that’s cruel.
Skeptic:
So unanswered prayer isn’t a bug—it’s part of the system?
Believer:
I wouldn’t even call it a system. It’s a relationship. Relationships involve silence sometimes.
Skeptic:
I still don’t know if I believe in God. But I do think people are watching different movies. That part feels undeniable.
Believer:
And that’s where we probably agree most. The fracture isn’t just ideological—it’s perceptual. Media, incentives, fear, identity—they all train us what to see.
Skeptic:
So where does that leave someone like me?
Believer:
Hopefully less defensive. Maybe more curious. You don’t have to believe what I believe to ask better questions about how belief works.
Skeptic:
And where does it leave you?
Believer:
With a responsibility. If faith doesn’t make me gentler, slower, more truthful—it’s not faith. It’s just another echo chamber.
Skeptic:
I still disagree with you on metaphysics.
Believer:
That’s okay. Shared reality doesn’t require shared conclusions—only shared humility.
Skeptic:
I can live with that.
Believer:
So can I.
\r\n\r\nA Note on Limits and Posture
\r\n
This work reflects my sincere attempt to think carefully, faithfully, and honestly about perception, truth, faith, and the forces shaping how we see the world. I do not claim exhaustive knowledge, secret insight, or moral superiority. I am a learner, not an authority; a witness, not a judge. Where I speak with conviction, it is because I believe truth matters. Where I acknowledge uncertainty, it is because humility demands it. I invite readers to engage critically, thoughtfully, and charitably—testing what is said, retaining what is good, and rejecting what is not—without assuming that disagreement implies bad faith, blindness, or malice.
\r\n\r\nHow to Read This Work
\r\n
This series is not a manifesto, a political endorsement, or a claim to hidden knowledge. It is a reflective exploration of how belief, media, culture, faith, and formation interact to shape perception. Many examples and metaphors—especially those drawn from psychology, neuroscience, or physics—are used illustratively, not as strict causal proofs. When I reference spiritual sight, media influence, or concepts like the Law of Attraction, I am not collapsing them into a single system, nor arguing that science “proves” theology. I am asking how different frameworks help—or fail—to explain why people experience the same world so differently. Readers are encouraged to resist reading this as an all-or-nothing argument. It is meant to be engaged slowly, critically, and with room for disagreement.
\r\n\r\nWhere I’m Still Unsure
\r\n
I am convinced that perception is not neutral, that formation matters, and that spiritual realities shape how we see. I am convinced that faith, prayer, and belief are powerful—but not mechanical. And yet, I remain unsure where human agency ends and God’s sovereignty fully begins. I do not know why some prayers are answered plainly while others meet silence. I do not know how much of what we call “manifestation” is alignment, coincidence, discipline, grace, or mystery. I do not know how to speak about these things without language that sometimes strains its limits. What I do know is this: truth is not served by certainty without humility, nor by skepticism without openness. I am still learning how to hold faith without presumption, doubt without despair, and conviction without hardness. This work is not the end of that process—it is part of it.
Perception, Truth, and Spiritual Sight
(All Sections)
Daniel Kahneman
\r\nThinking, Fast and Slow
→ Foundational work on cognitive bias, perception, and decision-making.
Jonathan Haidt
\r\nThe Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
→ Explains moral intuitions, narrative formation, and ideological division.
George Lakoff
\r\nDon’t Think of an Elephant!
→ How framing shapes political and cultural perception.
Marshall McLuhan
\r\nThe Medium Is the Massage
\r\nUnderstanding Media
→ Media doesn’t just convey information; it reshapes consciousness.
Neil Postman
\r\nAmusing Ourselves to Death
→ How media ecosystems erode shared reality and serious discourse.
Walter Lippmann
\r\nPublic Opinion (1922)
→ Early articulation of “manufactured consent” and mediated reality.
Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman
\r\nManufacturing Consent
→ Structural critique of media ownership, incentives, and power.
Cass Sunstein
\r\n#Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media
→ How algorithmic echo chambers intensify polarization.
Pew Research Center
\r\nStudies on media trust, partisan consumption, and ideological sorting
→ Empirical data on Americans “watching different realities.”
(Used carefully as metaphor, not deterministic science)
\r\nIain McGilchrist
\r\nThe Master and His Emissary
\r\nThe Matter With Things
→ The most nuanced modern work on left/right hemisphere differences as modes of attention, not simplistic traits.
Antonio Damasio
\r\nDescartes’ Error
→ Emotion, embodiment, and meaning in rational thought.
Lisa Feldman Barrett
\r\nHow Emotions Are Made
→ Perception as construction, not passive reception.
\r\n\r\nNote: No credible neuroscientist claims the brain cleanly maps to ideology. The hemisphere discussion in this work is analogical, not literal.
\r\n
(Primary sources + critical context)
\r\nNeville Goddard
\r\nFeeling Is the Secret
\r\nThe Power of Awareness
\r\nRhonda Byrne
\r\nThe Secret
→ Popularized modern Law of Attraction ideas.
Esther & Jerry Hicks
\r\nAsk and It Is Given
→ LoA framed as alignment with “the universe.”
William James
\r\nThe Varieties of Religious Experience
→ Early psychological insight into belief, expectation, and experience.
Christian Critiques / Balance
\r\nDallas Willard — Renovation of the Heart
\r\nN.T. Wright — After You Believe
\r\nThese emphasize formation over control, contrasting sharply with LoA absolutism.
\r\nRichard Feynman
\r\nQED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
\r\nBrian Greene
\r\nThe Elegant Universe
\r\nThe Fabric of the Cosmos
\r\nSean Carroll
\r\nSomething Deeply Hidden
→ Clear explanations of quantum mechanics without spiritual exaggeration.
\r\n\r\nImportant distinction made in the essay:
\r\n
Quantum mechanics allows mystery and observer-dependence
It does not prove consciousness “creates reality”
Key Biblical Texts Referenced
\r\nProverbs 23:7
\r\nProverbs 18:21
\r\nEcclesiastes 10:2
\r\nMatthew 6:10
\r\nMatthew 7:13–14
\r\nMark 8:18
\r\n1 Corinthians 2:14
\r\n1 Corinthians 13
\r\n2 Corinthians 12:9
\r\nRomans 12:2
\r\nHebrews 11:1
\r\nTheological Voices
\r\nAugustine — Confessions
\r\nThomas Aquinas — Summa Theologica (on will, intellect, and truth)
\r\nSøren Kierkegaard — Fear and Trembling
\r\nSimone Weil — Gravity and Grace
\r\nDallas Willard
\r\nThe Spirit of the Disciplines
\r\nJames K.A. Smith
\r\nYou Are What You Love
→ Formation through habit, attention, and desire.
Neil Postman (again, intentionally)
\r\nMedia shapes not just opinions but souls.
\r\nBible Project (Scholarly Resource)
\r\nStudies on “wisdom,” “heart,” and “seeing” in Scripture
→ Hebrew anthropology differs radically from modern Western assumptions.
René Girard — Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World
\r\nCharles Taylor — A Secular Age
\r\nAlasdair MacIntyre — After Virtue
\r\nThese help explain:
\r\nmoral breakdown without shared narratives
\r\nidentity-driven belief
\r\nloss of teleology (shared purpose)
\r\nThis project does not claim:
\r\nthe Bible is a science textbook
\r\nneuroscience proves theology
\r\nquantum mechanics validates spirituality
\r\nIt argues something narrower and more defensible:
\r\n\r\n\r\nBelief shapes perception, perception shapes action, and action shapes who we become — and Scripture has always understood this.
\r\n
This work invites disagreement.
It does not fear skepticism.
It only asks that certainty be held with humility,
and that love remain part of the epistemology.
We are no longer arguing about opinions. We are arguing about what is. Two people can watch the same event, read the same headline, hear the same words—and walk away convinced they witnessed entirely different realities. It feels less like disagreement and more like living inside parallel films projected onto the same physical world.
\r\n\r\nThis fracture did not appear overnight. Shared reality depends on shared standards: what counts as evidence, which sources are trusted, how correction works, and whether truth is something discovered or something constructed. When those standards erode, coherence collapses.
\r\nScripture warns that when truth is untethered from wisdom, confusion multiplies (Isaiah 5:20). Calling evil good and good evil is not merely moral inversion—it is perceptual breakdown. A society that cannot agree on what it sees cannot govern itself, cannot reconcile, and cannot repent together.
\r\nThis is not primarily a political crisis. It is an epistemological one. And beneath that, a spiritual one.
\r\nHumans do not merely consume information; we inhabit stories. Narratives tell us who the heroes are, who the villains are, and where we belong. When belonging becomes the highest good, truth becomes negotiable.
\r\nModern media ecosystems reward emotional resonance over accuracy. Content that affirms identity spreads faster than content that challenges it. Over time, people do not just believe different things—they develop different instincts for trust, suspicion, and outrage.
\r\nThe Bible consistently warns against forming identity apart from truth. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie” (Romans 1:25) is not about ignorance; it is about preference. When narratives are chosen because they feel righteous rather than because they are true, perception bends to desire.
\r\nShared reality fractures when narrative loyalty outranks fidelity to what is.
\r\nIntelligence solves problems. Wisdom discerns meaning.
\r\nA society can be highly educated, technologically advanced, and analytically sophisticated—and still be profoundly foolish. Scripture makes a sharp distinction here: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10). Without reverence for truth beyond ourselves, intelligence becomes a tool for rationalizing whatever we already want to believe.
\r\nHistory is filled with brilliant civilizations that collapsed not from stupidity but from moral and perceptual arrogance. When intelligence is severed from humility, it becomes brittle. It can explain everything except itself.
\r\nWisdom, by contrast, begins with limits: I may be wrong. I do not see everything. I am accountable to something higher than my reasoning.
\r\nCleverness excels at reframing. It can make falsehoods sound compassionate and cruelty sound necessary. In media culture, cleverness is often rewarded more than truthfulness.
\r\nEcclesiastes observes that wisdom can be corrupted when it serves power instead of truth (Ecclesiastes 10). The danger is not ignorance but overconfidence—the belief that skillful reasoning can replace moral clarity.
\r\nThis is why propaganda often uses intelligent people. It does not require stupidity; it requires loyalty.
\r\nA clever society without wisdom becomes easy to steer and hard to awaken.
\r\nMedia does not simply inform; it forms. Repetition shapes plausibility. Framing shapes moral instinct. Silence shapes memory.
\r\nEvery media system answers two questions, whether consciously or not: What deserves attention? And what deserves trust? Those answers shape belief long before conscious evaluation begins.
\r\nScripture repeatedly warns about shepherds who mislead the flock, not always through lies but through distortion and omission (Ezekiel 34). Power does not need to fabricate reality if it can curate it.
\r\nChristians must understand that discernment is not only about fact‑checking claims but about recognizing formative pressure.
\r\nPropaganda rarely announces itself. It offers curated options, not open inquiry. It tells people what questions to ask—and which ones are dangerous.
\r\nWhen all available narratives share the same underlying assumptions, disagreement feels free while remaining constrained. This is how societies drift without realizing they are being guided.
\r\nThe biblical call to discernment includes examining foundations, not just conclusions. “Test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) is a command to evaluate sources, motives, and fruit—not merely surface claims.
\r\nFreedom of thought requires more than multiple voices; it requires the courage to step outside the frame.
\r\nIn Scripture, sight is rarely just visual. To “see” is to understand, to recognize truth, to perceive rightly. Jesus repeatedly says, “He who has eyes to see, let him see,” implying that vision can be present yet unused.
\r\nSpiritual blindness is not the absence of information but the inability to interpret reality truthfully. Pride, fear, and allegiance can all cloud sight.
\r\nThe prophets describe eyes that see but do not perceive because the heart is hardened (Isaiah 6). Perception is moral before it is intellectual.
\r\nEcclesiastes 10:2 says, “A wise man’s heart inclines him to the right, but a fool’s heart to the left.” This is not a political statement but a directional metaphor.
\r\nThroughout Scripture, the “right hand” symbolizes strength, authority, and alignment with God’s order. The contrast is not about sides but about orientation—toward truth or away from it.
\r\nThis metaphor invites reflection on how inner orientation shapes perception. Where the heart leans, the mind follows. Truth is not merely concluded; it is approached.
\r\nDiscernment today requires slowing down in systems designed to accelerate reaction. It requires humility in cultures that reward certainty. It requires courage in environments that punish nuance.
\r\nFor Christians, media literacy is not optional. It is a form of discipleship. Learning how narratives are constructed, how emotions are manipulated, and how incentives shape messaging is part of loving God with the mind.
\r\nDiscernment asks not only, “Is this true?” but “What is this doing to me?”
\r\nA Christian approach to media literacy includes:
\r\nExamining sources and incentives
\r\nNoticing emotional manipulation
\r\nDistinguishing information from formation
\r\nPracticing sabbath from constant consumption
\r\nSubmitting beliefs to communal and scriptural correction
\r\nTruth flourishes in humility, patience, and love of correction. Media systems often cultivate the opposite.
\r\nFormation is happening whether we choose it or not. The question is by whom.
\r\nMany believers feel exhausted, angry, and disoriented. This is not failure; it is a human response to prolonged cognitive and moral stress.
\r\nScripture invites rest, not withdrawal; clarity, not contempt. “The anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:20).
\r\nDiscernment must be paired with gentleness. Truth without love hardens. Love without truth dissolves.
\r\nIf you feel overwhelmed, begin smaller: fewer inputs, slower judgments, deeper prayer, and trusted community.
\r\nTruth is not fragile, but relationships are. Christians are called to bear witness, not win wars.
\r\nHolding truth without love produces arrogance. Holding love without truth produces confusion. Christ embodies both.
\r\nIn a fractured world, shared reality may not be immediately recoverable—but faithful presence still matters. Seeing clearly, speaking honestly, and loving steadfastly remain acts of resistance.
\r\nThe goal is not to escape the world’s confusion, but to walk through it with eyes open, heart anchored, and hands extended.
\r\nThis essay is written for readers who feel talked about rather than talked to when faith, media, and politics collide. It does not assume agreement. It asks for curiosity.
\r\nIf you’re skeptical of religious explanations for political division, you’re not alone—and you’re not wrong to be cautious. Grand narratives have been misused before. They can flatten complexity, excuse bad behavior, and replace evidence with certainty.
\r\nSo let’s start smaller.
\r\nSomething strange is happening in modern societies. People who share the same streets, the same phones, and often the same basic facts are nonetheless experiencing radically different realities. They aren’t just disagreeing; they’re seeing different movies.
\r\nYou don’t need theology to notice that.
\r\nConsider a single news event. Two people watch coverage from different outlets and walk away with opposite moral conclusions—not because one is evil or stupid, but because each story emphasized different causes, victims, motives, and stakes.
\r\nPsychologists call this framing. Media scholars call it agenda-setting. Sociologists call it identity signaling.
\r\nIn everyday life, we just call it exhausting.
\r\nThe harder part is this: once a narrative becomes tied to identity—political, cultural, or moral—it stops being evaluated and starts being defended.
\r\nThat’s not a religious claim. That’s human cognition.
\r\nSkeptics are often told that the solution is better critical thinking. That helps—but it’s incomplete.
\r\nCritical thinking tools usually assume:
\r\nneutral observers
\r\nshared definitions
\r\ncomparable information environments
\r\nWe don’t live in that world anymore.
\r\nInstead, we live inside feedback loops:
\r\nalgorithms reward outrage
\r\ncommunities reward loyalty
\r\ndissent feels like betrayal
\r\nUnder those conditions, intelligence doesn’t protect against error. Sometimes it sharpens it.
\r\nHighly intelligent people are often better at rationalizing what they already believe.
\r\nHere’s where religious language enters—not as a trump card, but as a description of depth.
\r\nWhen people of faith talk about “spiritual blindness,” skeptics often hear insult. What’s usually meant is something closer to this:
\r\n\r\n\r\nThere are layers of perception beneath conscious reasoning that shape what we notice, ignore, trust, or fear.
\r\n
Modern neuroscience agrees.
\r\nMost of our decisions are made pre-consciously—by emotional salience, pattern recognition, and meaning-making systems that operate before logic enters the room.
\r\nReligion didn’t invent that idea. It named it.
\r\nHere’s the uncomfortable part for everyone.
\r\nWhen beliefs anchor our sense of goodness, belonging, and safety, challenges to those beliefs feel like threats to the self.
\r\nThat’s why political arguments feel personal. That’s why correction feels like attack. That’s why people talk past each other.
\r\nFrom the inside, each side feels sane. From the outside, everyone looks unhinged.
\r\nYou don’t have to accept theological claims to consider this possibility:
\r\n\r\n\r\nOur crisis is not primarily one of information, but of formation.
\r\n
What we attend to shapes us. What we repeat stabilizes. What we never question becomes sacred.
\r\nFaith traditions have wrestled with this problem for millennia. Modern media discovered it accidentally—and monetized it.
\r\nHealthy skepticism remains essential:
\r\nit resists manipulation
\r\nit questions authority
\r\nit demands evidence
\r\nBut skepticism without self-skepticism becomes dogma.
\r\nThe hardest question is not “Are they wrong?” but:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“What am I unable—or unwilling—to see?”
\r\n
You don’t need to convert to ask that.
\r\nYou just need humility.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.” — Ecclesiastes 10:2
\r\n
This verse is frequently misunderstood.
\r\nIt is not:
\r\na partisan statement
\r\na prediction of modern politics
\r\na claim that conservatives are wise and liberals are foolish
\r\nThe author of Ecclesiastes lived more than two thousand years before modern left–right politics existed.
\r\nSo what is being said?
\r\nIn ancient Hebrew thought, right and left were symbolic orientations.
\r\nRight → strength, order, favor, reliability
\r\nLeft → weakness, instability, unpredictability
\r\nThis symbolism appears throughout Scripture and other ancient cultures.
\r\nThe verse is about direction of the heart, not party alignment.
\r\nModern neuroscience complicates simple left-brain/right-brain myths, but some broad functional tendencies remain useful as metaphors:
\r\nThe left hemisphere specializes in categorization, language, linear logic, and control
\r\nThe right hemisphere specializes in context, meaning, relationship, intuition, and integration
\r\nProblems arise when either dominates.
\r\nPure analysis without meaning becomes brittle
\r\nPure intuition without structure becomes chaotic
\r\nWisdom integrates both.
\r\nWhen the Bible speaks of eyes to see or hearts turned, it describes perceptual alignment—not IQ.
\r\nSpiritual formation, in this view, is the long process of:
\r\nwidening attention
\r\nsoftening defensiveness
\r\nintegrating truth with love
\r\nThis is why Scripture so often pairs knowledge with humility, truth with mercy, and power with restraint.
\r\nModern media environments pull perception apart:
\r\nemotional right-brain cues without grounding
\r\nanalytical left-brain data without context
\r\nThe result is fragmentation.
\r\nPeople become fluent in arguments but poor at understanding.
\r\nIn biblical terms, wisdom today might look like:
\r\nslowing reaction time
\r\nholding competing truths
\r\nresisting algorithmic outrage
\r\nrefusing to reduce people to narratives
\r\nThat doesn’t require religious belief—but religion offers a language and practice for it.
\r\nWhether you read Ecclesiastes as Scripture or literature, its insight remains:
\r\n\r\n\r\nOrientation matters.
\r\n
What we habitually turn toward—fear or trust, outrage or patience, certainty or curiosity—shapes what we see.
\r\nAnd what we see shapes who we become.
\r\nThat question belongs to skeptics and believers alike.
\r\nThe Holy Bible (ESV, NIV, NRSV)
– Ecclesiastes 10:2
– Matthew 7:13–14
– 1 Corinthians 2:14
– Proverbs (wisdom literature framework)
Tremper Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes (NICOT, Eerdmans)
– Scholarly explanation of symbolic “right/left” orientation in Hebrew wisdom
Michael V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes
– Ecclesiastes as existential wisdom, not ideological instruction
John Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament
– Cultural symbolism of right/left, order/chaos in ancient societies
N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God
– How Scripture forms perception rather than delivering slogans
Iain McGilchrist, The Master and His Emissary
– The most cited modern work on left/right hemisphere orientation, integration, and meaning
– Explicitly warns against simplistic “left-brain/right-brain” myths while defending orientation differences
Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow
– System 1 (intuitive, fast) vs. System 2 (analytical, slow) cognition
– Foundation for understanding why people “see” events differently
Antonio Damasio, Descartes’ Error
– Emotions and pre-conscious processing precede rational thought
Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind
– Moral intuitions come first; reasoning follows
– Explains political and ideological polarization
Lisa Feldman Barrett, How Emotions Are Made
– The brain constructs reality based on prediction, context, and meaning
Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (1922)
– Origin of the idea that people respond to “pictures in their heads,” not raw reality
Noam Chomsky & Edward Herman, Manufacturing Consent
– Agenda-setting and framing in mass media
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
– Media formats shape cognition and culture
Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
– Algorithmic feedback loops and behavioral shaping
Eli Pariser, The Filter Bubble
– Personalized media environments and reality fragmentation
Pew Research Center
– Studies on media trust, political polarization, and ideological sorting
Henri Tajfel, Social Identity Theory
– Why beliefs tied to identity resist correction
Cass Sunstein, #Republic
– Echo chambers and group polarization
Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens / Homo Deus
– Shared myths, narratives, and meaning-making
Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy
– How societies construct and defend shared realities
James K.A. Smith, You Are What You Love
– Formation through habit, attention, and desire
Dallas Willard, Renovation of the Heart
– Spiritual transformation as perceptual reordering
Richard Foster, Celebration of Discipline
– Practices that slow, integrate, and reorient perception
Augustine, Confessions
– Disordered loves distort vision
American Psychological Association (APA)
– Research on confirmation bias and motivated reasoning
MIT Media Lab
– Studies on misinformation spread and emotional contagion
Craig Groeschel, Winning the War in Your Mind
– Applied pastoral framework for thought formation
Barna Group
– Research on Christian media consumption and worldview formation
Marshall McLuhan, The Medium Is the Message
– Media shapes perception more than content itself
Many Americans are no longer arguing with one another.
They are inhabiting different realities.
They are watching different footage.
Trusting different institutions.
Living inside different moral imaginations.
And for the first time in my life, it feels like the divide isn’t merely ideological. It’s epistemological. People are not just disagreeing about solutions — they disagree about what is even happening.
\r\nSo I want to begin gently.
\r\nThis essay is not an argument for open borders.
It is not a dismissal of crime, law, or national sovereignty.
It is not a defense of chaos disguised as compassion.
But it is also not a defense of nationalism, cultural pride baptized as virtue, or the idea that God belongs more to America than to any other nation.
\r\nWhat follows is an attempt to think biblically, psychologically, historically, and personally about nations, borders, culture, law, mercy, fear, pride — and calling — at a moment when almost every conversation collapses into slogans.
\r\nIf you disagree with me, that’s okay.
My goal is not to win.
My goal is to be honest.
One of the quiet distortions in modern American Christianity is the belief that God is primarily concerned with individual souls, while nations, borders, and cultures are either morally irrelevant or morally suspect.
\r\nThat assumption is simply not biblical.
\r\nFrom the beginning, Scripture treats geography, people groups, and boundaries as intentionally ordered realities, not accidents of history.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“From one man He made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.”
\r\n
— Acts 17:26
Borders are not sinful.
Nations are not mistakes.
Cultures are not obstacles to redemption.
God creates nations, limits nations, judges nations, and ultimately heals nations.
\r\nAt the end of the biblical story, heaven is not flattened into sameness:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne.”
\r\n
— Revelation 7:9
God does not save us out of our cultures.
He redeems us within them.
That means two truths must be held together — and Americans increasingly cannot hold them at the same time:
\r\nCountries matter
\r\nNo country is ultimate
\r\nWhen either truth is abandoned, distortion follows.
\r\nOn immigration and culture, I’ll be honest: I lean more left than many conservatives are comfortable with.
\r\nI believe:
\r\nimmigrants are image-bearers, not invaders
\r\nhospitality is a biblical command, not a political slogan
\r\nAmerica does not belong to God more than Guatemala, Ukraine, Nigeria, or Syria
\r\nfear of the “other” is often baptized insecurity
\r\n\r\n\r\n“The Lord watches over the foreigner and sustains the fatherless and the widow.”
\r\n
— Psalm 146:9
Since elementary school, my favorite subject was geography. Maps. Borders. Languages. Cultures. Long before politics, I felt wonder. I didn’t just memorize capitals — I imagined people. Histories. Traditions. Differences.
\r\nThat curiosity never left. Over time, it deepened into something else: calling.
\r\nMore and more, I feel my life is not meant to stay put. I feel called to travel — not as a tourist, not as a conqueror, but as a witness. To cross borders legally, humbly, intentionally. To speak about Christ in places that do not assume Him, and cultures that do not mirror mine.
\r\nThat calling has shaped my relationships too. I’ve always been drawn to foreign cultures and foreign women. My last two serious relationships were not American. That isn’t rebellion. It’s resonance. God shapes desire as much as doctrine.
\r\nBut compassion without order is not justice — it’s negligence.
\r\nWhat the United States experienced in recent years was not biblical hospitality. It was administrative collapse.
\r\nOpen borders without enforcement are not mercy. They are abandonment — of citizens, of migrants, of cities, and of truth.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.”
\r\n
— 1 Corinthians 14:33
Governments exist because human beings are fallen. Laws exist because restraint is necessary. Borders exist because societies require structure to function.
\r\nAnd yes — political motives are real. The modern American left understands that mass immigration reshapes future voting demographics. That reality is not controversial inside strategy rooms, even if it’s denied publicly. Compassion can become a costume for power.
\r\nBut the answer to exploitation is not cruelty.
The answer to disorder is not pride.
This is where the conversation becomes painful — and where it must not be dishonest.
\r\nThere are real, documented cases where violent crimes were committed by individuals who should not have been in the country at all. Acknowledging this is not racism. It is not hatred. It is moral seriousness.
\r\nNames like Laken Riley, Rachel Morin, Jocelyn Nungaray, and many others are not political tools. They are human beings. Daughters. Mothers. Children.
\r\nThere are dozens of such cases — murders, rapes, repeat offenses — where enforcement failures, sanctuary policies, or bureaucratic paralysis played a role. These tragedies matter not because they define immigrants as a group, but because preventable harm matters.
\r\nAt the same time — and this is where honesty becomes harder — data consistently shows that immigrants overall, including undocumented populations, commit less violent crime per capita than native-born citizens.
\r\nBoth truths exist.
Most immigrants are not criminals.
Some crimes should never have happened.
Wisdom refuses to sacrifice either truth.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed.”
\r\n
— Isaiah 1:17
Justice does not erase victims to protect narratives.
Mercy does not erase order to protect feelings.
This divide has reached a breaking point.
\r\nRight now, Americans are watching the same events and arriving at opposite moral conclusions.
\r\nOne side sees ICE agents deporting criminals and restoring law.
The other sees ICE as a militarized force harming civilians and killing Americans.
Recent confrontations, raids, and fatal incidents involving federal agents have ignited protests, strikes, and national outrage. Some Americans see justified enforcement. Others see state violence and propaganda.
\r\nWho is right?
\r\nIt depends almost entirely on who you’re listening to.
Which outlets you trust.
Which narratives you inherited.
This isn’t just polarization. It’s epistemic fracture — a loss of shared reality.
\r\nIf the left risks chaos, the modern right risks idolatry.
\r\nAmerican nationalism increasingly confuses faith with flag, Christianity with cultural dominance, and borders with righteousness.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Pride goes before destruction.”
\r\n
— Proverbs 16:18
America is not Israel.
The Constitution is not Scripture.
And fear is not a fruit of the Spirit.
Ideas like commodifying citizenship — such as proposals that treat belonging as a transaction rather than covenant — feel deeply un-American to me. Citizenship is not a luxury product. It is participation in a people. A shared burden. A shared story.
\r\nPolicies that glorify exclusion, monetize identity, or treat foreigners as threats by default betray both the gospel and American tradition.
\r\nI don’t believe restoring America means narrowing mercy.
I don’t believe God’s kingdom advances through walls.
And I don’t believe Christ needs nationalism to survive.
Here is where everything converges for me.
\r\nGod cares about nations because He intends to redeem them, not erase them.
\r\nBorders should exist — and be enforced — but with proportionality, humanity, and truth.
\r\nAmerica is worth loving — but not worshiping.
\r\nAnd my own calling is not to defend a political tribe, but to carry Christ across cultures.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.”
\r\n
— Matthew 28:19
That command assumes difference.
It honors geography.
It requires humility.
The gospel spreads not through domination, but incarnation — entering another culture, listening, learning, loving.
\r\nThe tragedy of this moment is that Americans are being forced to choose between false binaries:
\r\nOpen borders or hatred
Law or compassion
National identity or global love
The gospel refuses these binaries.
\r\nChrist crossed borders.
Christ respected law.
Christ confronted hypocrisy.
Christ rejected empire.
To follow Him now means standing uncomfortably between tribes — misunderstood by both, claimed by neither.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”
\r\n
— Psalm 24:1
That includes America.
And every nation beyond it.
If you’re on the left: resist naïveté.
If you’re on the right: resist pride.
If you’re a Christian: resist both.
The kingdom of God is not fragile.
Truth does not fear complexity.
Love does not require blindness.
Countries matter to God.
Cultures matter to God.
People matter more than all of them.
And if living faithfully means standing in tension rather than certainty — so be it.
\r\nThis is not confusion.
It is maturity.
This is the part of the conversation many people want to avoid — not because it is untrue, but because it is morally destabilizing.
\r\nAbstractions are easier than faces.
Statistics are safer than names.
Policy debates feel cleaner than funerals.
But when systems fail, they do not fail in theory. They fail in lives.
\r\nAcknowledging these cases is not an indictment of immigrants as a group. That would be false and unjust. The overwhelming majority of immigrants — documented or undocumented — are not violent criminals. Many are fleeing poverty, corruption, or violence themselves.
\r\nBut some crimes should never have happened at all, because the individuals involved should not have been present — often after prior arrests, deportations, or known violent histories.
\r\nTo say this is not hatred.
It is moral seriousness.
Below are dozens of documented cases reported by mainstream outlets, court records, and law enforcement statements over the past several years. This list is not exhaustive. It is representative.
\r\nLaken Riley (Georgia, 2024) – 22-year-old nursing student murdered while jogging. The suspect, José Ibarra, was an undocumented immigrant with prior arrests and had been released despite earlier encounters with authorities.
\r\nRachel Morin (Maryland, 2023) – 37-year-old mother of five raped and murdered on a hiking trail. The suspect was later charged; authorities stated he was in the U.S. illegally and linked via DNA to an earlier assault in Los Angeles.
\r\nJocelyn Nungaray (Texas, 2024) – 12-year-old girl allegedly sexually assaulted and murdered. Two undocumented Venezuelan nationals were charged. The case drew national attention because of prior border release policies.
\r\nKate Steinle (San Francisco, 2015) – Shot and killed on a pier. The suspect had multiple prior deportations and was released under a sanctuary policy before the killing.
\r\nSarah Root (Nebraska, 2016) – Killed by an undocumented immigrant driving drunk; the suspect was released on bond and fled the country.
\r\nMollie Tibbetts (Iowa, 2018) – College student abducted and murdered. The perpetrator was an undocumented immigrant who had been living and working under a false identity.
\r\nJessica Whitaker (Indiana, 2020) – Shot and killed during a confrontation. The suspect was reportedly in the U.S. illegally.
\r\nBrandon Mendoza (California, 2014) – Killed by a drunk driver who was undocumented and had prior DUI convictions.
\r\nJamiel Shaw Jr. (California, 2008) – 17-year-old murdered by a gang member who was in the country illegally and had prior arrests.
\r\nTerry Cormier (Texas, 2017) – Killed by an undocumented immigrant with multiple prior DUI arrests.
\r\nDrew Rosenberg (Texas, 2015) – Killed by an undocumented repeat offender while riding a motorcycle.
\r\nOfficer Newman Raigoza (California, 2023) – Killed in the line of duty by a suspect later confirmed to be in the country illegally.
\r\nEthan Liming (Ohio, 2022) – While not an immigration case, frequently cited alongside others to illustrate selective outrage and media framing disparities.
\r\nBrianna Kupfer (California, 2022) – Murdered in a furniture store; case sparked debate over repeat offenders and release policies (immigration status disputed in early reporting but frequently referenced in broader law-enforcement failure discussions).
\r\nMultiple sexual assault cases in New York City shelters (2022–2024) – NYPD reports documented assaults involving recently arrived migrants housed in temporary facilities, some with prior charges.
\r\nThere are many more — names that briefly surface, trend, then disappear. Some are never nationally reported at all. Local stories. Quiet funerals. Families who bury children while politicians debate semantics.
\r\nAgain:
This is not about demonizing immigrants.
It is about acknowledging preventable harm.
\r\n\r\n“Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.”
\r\n
— Proverbs 24:11
Ignoring victims to preserve narratives is not compassion.
It is abandonment.
Here is where theology matters.
\r\nWhen citizens are told:
\r\n“This never happens”
\r\n“You’re imagining it”
\r\n“Talking about this is hateful”
\r\n…while they can name victims, funerals, court cases, and parents who can no longer sleep — something fractures.
\r\nPeople don’t just lose trust in government.
They lose trust in moral language itself.
That vacuum is where extremism grows.
\r\nScripture never tells us to deny suffering for the sake of unity. It tells us to tell the truth without partiality.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Do not show favoritism, but judge fairly.”
\r\n
— Leviticus 19:15
Fair judgment requires:
\r\nrejecting collective blame
\r\nrejecting willful blindness
\r\nrefusing propaganda from either direction
\r\nThis is why Americans now see ICE in radically different ways.
\r\nOne America sees:
\r\nrepeat offenders finally removed
\r\nvictims finally acknowledged
\r\nlaws belatedly enforced
\r\nAnother America sees:
\r\nviral clips without context
\r\nenforcement framed as cruelty
\r\nagents portrayed as villains
\r\nAnd again — both realities are curated.
\r\nThe moral failure is not disagreement.
It’s the refusal to hold law and mercy together.
Christ never denied evil to avoid offense.
He also never exploited fear to gain power.
That tension is uncomfortable — which is why so few remain there.
\r\nTo name victims is not to become cruel.
To enforce law is not to abandon love.
To love nations is not to worship them.
And to care about borders is not to stop caring about souls.
\r\nI include these names not to inflame, but to ground the conversation in reality. If we cannot say victims’ names, we are no longer doing moral reasoning — we are doing image management.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Open your mouth for those who cannot speak.”
\r\n
— Proverbs 31:8
If we want a society capable of mercy, it must first be capable of truth.
\r\nThere is one part of this conversation that neither side wants to sit with for very long: the faces, names, and families of victims.
\r\nNot abstractions. Not statistics. Not talking points.
\r\nReal people.
\r\nIn recent years, Americans have watched cases surface that cut through ideology because they are so brutal, so unnecessary, and so preventable that they resist being explained away. The murder of Laken Riley, a young nursing student killed while jogging, became a flashpoint not because it was the only tragedy of its kind—but because it was one of the few the public could not easily ignore. Her death was not symbolic. It was final. And her family’s grief did not fit neatly into anyone’s political script.
\r\nShe is not alone.
\r\nAcross the country, there have been repeated reports of Americans—women assaulted, children harmed, families destroyed—where the perpetrator was in the country illegally and had already been encountered by authorities. In many of these cases, deportation orders were ignored, enforcement was deferred, or jurisdictional handoffs failed. The pattern that emerges is not one of malice by default, but of systems refusing to act out of fear, ideology, or paralysis.
\r\nAnd this is where moral clarity matters.
\r\nScripture is unambiguous about the weight of innocent blood.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.” (Proverbs 24:11)
\r\n
A society that cannot say this life mattered—without immediately qualifying it to protect a narrative—has already lost something essential.
\r\nOne of the deepest fractures in America right now is not merely political; it is moral selectivity.
\r\nOn one side, there is a real and biblical concern for the foreigner, the sojourner, the immigrant:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“You shall love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 10:19)
\r\n
That command matters. It always has.
\r\nBut Scripture never separates compassion from order, or mercy from responsibility. The same Bible that commands hospitality also affirms borders, nations, laws, and consequences.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“From one man He made all nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.” (Acts 17:26)
\r\n
The modern left often quotes the first verse and ignores the second.
The modern right often quotes the second and forgets the first.
Both errors deform the truth.
\r\nWhat becomes unbearable for many Americans is not immigration itself—but the refusal to acknowledge harm when it occurs, especially when that harm falls on the most vulnerable. When families speak out after losing a daughter, a son, or a spouse, they are often met not with compassion but with deflection: “Don’t politicize this.” Or worse: “This is rare.”
\r\nRare does not mean irrelevant when you are the one burying your child.
\r\nThis is where media narratives become decisive.
\r\nDepending on what you watch, read, or share, ICE is either:
\r\nA necessary enforcement agency removing violent offenders and repeat lawbreakers
or
A rogue, militarized force kidnapping families and terrorizing communities
\r\nBoth images are exaggerated. Both are weaponized.
\r\nAnd once again, Americans are living in two realities that do not overlap.
\r\nIn one reality, footage circulates of ICE arresting individuals with criminal records—assault, trafficking, weapons charges—after years of non-enforcement. In the other, viral clips remove all context and portray enforcement itself as violence. Protesters chant, media outlets adopt activist language, and the word “killer” is applied not to criminals, but to the state itself.
\r\nWhat’s missing in both streams is proportional truth.
\r\nLaw enforcement is not inherently righteous.
Nor is lawlessness inherently compassionate.
Scripture’s vision is harder than either slogan:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Justice and mercy have kissed.” (Psalm 85:10)
\r\n
That kiss requires discernment. It requires restraint. It requires the courage to say yes to borders and yes to dignity—without turning either into an idol.
\r\nThis is also where the pendulum swing becomes dangerous.
\r\nYou’re right to sense that the reaction to chaos can overshoot into something colder, harsher, and less Christlike. Nationalism—especially when baptized with religious language—quickly becomes pride.
\r\nScripture is relentless about this:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.” (Proverbs 16:18)
\r\n
America is not the Kingdom of God.
Neither is any global system that treats people as units to be moved, exploited, or ignored.
Your love of geography—of nations, cultures, languages—is not incidental here. It reflects something true: God delights in difference.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages.” (Revelation 7:9)
\r\n
Borders exist because cultures exist.
Cultures exist because God intended diversity, not sameness.
That means neither open borders nor fortress nationalism can claim biblical purity.
\r\nI think part of why this tension hits me so deeply is because of my sense of calling.
\r\nSince elementary school, my favorite subject has been geography. Long before politics ever entered the picture, I was fascinated by countries, borders, cultures, languages, and history—how different peoples live, think, worship, and understand the world. That curiosity never left me. If anything, it matured. Today, I genuinely believe I’m called to travel, to cross cultures, and to evangelize—to carry the Gospel beyond my own familiar spaces.
\r\nWhen you’ve actually loved people from other countries—not as ideas, not as talking points, but as real human beings—your perspective changes. When you’ve dated outside your own culture, built real relationships across borders, learned languages, studied histories, and listened to people tell their stories face to face, you stop thinking in slogans.
\r\nYou start thinking in faces.
\r\nThat’s why I don’t fit neatly into either political camp on immigration. I care deeply about nations and cultures because God does. Borders exist for a reason, but they exist alongside human dignity, not in opposition to it. And because of that, some current proposals—even from leaders I’ve defended in other areas—don’t sit right with me.
\r\nIdeas like Trump’s so-called “Gold Card,” which reduces immigration to a wealth-based transaction, feel fundamentally wrong. That’s not American in the deepest sense. Citizenship shouldn’t be something you can simply buy your way into. A nation is not a corporation, and belonging is not a commodity. It’s a covenant—social, moral, cultural—not merely an economic exchange.
\r\nAt the same time, I refuse to lie to myself and pretend that chaos is compassion.
\r\nI won’t call lawlessness love. I won’t ignore victims or erase suffering to protect an ideology. I won’t spiritualize disorder just so I can feel morally superior. That path is tempting, but it isn’t honest—and it isn’t biblical.
\r\nThe truth is, this really is a narrow road. Jesus warned us it would be.
\r\n\r\n" }, { "id": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/articlesplus/31", "url": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/fi/blog/general/31-manufacturing-reality-media-power-propaganda-and-the-battle-for-truth-seeing-through-the-fog-or-building-a-new-one", "title": "Manufacturing Reality Media, Power, Propaganda, and the Battle for Truth: Seeing Through the Fog — Or Building a New One?", "summary": "", "date_published": "2026-07-22T17:25:42+00:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-07T06:14:55+00:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Greg Loucks" } ], "tags": [], "_articlesplus": { "article_id": 31, "subtitle": "", "type": "blog", "categories": [ { "id": 117, "title": "Culture & Politics", "alias": "blog-culture-politics" } ], "reading_time": 0, "hits": 117, "language": "*", "canonical": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/fi/blog/general/31-manufacturing-reality-media-power-propaganda-and-the-battle-for-truth-seeing-through-the-fog-or-building-a-new-one" }, "image": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/images/kofi/31-manufacturing-reality-media-power-propaganda-and-the-battle-for-truth-seeing-through-the-fog-or-building-a-new-one.jpg", "content_html": "“Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only
\r\n
There is something deeply unsettling happening in America right now, and it goes far beyond elections, parties, or policies.
\r\nWe are no longer simply divided by opinion.
We are divided by reality itself.
Millions of Americans are living inside two opposing worldviews that barely overlap—each with its own facts, moral framework, villains, heroes, and version of history. When people argue today, they are often not disagreeing about conclusions; they are disagreeing about what is real.
\r\nThis is not normal political disagreement.
Psychologically, historically, and spiritually, it is a warning sign.
From a psychological perspective, humans rely on shared narratives to function as societies. When those narratives fracture, anxiety rises, trust collapses, and tribal instincts take over.
\r\nThree dynamics are especially dangerous:
\r\nBeliefs are no longer things people hold—they are things people are.
\r\nWhen ideology fuses with identity:
\r\nDisagreement feels like a personal attack
\r\nDoubt feels like betrayal
\r\nCorrection feels like violence
\r\nThis is why conversations feel impossible. You are no longer talking to ideas—you are threatening someone’s sense of self.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
\r\n
— Proverbs 18:2
Chronic fear changes how the brain works. Under stress, humans:
\r\nSeek certainty over truth
\r\nPrefer simple stories over complex ones
\r\nDehumanize outsiders
\r\nA population kept in a constant state of outrage is neurologically easier to control.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, love, and a sound mind.”
\r\n
— 2 Timothy 1:7
A sound mind is the first casualty of perpetual crisis.
\r\nSocial media and modern news algorithms do not inform—they reinforce.
\r\nEach side sees:
\r\nOnly confirming evidence
\r\nOnly sympathetic experts
\r\nOnly opposing voices at their worst
\r\nOver time, this creates epistemic closure—a sealed belief system that becomes immune to outside information. Inside these echo chambers, dissent is treated as heresy.
\r\nThis is not accidental.
\r\nHistory does not repeat itself exactly—but it rhymes.
\r\nIn Nazi Germany, Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, understood something chillingly simple:
\r\n\r\n\r\nControl the narrative, and you control the people.
\r\n
Goebbels didn’t rely on lies alone. He relied on:
\r\nRepetition
\r\nEmotional framing
\r\nMoral absolutism
\r\nSuppression of dissenting voices
\r\nHe famously said:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
\r\n
The most effective propaganda does not look like propaganda.
It looks like moral clarity.
This is where modern America should feel uncomfortable.
\r\nCensorship is always sold as protection:
\r\nProtection from misinformation
\r\nProtection from harm
\r\nProtection from dangerous ideas
\r\nBut historically, censorship is never neutral. Someone always decides:
\r\nWhat is allowed
\r\nWhat is suppressed
\r\nWhat questions may not be asked
\r\nWhen dissent is framed as “dangerous,” truth becomes whatever power says it is.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.”
\r\n
— Isaiah 5:20
A society that cannot question itself is already in decline.
\r\nNews is not free. Narratives are not spontaneous.
\r\nEvery major media outlet is funded by:
\r\nCorporations
\r\nPolitical interests
\r\nAdvertisers
\r\nBillionaire owners
\r\nGovernment contracts
\r\nThis does not mean everything is false—but it does mean nothing is neutral.
\r\nWhen financial incentives reward outrage, division, and fear, those become the product.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.”
\r\n
— 1 Timothy 6:10
When truth becomes unprofitable, it becomes optional.
\r\nAt its core, this crisis is not just political or psychological—it is spiritual.
\r\nScripture repeatedly warns about deception, false narratives, and mass delusion:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“For the time will come when people will not endure sound teaching… and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.”
\r\n
— 2 Timothy 4:3–4
And:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“The whole world lies in the power of the evil one.”
\r\n
— 1 John 5:19
A divided people is a weakened people.
A confused people is a controllable people.
A nation can survive disagreement.
It cannot survive mutual incomprehension.
When neighbors see each other not as wrong—but as evil, insane, or subhuman—history shows where that road leads.
\r\nJesus warned of this dynamic plainly:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste.”
\r\n
— Matthew 12:25
The answer is not retreat, rage, or blind loyalty to a side.
\r\nIt starts smaller—and harder:
\r\nHumility over certainty
\r\nCuriosity over outrage
\r\nTruth over tribal loyalty
\r\nCourage to question even “your own side”
\r\nAnd spiritually:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”
\r\n
— John 8:32
Not “your truth.”
Not “our truth.”
The truth.
When a society loses its shared reality, it doesn’t collapse overnight.
It slowly forgets how to listen, how to reason, and how to love its neighbor.
That is the real danger America faces—not from one side or the other, but from the moment when truth becomes tribal and fear becomes law.
\r\nAnd history is very clear about what happens next.
\r\nIn the 1970s, congressional investigations revealed Operation Mockingbird, a Cold War–era CIA program that involved relationships with journalists and media organizations to shape public perception against foreign adversaries.
\r\nWhile the program was officially exposed and curtailed, its legacy left a permanent question in the American psyche:
\r\nIf intelligence agencies influenced media before, how certain can we be they never do now?
\r\nThis question—fair or not—has contributed to widespread skepticism toward mainstream news.
\r\nPrograms like MKUltra, which involved unethical mind control experiments conducted by the CIA during the Cold War, are now historically documented.
\r\nThese revelations shattered a once-assumed trust:
\r\nThat institutions always act ethically
\r\nThat government power is self-restraining
\r\nThat “conspiracy” automatically means false
\r\nWhen truth eventually surfaced decades later, it validated a painful lesson:
Authorities can lie—and sometimes do.
Today, the majority of mainstream American media is controlled by a very small number of corporate conglomerates, often cited as companies such as:
\r\nComcast / NBCUniversal
\r\nDisney (ABC)
\r\nWarner Bros. Discovery (CNN)
\r\nParamount Global (CBS)
\r\nFox Corporation
\r\nThis consolidation does not automatically imply coordination—but it does reduce diversity of perspective and increases alignment with corporate, political, and advertiser interests.
\r\nAs trust in mainstream media declines, many Americans seek alternative or independent media.
\r\nThis shift has benefits:
\r\nMore viewpoints
\r\nFaster dissent
\r\nLess centralized control
\r\nBut it also carries risks:
\r\nPoor fact-checking
\r\nIdeological extremism
\r\nGrifters exploiting distrust
\r\nRejecting mainstream media does not guarantee truth—it simply shifts the burden of discernment onto the individual.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Test all things; hold fast what is good.”
\r\n
— 1 Thessalonians 5:21
From a Christian perspective, many believers hold that spiritual truth requires spiritual rebirth.
\r\nJesus said plainly:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
\r\n
— John 3:3
This belief shapes how many Christians interpret current events—not merely as political conflict, but as spiritual blindness versus spiritual discernment.
\r\nNot everyone agrees with this view—but it profoundly influences how millions of Americans understand reality.
\r\nThe presidency of Donald Trump intensified these fractures.
\r\nMany Americans believe:
\r\nMedia coverage of Trump was overwhelmingly negative
\r\nPositive actions were minimized or ignored
\r\nThe term “fake news” resonated because trust was already eroding
\r\nOthers believe the opposite:
\r\nThat Trump represented a dangerous threat
\r\nThat aggressive media scrutiny was necessary
\r\nThat institutional resistance was justified
\r\nSimilarly, perceptions differ sharply regarding:
\r\nPresident Biden’s cognitive capacity
\r\nWho truly ran his administration
\r\nMedia tone compared to coverage of Obama
\r\nWhat is undeniable is this: Americans were not watching the same story.
\r\nTo some, the idea of a “deep state” represents entrenched bureaucratic power resisting elected leadership.
To others, it is a conspiracy theory used to undermine trust in institutions.
Both interpretations exist simultaneously—and reinforce the sense that reality itself is contested.
\r\nChristians often frame these dynamics through a biblical lens:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy.”
\r\n
— John 10:10
Division, deception, confusion, and mutual hatred are not new strategies. Scripture attributes them to a spiritual adversary whose primary weapon is lies.
\r\nOthers reject this framing entirely.
\r\nAnd so the divide continues.
\r\nAmerica is not just arguing about leaders.
It is arguing about truth, authority, and reality itself.
Until there is humility, discernment, and a willingness to question every source—including those we trust most—the divide will widen.
\r\nAnd history warns us:
when truth fractures, something else always rushes in to replace it.
A critical but often overlooked factor in America’s split reality is media consolidation.
\r\nToday, the vast majority of national mainstream news content originates from just six major corporations:
\r\nComcast / NBCUniversal – Owns NBC News, MSNBC, CNBC
\r\nDisney – Owns ABC News and related properties
\r\nWarner Bros. Discovery – Owns CNN
\r\nParamount Global – Owns CBS News
\r\nFox Corporation – Owns Fox News, Fox Business
\r\nSony (less dominant in news, but part of the legacy consolidation ecosystem)
\r\nWhile these companies compete publicly, they often:
\r\nShare advertisers
\r\nShare elite social circles
\r\nShare access journalism relationships
\r\nShare similar corporate and political incentives
\r\nThis does not require a formal conspiracy to produce narrative alignment. Structural incentives alone can do that.
\r\nWhen a handful of corporations shape what millions see as “the news,” diversity of perspective narrows, even when presentation styles differ.
\r\nBeyond national outlets, local news—once the most trusted form of journalism—has also been consolidated.
\r\nMajor players include:
\r\nSinclair Broadcast Group
Owns or operates hundreds of local TV stations. Known for centrally produced segments that air nationwide, sometimes sparking criticism over editorial uniformity.
Nexstar Media Group
The largest local station owner in the U.S., controlling more than 200 stations. Owns NewsNation, positioning itself as an alternative but still operating within corporate constraints.
Gray Television
A major owner of local stations, especially in smaller markets.
TEGNA
Owns dozens of local stations and digital platforms, with deep advertising and political revenue ties.
Fox Corporation
In addition to Fox News, it owns numerous local affiliates that shape regional narratives.
The concern is not that these companies tell people what to think—but that local voices are increasingly filtered through national corporate structures, reducing independent reporting and increasing homogenization.
\r\nReduced viewpoint diversity
\r\nCorporate and political pressure
\r\nNarrative inertia
\r\nTrust erosion
\r\nPoor sourcing
\r\nAlgorithm-driven extremism
\r\nFinancial incentives for outrage
\r\nFalse certainty replacing skepticism
\r\nThe collapse of trust in mainstream media has driven many Americans to alternative platforms—but alternative does not automatically mean accurate.
\r\nTruth requires discernment no matter the source.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps.”
\r\n
— Proverbs 14:15
Organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission are frequently cited in discussions about elite influence.
\r\nDocumented facts:
\r\nThese groups include politicians, business leaders, academics, and media figures.
\r\nThey promote global cooperation, economic integration, and policy dialogue.
\r\nPoints of contention:
\r\nCritics believe these organizations exert disproportionate influence over policy and media narratives.
\r\nSupporters argue they are discussion forums, not controlling bodies.
\r\nWhat matters psychologically is this:
When media figures, policymakers, and global elites overlap socially and professionally, public trust erodes, regardless of intent.
In many countries, media control is overt:
\r\nState-run broadcasters
\r\nGovernment licensing
\r\nLegal penalties for dissent
\r\nThe United States does not operate this way formally. Instead, critics argue it functions through:
\r\nCorporate consolidation
\r\nAdvertising dependence
\r\nIntelligence and national security relationships
\r\nAccess journalism
\r\nThe result, some believe, is soft control rather than direct censorship.
\r\nDifferent mechanism—similar effect.
\r\nMultiple media studies over the past decade suggest that mainstream U.S. news skews left-of-center overall, though the degree varies by outlet.
\r\nGeneral patterns often cited:
\r\nMajority-left or progressive framing
\r\nSmaller centrist representation
\r\nMinority right-leaning coverage (primarily Fox)
\r\nCritics argue this imbalance creates:
\r\nNarrative asymmetry
\r\nDisproportionate negative coverage of conservative figures
\r\nReduced trust among half the population
\r\nSupporters counter that:
\r\nReality itself has a “liberal bias”
\r\nScrutiny reflects behavior, not ideology
\r\nOnce again—two realities interpreting the same data differently.
\r\nDonald Trump did not shut down NPR or PBS during his presidency.
\r\nWhat he did propose—and repeatedly state—was:
\r\n\r\n\r\nGovernment should not fund media outlets.
\r\n
Supporters argue:
\r\nIf outlets collapse without taxpayer funding, they are not truly independent.
\r\nPublic money inevitably shapes editorial incentives.
\r\nCritics argue:
\r\nPublic broadcasting provides educational and cultural value.
\r\nDefunding weakens non-commercial journalism.
\r\nThe debate exposed a deeper truth:
Media independence is fragile when funding is political—no matter which side controls it.
Some Americans believe:
\r\nA “globalist deep state” exerts influence over media and government
\r\nTrump threatened entrenched systems
\r\nNegative media coverage reflects resistance to reform
\r\nAmerica has been economically and culturally “robbed”
\r\nOthers believe:
\r\nThese claims are unfounded or exaggerated
\r\nTrump represented chaos rather than reform
\r\nInstitutions were protecting democracy
\r\nOnce again, the issue is not which belief is correct—but that Americans are interpreting the same events through incompatible frameworks.
\r\nMany Christians interpret these dynamics spiritually:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against rulers, against authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness.”
\r\n
— Ephesians 6:12
From this view, deception, division, and confusion are not accidental—but strategic.
\r\nOthers reject this entirely.
\r\nAnd so the divide deepens—not just politically, but ontologically.
\r\nWhether one believes the threat is:
\r\nCorporate media
\r\nAlternative media
\r\nGovernment influence
\r\nGlobal elites
\r\nOr spiritual deception
\r\nThe outcome is the same:
\r\nA population unsure of what—or whom—to trust.
\r\nAnd history shows that when trust collapses, power concentrates, fear spreads, and truth becomes negotiable.
\r\nThat is the moment every society must stop, reflect, and choose discernment over allegiance.
\r\nOne reason Americans struggle to trust mainstream news is the constant overlap between government, political campaigns, and media institutions — a phenomenon scholars call the revolving door. You don’t need a conspiracy theory to see that many reporters, executives, and political aides move easily between journalism and government — and sometimes have family ties across these worlds.
\r\nBelow are many documented examples of these intersections.
\r\nThese are publicly reported personal connections between major media figures and political operatives:
\r\n✅ Claire Shipman (ABC News) is married to Jay Carney, who served as White House Press Secretary under President Obama.
✅ Matthew Jaffe (ABC/Univision) is married to Katie Hogan, who served as Deputy Press Secretary to President Obama.
✅ David Rhodes, former CBS News president, is the brother of Ben Rhodes, who was a Deputy National Security Adviser under Obama.
✅ Virginia Moseley (CNN) was married to Tom Nides, who served as Deputy Secretary of State under Hillary Clinton.
✅ Ian Cameron, former ABC News executive producer, is married to Susan Rice, who served as National Security Adviser.
✅ Ari Shapiro (NPR) is married to a lawyer who once worked in the Obama White House counsel’s office.
✅ Multiple news spouses and siblings have appeared in political contexts — e.g., reporters married to political advisers, former White House staffers, or campaign officials.
Why this matters:
Even if no conflicts of interest occur, these relationships blur the line between political power and news coverage for many observers — especially during intense election cycles.
Another major pattern is journalists leaving media outlets to join political campaigns or government, and vice versa:
\r\n🟢 Jay Carney went from Time magazine to Obama’s White House and later became a CNN political analyst.
🟢 Jen Psaki served as White House Press Secretary under Biden, then became a CNN/MSNBC contributor.
🟢 Many MSNBC and CNN contributors joined Biden’s communications team, including former journalists who worked as analysts or producers before government service.
🟢 Other reporters have moved to government communications roles, including at the White House, Federal agencies, and campaign teams.
This pattern — media → politics → media — is neither unique to one party nor new, but it does mean audiences often see familiar faces and voices on both sides of the newsroom–state divide.
\r\nHere are dozens of intersections that raise eyebrows for people on both sides of the political spectrum:
\r\nReporters and anchors married to political staffers.
\r\nNetwork news executives with siblings who were senior advisers in government.
\r\nPolitical aides becoming media analysts (and sometimes vice versa).
\r\nJournalists who took government roles then returned to media.
\r\nThese do not prove coordination or collusion, but they do illustrate how intertwined media and politics can be in Washington, D.C. — especially compared with earlier eras when reporters and political staffers tended to operate more separately.
\r\nThere are two major effects from these affiliations:
\r\nWhen many journalists have personal or professional ties to political figures, it looks like there’s a club — even if individual reporters strive for integrity.
When audiences see familiar names move between news and government, trust erodes.
When elites circulate between political and media institutions, it can create shared assumptions and blind spots — not necessarily because of intentional coordination, but because people in the same social and professional circles tend to see the world similarly.
\r\nThis dynamic contributes to:
\r\nThe perception that mainstream media has a left-leaning bias overall,
\r\nThe belief among many conservatives that “fake news” is a structural issue, not just a few bad actors,
\r\nAnd the contrasting perception among many liberals that criticism of mainstream outlets is itself misinformation.
\r\nAll of these are real disagreements about reality, not just opinion battles.
\r\nIt should also be noted:
\r\nConservatives point to these documented ties as reasons to distrust legacy media.
\r\nLiberals point to the ownership interests, advertiser pressures, and political leanings of media conglomerates as shaping narratives.
\r\nCentrists see media errors and bias on all sides, recognizing that no institution is immune to influence.
\r\nIn sociology and media studies, this is part of the echo chamber and agenda-setting theories, which show that sources and networks of information shape what people see as real — again contributing to the “two realities” phenomenon Americans increasingly feel.
\r\nThese documented affiliations — marriage, career moves, family ties, and shared professional networks — show that:
\r\n✅ Journalism and politics are often professionally entangled.
✅ This does not prove manipulation, but it does affect perception and trust.
✅ The public’s reaction to these overlaps is part of why Americans feel like they inhabit different realities when it comes to news and truth.
America has been divided before—over slavery, civil rights, war, economics, and culture. But most past divisions still operated within a shared epistemic frame: people disagreed inside the same reality.
\r\nWhat makes the current moment distinct is that agreement on basic premises has collapsed:
\r\nWhat counts as evidence
\r\nWhich institutions are credible
\r\nWhether disagreement is legitimate
\r\nWhether opponents are merely wrong or fundamentally evil
\r\nOnce that threshold is crossed, compromise becomes nearly impossible.
\r\nPolitical scientist Hannah Arendt warned that the most dangerous form of power is not brute force, but organized lying, because it dissolves the category of truth itself. When people no longer believe truth exists, they become dependent on authority, tribe, or emotion to tell them what is real.
\r\nNever in history have humans been exposed to this much narrative density:
\r\n24/7 news cycles
\r\nPush notifications
\r\nAlgorithmic amplification
\r\nSocial signaling rewards
\r\nPsychologically, this produces learned certainty rather than wisdom. People become fluent in talking points, not understanding.
\r\nStudies in cognitive psychology show that repetition alone increases perceived truthfulness, even when claims are false. This is not a moral failure—it is a neurological one.
\r\nThis is why propaganda does not require lies.
It requires selective emphasis.
A crucial distinction often missed in public debate:
\r\nMost modern media influence does not come from fabricating facts.
It comes from deciding:
What is covered
\r\nWhat is ignored
\r\nWhat is framed as urgent
\r\nWhat is framed as fringe
\r\nAgenda-setting theory shows that media tells people what to think about, even when not telling them what to think.
\r\nThis explains why two people can both be “informed” and yet live in incompatible worlds.
\r\nPublic trust in institutions did not vanish because of one president, one war, or one scandal. It eroded through accumulated disillusionment:
\r\nVietnam and Pentagon Papers
\r\nWatergate
\r\nIran-Contra
\r\nWeapons of Mass Destruction claims
\r\nFinancial crises
\r\nSurveillance revelations
\r\nEach moment chipped away at the assumption that elites tell the truth when it matters most.
\r\nWhen previously dismissed “conspiracies” later proved partially or fully true, skepticism hardened into suspicion.
\r\nThere is an important difference:
\r\nSkepticism questions claims in search of truth.
\r\nCynicism assumes deception everywhere and stops searching.
\r\nAmerica now contains both — and often confuses one for the other.
\r\nThis is why alternative media can be both:
\r\nA corrective to institutional blind spots
\r\nA breeding ground for unfalsifiable belief systems
\r\nWithout humility, skepticism hardens into its own echo chamber.
\r\nFor decades, journalism promised neutrality. But neutrality is not the same as truth, and audiences eventually noticed:
\r\nEditorial choices
\r\nLanguage framing
\r\nSelective outrage
\r\nDisproportionate scrutiny
\r\nAs cultural values shifted, many outlets replaced objectivity with moral mission. This gained loyalty from some audiences — and permanently alienated others.
\r\nOnce journalism adopts activism, it forfeits universal trust.
\r\nPolitics used to be about interests.
It is now about identity and morality.
When political disagreement becomes moralized:
\r\nOpponents are not mistaken — they are immoral
\r\nDialogue becomes endorsement
\r\nSilence becomes complicity
\r\nThis dynamic mirrors religious conflict more than democratic debate.
\r\nIronically, both secular and religious actors now use theological language:
\r\n“Evil”
\r\n“Salvation”
\r\n“Redemption”
\r\n“Heresy”
\r\nBut without shared doctrine or humility.
\r\nDonald Trump did not create this fracture — he exposed it.
\r\nTo supporters, he:
\r\nSpoke what others wouldn’t
\r\nChallenged institutional hypocrisy
\r\nDisrupted entrenched power
\r\nTo opponents, he:
\r\nViolated norms
\r\nThreatened stability
\r\nEmbodied moral danger
\r\nThe reaction to Trump revealed how much trust had already evaporated. Media hostility toward him did not create his base — it confirmed their suspicions.
\r\nAt the same time, his rhetoric intensified fear among those already anxious about democratic erosion.
\r\nThus, the same man became proof of opposite realities.
\r\nPerception matters as much as policy.
\r\nMany Americans observed:
\r\nSofter media tone
\r\nReduced investigative intensity
\r\nLess focus on cognitive decline concerns
\r\nOthers argue:
\r\nNormalcy returned
\r\nCoverage reflected competence
\r\nFatigue with chaos
\r\nAgain, two interpretations of the same phenomenon.
\r\nWhen scrutiny appears asymmetrical, trust fractures further.
\r\nGlobal integration is not imaginary:
\r\nTrade agreements
\r\nMultinational corporations
\r\nSupranational institutions
\r\nInternational policy coordination
\r\nSupporters view this as cooperation.
Critics view it as erosion of sovereignty.
When media, finance, politics, and NGOs share global networks, skepticism naturally follows — especially among populations experiencing economic stagnation or cultural dislocation.
\r\nPerception of loss fuels populism.
\r\nFor Christians, this moment is interpreted through Scripture:
\r\nDeception
\r\nFalse authority
\r\nSpiritual blindness
\r\nTesting of spirits
\r\nBut Scripture also warns believers against pride, false prophecy, and misplaced certainty.
\r\nDiscernment is not the same as partisanship.
\r\nA faith that only confirms political preference ceases to be faith — it becomes ideology with religious language.
\r\nMany Americans rejected mainstream media — only to replace it with:
\r\nInfluencers
\r\nAnonymous accounts
\r\nAlgorithmic feeds
\r\nIdeological prophets
\r\nAuthority did not disappear.
It merely changed form.
This is why discernment must be internal, not outsourced.
\r\nA functioning society needs:
\r\nCompeting narratives
\r\nShared standards of evidence
\r\nRoom for dissent
\r\nMoral humility
\r\nInstitutional accountability
\r\nIndividual responsibility
\r\nRemove any one of these, and reality fragments.
\r\nDespite appearances:
\r\nAmericans are questioning sources
\r\nCentralized authority is weakening
\r\nIndependent thinking is rising
\r\nFaith conversations are returning
\r\nYoung people are less trusting of narratives
\r\nAwakening does not always look orderly.
Sometimes it looks like chaos before clarity.
America stands at a crossroads not between left and right — but between:
\r\nDiscernment and delusion
\r\nHumility and certainty
\r\nTruth-seeking and tribalism
\r\nFear and courage
\r\nPower thrives on confusion.
Truth thrives on light.
And light, by its nature, exposes everyone — not just the people we disagree with.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.”
\r\n
— John 3:19
If propaganda is most effective when it feels righteous, then any honest critique of media power must also turn inward. The moment we stop questioning our own assumptions, we risk replacing one echo chamber with another—one that feels braver, truer, and more awake, but may still be shaped by selective perception.
\r\nThis companion piece exists for that reason.
\r\nA core claim of media-critique—whether left, right, or alternative—is that other people are manipulated. But psychology tells us something uncomfortable: no one is immune.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” — Jeremiah 17:9
\r\n
Confirmation bias does not disappear when someone “wakes up.” In fact, research shows it often intensifies once a person believes they have escaped manipulation. The belief “I see the truth now” can become armor against correction.
\r\nSo the question becomes uncomfortable but necessary:
\r\nDo I evaluate information by evidence—or by whether it fits my narrative?
\r\nDo I scrutinize sources that confirm my beliefs as harshly as those that challenge them?
\r\nHave I replaced institutional trust with tribal trust?
\r\nThere are documented reasons to be skeptical of mainstream media: consolidation of ownership, revolving doors between politics and journalism, ideological homogeneity in newsrooms, and historic intelligence-media entanglements.
\r\nBut skepticism can slide into absolutism.
\r\nIf all mainstream outlets are assumed to be lying at all times, then any contrary evidence can be dismissed by default—which is structurally identical to propaganda thinking.
\r\nIronically, this mirrors Joseph Goebbels’ own insight:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.”
\r\n
But repetition does not require state media anymore. Algorithms, influencers, podcasts, and alternative outlets can repeat narratives just as effectively—sometimes with less accountability.
\r\nConnecting dots is necessary for critical thinking. But psychology warns of apophenia—the tendency to perceive meaningful patterns where none exist.
\r\nWhen discussing:
\r\nglobalist influence
\r\nelite networks
\r\nthink tanks and councils
\r\nmedia-political marriages
\r\nThe question is not whether these connections exist (many do), but how much explanatory weight we give them.
\r\nDo connections always imply coordination?
Does shared ideology always mean shared conspiracy?
At what point does skepticism turn into certainty without falsifiability?
A belief that everything is controlled can paradoxically become disempowering—and unfalsifiable.
\r\nYour belief that spiritual truth requires being born again is theologically coherent within Christian doctrine.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him.” — 1 Corinthians 2:14
\r\n
But this belief carries a risk: spiritual certainty can override empirical humility.
\r\nHard questions worth sitting with:
\r\nHow do I distinguish spiritual discernment from emotional conviction?
\r\nCould sincere believers reach different political conclusions?
\r\nDoes disagreement automatically imply deception or blindness?
\r\nHistory shows that Christians—deeply sincere ones—have supported opposing political movements while all claiming divine clarity.
\r\nThere is evidence of disproportionate negative coverage of Trump compared to other presidents. But self-critique demands further questions:
\r\nDo I account for differences in rhetoric, behavior, and norms?
\r\nDo I treat media criticism of Trump as inherently illegitimate?
\r\nWould I accept similar coverage of a leader I oppose?
\r\nIf bias exists (and it likely does), the antidote is not inversion—“everything negative is fake”—but proportional analysis.
\r\nTruth rarely lives at extremes.
\r\nCensorship is dangerous. But so is a media ecosystem with no standards at all.
\r\nAlternative media has produced:
\r\nreal investigative journalism
\r\nwhistleblower amplification
\r\nnarrative correction
\r\nIt has also produced:
\r\nmonetized outrage
\r\nunverifiable claims
\r\npsychological addiction to crisis
\r\ncharismatic figures who are never wrong
\r\nA movement that cannot tolerate internal critique is not free—it is fragile.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Test everything; hold fast what is good.” — 1 Thessalonians 5:21
\r\n
The most dangerous moment in any awakening is when it becomes an identity rather than a posture.
\r\nOnce “awake” becomes who we are, evidence becomes a threat. Doubt becomes betrayal. Questions become weakness.
\r\nTrue discernment is quieter.
\r\nIt asks:
\r\nWhat would change my mind?
\r\nWhat evidence would disconfirm my view?
\r\nWhere might I be wrong?
\r\nThe Bible is clear that deception exists, power corrupts, and spiritual warfare is real.
\r\nBut it is also clear that pride is Satan’s oldest tool.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“You will be like God, knowing good and evil.” — Genesis 3:5
\r\n
The temptation is not merely to be deceived—but to believe we are above deception.
\r\nCritiquing media power is necessary.
Questioning narratives is healthy.
Seeking truth is holy work.
But the line between discernment and dogma is thinner than we like to admit.
\r\nPerhaps the most dangerous propaganda is not the one imposed on us—but the one we stop questioning because it feels righteous.
\r\nIf truth is light, it should withstand examination from every angle—including our own.
\r\n[1] Operation Mockingbird
\r\nU.S. Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (Church Committee), 1975–1976.
\r\nCarl Bernstein, Rolling Stone, “The CIA and the Media,” 1977.
(Documents relationships between U.S. intelligence agencies and journalists during the Cold War.)
[2] MKUltra / CIA Mind Control Experiments
\r\nU.S. Senate Hearings, 1977
\r\nCIA declassified documents (via FOIA)
\r\nNational Archives and Records Administration
(Confirmed unethical experimentation on U.S. citizens.)
[3] Pentagon Papers & Vietnam Deception
\r\nNew York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
\r\nDaniel Ellsberg, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers
\r\n[4] Watergate & Media–Government Trust Collapse
\r\nSenate Watergate Committee Reports
\r\nBob Woodward & Carl Bernstein, All the President’s Men
\r\n[5] Media Ownership Concentration
\r\nFree Press, Who Owns the Media?
\r\nColumbia Journalism Review
\r\nFederal Communications Commission (FCC) ownership data
\r\nMajor conglomerates referenced:
\r\nComcast / NBCUniversal
\r\nDisney (ABC)
\r\nWarner Bros. Discovery (CNN)
\r\nParamount Global (CBS)
\r\nFox Corporation
\r\nSony (legacy media holdings)
\r\n[6] Local News Consolidation
\r\nPew Research Center, State of the News Media
\r\nSinclair Broadcast Group filings
\r\nNexstar Media Group SEC filings
\r\nGray Television investor reports
\r\nTEGNA corporate disclosures
\r\n[7] Documented Familial & Professional Connections
Examples cited in public reporting:
Claire Shipman (ABC News) ↔ Jay Carney (Obama WH Press Secretary)
\r\nDavid Rhodes (CBS News) ↔ Ben Rhodes (Obama National Security Council)
\r\nIan Cameron (ABC News producer) ↔ Susan Rice (National Security Adviser)
\r\nVirginia Moseley (CNN) ↔ Tom Nides (State Dept.)
\r\nSources:
\r\nPolitico
\r\nWashington Post
\r\nColumbia Journalism Review
\r\nPublic biographical disclosures
\r\n(These document relationships, not wrongdoing.)
\r\n[8] Revolving Door Journalism
\r\nPew Research Center
\r\nBrookings Institution
\r\nColumbia Journalism Review
(Journalists moving between media, campaigns, and government roles.)
[9] Media Trust & Bias Perception
\r\nPew Research Center, Trust in Media surveys
\r\nGallup Polls on institutional trust
\r\nReuters Institute Digital News Report
\r\nFindings often cited:
\r\nMajority of U.S. journalists identify as left-of-center
\r\nConservatives show lowest trust in mainstream media
\r\nCentrists report dissatisfaction with both sides
\r\n[10] Echo Chambers & Algorithmic Reinforcement
\r\nCass Sunstein, #Republic
\r\nEli Pariser, The Filter Bubble
\r\nMIT Media Lab studies on misinformation spread
\r\n[11] Repetition & Perceived Truth Effect
\r\nDechêne et al., Psychological Science
\r\nHasher et al., Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
\r\n[12] Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
\r\nCFR official membership lists
\r\nCFR mission statements
(Policy discussion forum; influence debated.)
[13] Trilateral Commission
\r\nTrilateral Commission publications
\r\nFounding documents (Brzezinski, Rockefeller)
\r\n(Critics argue influence; supporters argue advisory role.)
\r\n[14] NPR & PBS Funding
\r\nCorporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) budget data
\r\nCongressional appropriations records
\r\n(Trump proposed defunding; outlets were not shut down.)
\r\n[15] State Media Models
\r\nFreedom House, Freedom of the Press
\r\nReporters Without Borders
(Documents overt government control abroad.)
[16] Biblical Citations
\r\nProverbs 18:2
\r\n2 Timothy 1:7
\r\nIsaiah 5:20
\r\n1 Timothy 6:10
\r\n2 Timothy 4:3–4
\r\nJohn 8:32
\r\nMatthew 12:25
\r\nJohn 10:10
\r\nEphesians 6:12
\r\nJohn 3:3
\r\n1 Thessalonians 5:21
\r\n(Scripture cited as faith-based interpretive framework.)
\r\nThe following are clearly stated beliefs or interpretations, not established facts:
\r\n“Deep state” as coordinated entity
\r\nGlobalist control narratives
\r\nSpiritual deception as causal force
\r\nTrump as divinely appointed reformer
\r\nThese are included because millions of Americans genuinely believe them, making them sociologically relevant regardless of agreement.
\r\n\r\n" }, { "id": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/articlesplus/30", "url": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/fi/blog/general/30-narcissism-pride-and-spiritual-power-biblical-discernment-spiritual-ramifications-and-the-patterns-often-called-leviathan-and-jezebel", "title": "Narcissism, Pride, and Spiritual Power Biblical Discernment, Spiritual Ramifications, and the Patterns Often Called Leviathan and Jezebel", "summary": "", "date_published": "2026-07-22T17:18:37+00:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-07T06:13:40+00:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Greg Loucks" } ], "tags": [], "_articlesplus": { "article_id": 30, "subtitle": "", "type": "blog", "categories": [ { "id": 117, "title": "Culture & Politics", "alias": "blog-culture-politics" } ], "reading_time": 0, "hits": 111, "language": "*", "canonical": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/fi/blog/general/30-narcissism-pride-and-spiritual-power-biblical-discernment-spiritual-ramifications-and-the-patterns-often-called-leviathan-and-jezebel" }, "image": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/images/substack/30-narcissism-pride-and-spiritual-power-biblical-discernment-spiritual-ramifications-and-the-patterns-often-called-leviathan-and-jezebel.jpg", "content_html": "This essay intentionally distinguishes between documented history, peer-reviewed research, journalism studies, public data, and faith-based interpretation. The purpose is not to enforce consensus, but to illuminate why Americans experience reality so differently.
\r\n
In recent years, conversations about narcissism have exploded. Much of that discussion lives in the world of psychology and relationships — and rightly so. But Scripture suggests that persistent narcissistic patterns are not merely relational problems or personality quirks. They carry spiritual ramifications that affect individuals, families, churches, and entire cultures.
\r\nThis essay is not written to label people, diagnose demons, or fuel suspicion. It is written to offer biblical discernment — the kind that protects truth, preserves humility, and helps believers recognize destructive patterns without becoming destructive themselves.
\r\nThe Bible does not encourage believers to reduce human behavior to demonic explanations.
\r\nScripture consistently distinguishes between:
\r\nthe flesh (fallen human nature),
\r\nthe world (corrupt systems and values),
\r\nand spiritual powers that exploit both.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness…” — Ephesians 6:12
\r\n
This means:
\r\nNot all narcissism is demonic
\r\nNot all pride is possession
\r\nNot all manipulation is spiritual oppression
\r\nHowever, Scripture does teach that persistent, unrepentant patterns of pride, deception, control, and domination create spiritual vulnerability. Where truth is rejected long enough, deception finds room to operate.
\r\nThe Bible never uses the modern clinical term narcissism, but it describes the pattern with remarkable clarity.
\r\nTraits associated with narcissism include:
\r\nself-exaltation
\r\ninability to repent
\r\nexploitation of others
\r\nobsession with image
\r\nrage when challenged
\r\nrewriting reality to protect ego
\r\nScripture names these directly:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“People will be lovers of self… proud, arrogant… swollen with conceit.” — 2 Timothy 3:2–4
\r\n
“Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” — Proverbs 16:18
“They say, ‘Who is lord over us?’” — Psalm 12:4
At its core, narcissism is resistance to accountability — to truth, to correction, and ultimately to God.
\r\nThat resistance is what gives the issue spiritual weight.
\r\nPride is not merely a moral flaw in Scripture. It is a spiritual catalyst.
\r\nPride:
\r\nhardens the heart
\r\nrepels correction
\r\njustifies cruelty
\r\ndistorts perception
\r\ninvites deception
\r\n\r\n\r\n“God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” — James 4:6
\r\n
This verse is often softened, but it is severe in implication. To be opposed by God is not always immediate judgment — often it is withdrawal of restraint, allowing a person to reap the consequences of self-rule.
\r\nWhere humility creates space for grace, pride creates space for deception.
\r\nLeviathan appears in:
\r\nJob 41
\r\nPsalm 74:14
\r\nIsaiah 27:1
\r\nWhile often mythologized, Scripture links Leviathan explicitly to pride:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“He sees everything that is high; he is king over all the sons of pride.” — Job 41:34
\r\n
This is not incidental language. It is theological.
\r\nBiblically, Leviathan symbolizes:
\r\npride that cannot be reasoned with
\r\ncontempt for limits
\r\ntwisting of truth
\r\nscorn for accountability
\r\nintellectual or spiritual arrogance
\r\nUnder this pattern, language itself becomes a weapon. Conversations are not meant to clarify, but to confuse. Truth is not denied outright — it is reframed until it serves self-exaltation.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“They have taught their tongue to speak lies; they weary themselves committing iniquity.” — Jeremiah 9:5
\r\n
Leviathan does not roar first.
It redefines.
In Scripture:
\r\nJezebel was a historical queen (1 Kings)
\r\n“Jezebel” in Revelation 2 is symbolic
\r\n\r\n\r\n“You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess…” — Revelation 2:20
\r\n
This is not about women.
It is about control through manipulation, especially spiritual or moral manipulation.
The Jezebel pattern often includes:
\r\ncontrol disguised as care
\r\ncharm mixed with threat
\r\nvictimhood paired with domination
\r\nmoral pressure used to silence dissent
\r\nemotional leverage replacing authority
\r\nJezebel does not need truth — it needs compliance.
\r\nThese two patterns frequently reinforce one another.
\r\nLeviathan:
\r\ntwists truth
\r\ncreates intellectual or spiritual pride
\r\nmakes correction impossible
\r\nJezebel:
\r\nenforces control
\r\npunishes dissent
\r\nmanipulates relationships
\r\nweaponizes emotion
\r\nTogether they form:
\r\na closed system
\r\na self-protecting narrative
\r\nan untouchable authority structure
\r\nan environment hostile to repentance
\r\n\r\n\r\n“They refuse to know me, declares the Lord.” — Jeremiah 9:6
\r\n
This combination is especially destructive in:
\r\nchurches and ministries
\r\nfamilies
\r\ncharismatic leadership structures
\r\nideological movements
\r\nonline communities
\r\nRepentance threatens:
\r\nimage
\r\ncontrol
\r\nnarrative dominance
\r\nJesus addressed this directly:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.” — John 8:43
\r\n
The issue is not ignorance.
It is intolerance for truth.
Where truth is unbearable, deception becomes necessary.
\r\nScripture never instructs believers to hunt demons.
It instructs them to examine fruit.
\r\n\r\n“You will recognize them by their fruits.” — Matthew 7:16
\r\n
Consistent warning signs include:
\r\nchronic blame-shifting
\r\ninability to repent
\r\nrage at accountability
\r\nobsession with image
\r\nmanipulation cloaked in compassion
\r\nScripture used to silence rather than heal
\r\ngaslighting framed as spirituality
\r\nDiscernment is not accusation.
It is protection.
Not exposure alone.
Not labeling.
Not confrontation for its own sake.
The antidote is humility before God.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God.” — 1 Peter 5:6
\r\n
“Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” — James 4:7
Notice the order:
\r\nsubmission first
\r\nresistance second
\r\nWhere humility is genuine, these patterns lose ground.
Where pride is protected, they entrench.
The Bible does not authorize believers to weaponize spiritual language against others.
\r\nThese teachings exist for:
\r\nself-examination
\r\ndiscernment
\r\nprayer
\r\nboundaries
\r\nwisdom
\r\nNot for:
\r\naccusation
\r\nobsession
\r\nmoral superiority
\r\nspiritual crusades
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.” — 1 Corinthians 10:12
\r\n
Narcissism is not merely a relational problem.
When left unchecked, it becomes a spiritual condition — one that resists truth, rejects correction, and invites deception.
But Scripture also offers hope.
\r\nTruth still heals.
Humility still frees.
Light still exposes without destroying.
\r\n\r\n“The Lord is near to the brokenhearted.” — Psalm 34:18
\r\n
The goal is not to identify monsters.
It is to remain human — grounded in truth, accountable to reality, and humble before God.
Within Christian theology, there has always been tension between institutional restraint and experiential confrontation when it comes to spiritual warfare. While some traditions emphasize spiritual formation and sacramental life, others focus more directly on deliverance, demonic influence, and spiritual authority.
\r\nTeachers such as Derek Prince, Bob Larson, Greg Locke, and others operate within this latter stream. Their teachings are not universally accepted across all denominations, but they represent a consistent interpretive tradition worth understanding — especially because of its influence on modern charismatic and evangelical circles.
\r\nWhat follows is a description of their views, not an endorsement of every claim or method.
\r\nDerek Prince consistently taught that demons operate through legal ground — areas of unrepented sin, deception, or false belief that grant access.
\r\nIn his framework:
\r\nPride is one of the most dangerous access points
\r\nIntellectual arrogance and spiritual self-sufficiency are especially vulnerable
\r\nDeliverance is ineffective without repentance and humility
\r\nPrince frequently emphasized that demons do not need chaos to operate — they need permission, often granted unknowingly through pride, bitterness, or rejection of truth.
\r\nThis aligns closely with Scripture:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Neither give place to the devil.” — Ephesians 4:27
\r\n
In Prince’s teaching, narcissistic patterns are dangerous not because they are dramatic, but because they seal off repentance, thereby preserving access.
\r\nSeveral deliverance teachers — Derek Prince included — associated Leviathan not primarily with possession, but with truth distortion.
\r\nCommon attributes described include:
\r\ntwisting of language
\r\nconfusion in communication
\r\nintellectual superiority
\r\nmockery of correction
\r\nresistance to prayer and repentance
\r\nIn this view, Leviathan works through minds and mouths, not manifestations.
\r\nThis mirrors the biblical description in Job 41, where Leviathan is not subdued by force, fear, or persuasion — only by God’s authority.
\r\nDeliverance teachers often warn that arguing with Leviathan is futile. The response is not debate, but humility and submission to truth.
\r\nIn deliverance-oriented churches, Jezebel is frequently taught as a spirit of control and manipulation, especially active in leadership or relational systems.
\r\nTeachers like Bob Larson describe Jezebel as:
\r\noperating through seduction of conscience
\r\nusing emotion, fear, or moral pressure
\r\ntargeting authority structures
\r\nthriving where boundaries are weak
\r\nImportantly, these teachers emphasize that Jezebel does not require immorality to function. It often operates through apparent righteousness, spiritual language, and victim narratives.
\r\nThis aligns with Jesus’ rebuke in Revelation 2, where Jezebel’s danger lies not in overt wickedness, but in corrupt spiritual authority tolerated by leadership.
\r\nBob Larson’s work bridges psychology and deliverance more explicitly.
\r\nLarson teaches that:
\r\ndemons exploit trauma, identity wounds, and habitual sin
\r\npsychological dysfunction does not equal demonic possession
\r\nbut unresolved trauma can become a foothold
\r\nIn this model, narcissism is not automatically demonic — but chronic narcissistic defenses can block healing, which in turn sustains spiritual vulnerability.
\r\nLarson repeatedly warns against:
\r\ndemonizing mental illness
\r\ntreating deliverance as entertainment
\r\nreplacing discipleship with confrontation
\r\nDeliverance, in his view, is never a substitute for repentance, accountability, or character formation.
\r\nMore recent figures such as Greg Locke emphasize spiritual warfare language in contemporary cultural conflict.
\r\nTheir teaching often frames:
\r\npride as rebellion
\r\ndeception as spiritual bondage
\r\nidentity confusion as spiritual assault
\r\ncultural decay as evidence of demonic influence
\r\nWhile critics argue this approach risks oversimplification, proponents argue that it names spiritual realities modern Christianity has grown afraid to confront.
\r\nThe danger, acknowledged even by sympathetic observers, is when:
\r\nspiritual language replaces discernment
\r\nevery disagreement becomes demonic
\r\nconfrontation outpaces humility
\r\nScripture consistently warns against this imbalance.
\r\nEven within deliverance theology, responsible teachers emphasize limits.
\r\nKey boundaries:
\r\nNot every problem is a demon
\r\nNot every narcissist is possessed
\r\nNot every conflict is spiritual warfare
\r\nNot every deliverance claim is legitimate
\r\nScripture places discernment above spectacle:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Test everything; hold fast what is good.” — 1 Thessalonians 5:21
\r\n
Spiritual warfare teaching becomes dangerous when it:
\r\nbypasses self-examination
\r\nreplaces repentance with accusation
\r\nelevates spiritual authority beyond accountability
\r\nWhen read carefully, the best deliverance teaching does not contradict Scripture — it amplifies its warnings.
\r\nPride closes ears.
Deception resists light.
Control hates accountability.
Truth invites freedom.
But Scripture remains the final authority — not personalities, not ministries, not manifestations.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits.” — 1 John 4:1
\r\n
This section is included to:
\r\nexplain influential teachings
\r\nprovide interpretive context
\r\nhelp readers understand language they may encounter
\r\nencourage discernment, not fear
\r\nThe goal is not demon-hunting.
It is truth-keeping.
Spiritual warfare begins not with naming spirits in others, but with humility before God.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Search me, O God, and know my heart.” — Psalm 139:23
\r\n
\r\n\r\n“Buy the truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding.”
\r\n
— Proverbs 23:23
Modern culture speaks constantly about narcissism, truth, power, trauma, and identity. What it speaks about far less is authority — specifically, what has the right to define reality.
\r\nThis essay argues that the erosion of truth is not merely cultural or psychological, but spiritual. When truth is dethroned and feeling is enthroned, the result is not freedom but fragmentation — personally, socially, and spiritually.
\r\nThis is not an argument against emotion.
It is an argument against emotional sovereignty.
We are living through something deeper than political polarization or media bias. We are witnessing an epistemological collapse — a breakdown in how people determine what is real, what is true, and what deserves authority.
\r\nIn modern America (and increasingly beyond it), people do not merely disagree about interpretations of facts. They increasingly believe they can disagree with facts themselves.
\r\n“My truth” is treated as sacrosanct — even when it contradicts biology, history, logic, or evidence.
\r\nThis is not:
\r\na generational quirk
\r\na partisan problem
\r\na temporary overcorrection
\r\nIt is a civilizational fault line.
\r\nA society can survive disagreement.
It cannot survive competing realities.
Modern psychology confirms what Scripture has long declared:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”
\r\n
— Jeremiah 17:9
This is not pessimism.
It is diagnosis.
Human beings are not neutral processors of information. We are meaning-makers, identity-protectors, and narrative defenders.
\r\nWe instinctively prioritize:
\r\nemotional coherence over accuracy
\r\nidentity protection over correction
\r\naffirmation over accountability
\r\n\r\n\r\n“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”
\r\n
— Proverbs 14:12
What feels right is not what is right.
\r\nThe Bible does not use modern clinical language, but it describes narcissistic patterns with unsettling clarity:
\r\nself-exaltation
\r\ninability to repent
\r\nexploitation of others
\r\nrage when challenged
\r\nobsession with image
\r\nresistance to correction
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Lovers of self… proud, arrogant… swollen with conceit.”
\r\n
— 2 Timothy 3:2–4
At its core, narcissism is refusal of accountability — to truth, to others, and ultimately to God.
\r\nThat refusal carries spiritual consequences.
\r\nScripture treats pride not as a personality flaw but as a spiritual accelerator.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
\r\n
— James 4:6
To be opposed by God is often not immediate judgment — it is withdrawal of restraint. Where humility invites grace, pride invites deception.
\r\nThis is the doorway through which spiritual influence enters.
\r\nLeviathan appears in Job 41, Psalm 74, and Isaiah 27. Scripture links it explicitly to pride:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“He is king over all the sons of pride.”
\r\n
— Job 41:34
In biblical and theological interpretation, Leviathan represents:
\r\narrogance immune to correction
\r\ncontempt for limits
\r\ntwisting of language
\r\nmockery of accountability
\r\nintellectual or spiritual superiority
\r\nLeviathan does not rage first.
It reframes reality.
Conversation becomes fog.
Truth becomes negotiable.
Language becomes a weapon.
\r\n\r\n“They have taught their tongue to speak lies.”
\r\n
— Jeremiah 9:5
Jezebel, biblically and symbolically, is not about gender. It is about control.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess…”
\r\n
— Revelation 2:20
The Jezebel pattern includes:
\r\nmanipulation disguised as compassion
\r\nvictimhood paired with domination
\r\ncharm mixed with threat
\r\nmoral pressure used to silence dissent
\r\nemotional leverage replacing authority
\r\nJezebel does not require immorality.
It thrives on tolerated manipulation.
These patterns reinforce one another:
\r\nLeviathan twists truth and blocks repentance.
Jezebel enforces control and punishes dissent.
Together they form:
\r\nclosed systems
\r\nuntouchable leadership
\r\ncoercive relational environments
\r\ncounterfeit moral authority
\r\nThis combination is destructive in:
\r\nfamilies
\r\nchurches
\r\nministries
\r\nideological movements
\r\ncharismatic leadership structures
\r\n\r\n\r\n“They refuse to know me, declares the Lord.”
\r\n
— Jeremiah 9:6
Derek Prince taught that demons operate through legal ground — unrepented sin, false belief, or pride.
\r\nPride, in his framework:
\r\nblocks repentance
\r\nseals access
\r\nresists deliverance
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Neither give place to the devil.”
\r\n
— Ephesians 4:27
Bob Larson emphasizes that:
\r\nnot all dysfunction is demonic
\r\ntrauma and identity wounds create vulnerability
\r\ndemons exploit weakness, not strength
\r\nDeliverance is never a substitute for repentance, discipleship, or character formation.
\r\nMany deliverance teachers describe Jezebel as:
\r\noperating through spiritual language
\r\ntargeting authority structures
\r\nenforcing compliance through emotion
\r\nContemporary figures emphasize:
\r\ndeception as bondage
\r\npride as rebellion
\r\ncultural confusion as spiritual assault
\r\nThe danger — acknowledged even by proponents — is when spiritual language outpaces humility.
\r\nEven within deliverance theology:
\r\nNot every narcissist is demonized
\r\nNot every problem is spiritual warfare
\r\nNot every conflict is demonic
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Test everything; hold fast what is good.”
\r\n
— 1 Thessalonians 5:21
Scripture forbids weaponized discernment.
\r\nJesus gave a simple test:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“You will recognize them by their fruits.”
\r\n
— Matthew 7:16
Warning signs:
\r\nchronic blame-shifting
\r\ninability to repent
\r\nrage at accountability
\r\nmanipulation cloaked in care
\r\nScripture used to silence
\r\nDiscernment is protection — not accusation.
\r\nNot labeling.
Not spectacle.
Not confrontation alone.
\r\n\r\n“Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God.”
\r\n
— 1 Peter 5:6
“Resist the devil, and he will flee.”
— James 4:7
Submission precedes resistance.
\r\nCivilizations collapse when they lose the ability to tell the truth about themselves.
\r\nWhen feeling replaces fact:
\r\njustice erodes
\r\ntrust collapses
\r\npower concentrates
\r\nBut truth endures.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
\r\n
— John 8:32
Truth does not promise comfort.
It promises orientation.
And orientation is what allows a soul — and a society — to remain free.
\r\nThis essay is not written to hunt demons.
It is written to guard humility, protect truth, and preserve freedom.
\r\n\r\n“Search me, O God, and know my heart.”
\r\n
— Psalm 139:23
That prayer — not accusation — is where spiritual warfare actually begins.
\r\nIn recent years, the word narcissism has exploded in public discourse. It is used to describe politicians, pastors, spouses, parents, bosses, influencers, and entire generations. Most discussions frame narcissism as a psychological disorder, a personality type, or a trauma response. While these perspectives can be helpful, Scripture warns us that not all human behavior is merely psychological.
\r\nThe Bible presents a more layered view of reality: flesh, soul, and spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23). Deliverance ministers and spiritual warfare teachers have long argued that certain destructive personality traits may also have spiritual roots, particularly when they display patterns of deception, domination, pride, and relational destruction.
\r\nThis article explores narcissism through biblical theology, spiritual warfare teachings, and deliverance ministry perspectives, drawing from voices such as Derek Prince, Bob Larson, Greg Locke, and others — without claiming infallibility, but taking Scripture seriously when it speaks of unseen forces.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
\r\n
— Ephesians 6:12
Long before modern psychology, Scripture identified pride as the seed of destruction.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
\r\n
— Proverbs 16:18
Narcissism, at its core, is self-exaltation, entitlement, lack of empathy, manipulation, and an inability to repent. These traits closely resemble the biblical portrait of Lucifer’s rebellion:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God…”
\r\n
— Isaiah 14:13
Derek Prince often taught that pride is not merely a flaw, but a gateway sin — one that opens the door to deception and spiritual blindness.
\r\nDeliverance ministers make an important distinction:
\r\nTemptation is universal
\r\nOppression is influence
\r\nBondage is repeated surrender
\r\nPossession (rare, debated) is domination
\r\nBob Larson has repeatedly emphasized that demonic influence often expresses itself through patterns, not isolated actions. Narcissistic behavior becomes spiritually significant when it shows:
\r\nChronic lying without remorse
\r\nGaslighting and reality-distortion
\r\nRefusal to accept correction
\r\nEmotional exploitation
\r\nControl masked as concern
\r\nCharm used as a weapon
\r\n\r\n\r\n“A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin.”
\r\n
— Proverbs 26:28
The image you shared lists symbolic influences often discussed in deliverance circles. These are teaching constructs, not dogma.
\r\n\r\n\r\nJames 4:6 — “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.”
\r\n
\r\n\r\n1 Samuel 15:23 — “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.”
\r\n
Jezebel is not a woman — it is a biblical spirit of domination, seduction, intimidation, and control (1 Kings 21; Revelation 2:20).
\r\nGreg Locke frequently teaches that Jezebel operates by:
\r\nEmotional control
\r\nSexualized power
\r\nUndermining authority
\r\nPublic charm, private cruelty
\r\n\r\n\r\nHebrews 3:13 — “Lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.”
\r\n
Gaslighting is not new; Scripture calls it lying wonders.
\r\n\r\n\r\n2 Thessalonians 2:10–11
\r\n
\r\n\r\nProverbs 21:4 — “An high look, and a proud heart… is sin.”
\r\n
Satan is literally called the accuser (Revelation 12:10).
\r\n\r\n\r\nMatthew 24:10 — “Many shall be offended, and shall betray one another.”
\r\n
Social media has amplified what Scripture warned against.
\r\n\r\n\r\nRomans 1:25
\r\n
Not spells — but control through fear, guilt, and emotion.
\r\n\r\n\r\nGalatians 5:20
\r\n
Derek Prince and others taught that Leviathan, mentioned in Job 41 and Isaiah 27:1, represents twisting, prideful resistance, especially in speech.
\r\nLeviathan manifests through:
\r\nCircular arguments
\r\nWord-twisting
\r\nRefusal to acknowledge truth
\r\nIntellectual pride
\r\nMockery of repentance
\r\n\r\n\r\n“By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.”
\r\n
— Job 26:13
Many deliverance ministers believe Leviathan often works alongside Jezebel — one controlling behavior, the other distorting communication.
\r\nThe Bible gives a clear test:
\r\n\r\n\r\n“He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.”
\r\n
— Proverbs 28:13
A narcissistic spirit cannot repent because repentance requires humility, accountability, and truth — the very things pride resists.
\r\nThis is why Jesus was hardest on:
\r\nPharisees
\r\nReligious elites
\r\nImage-keepers
\r\nHypocrites
\r\n\r\n\r\nMatthew 23 is not gentle reading.
\r\n
Scripture also warns against arrogance in discernment.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”
\r\n
— John 7:24
Not everyone who hurts you is demonized.
Not every narcissistic trait is spiritual.
Not every conflict is warfare.
Deliverance teachings are meant for:
\r\nSelf-examination
\r\nIntercession
\r\nProtection
\r\nFreedom
\r\n—not labeling, condemning, or dehumanizing others.
\r\nThe gospel is not about fear of demons — it is about authority in Christ.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Behold, I give unto you power… over all the power of the enemy.”
\r\n
— Luke 10:19
Where psychology can explain behavior, Christ can transform hearts.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.”
\r\n
— John 8:36
Narcissism is not just a cultural buzzword. In extreme forms, it reflects ancient spiritual patterns Scripture has warned about for thousands of years: pride, deception, rebellion, and self-worship.
\r\nUnderstanding this does not make us paranoid — it makes us watchful.
\r\n\r\n" }, { "id": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/articlesplus/29", "url": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/fi/blog/general/29-americas-leftist-woke-psychological-sickness-the-moral-depravity-of-society", "title": "America's Leftist, \"Woke\" Psychological Sickness: The Moral Depravity of Society", "summary": "", "date_published": "2026-07-22T06:12:56+00:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-07T06:14:15+00:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Greg Loucks" } ], "tags": [], "_articlesplus": { "article_id": 29, "subtitle": "", "type": "blog", "categories": [ { "id": 117, "title": "Culture & Politics", "alias": "blog-culture-politics" } ], "reading_time": 0, "hits": 121, "language": "*", "canonical": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/fi/blog/general/29-americas-leftist-woke-psychological-sickness-the-moral-depravity-of-society" }, "image": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/images/credited/29-americas-leftist-woke-psychological-sickness-the-moral-depravity-of-society.jpg", "content_html": "“Be sober, be vigilant.”
\r\n
— 1 Peter 5:8Narcissism, Jezebel, Leviathan, and the War for the Image of God
\r\nA Biblical, Historical, and Spiritual Warfare Framework
\r\n\r\n\r\n“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”
\r\n
— Hosea 4:6The modern world treats narcissism as a new phenomenon. Scripture reveals it as an ancient spiritual pattern, one that has resurfaced in every fallen civilization under different names: pride, self-worship, domination, deception, and rebellion against truth.
\r\nDeliverance ministers like Derek Prince, Bob Larson, Greg Locke, Wyn Worley, and others did not invent these ideas. They recovered what the early church already understood: that human behavior exists in a spiritual ecosystem, and when sin is habitual, unrepentant, and destructive, it often intersects with spiritual influence.
\r\nThis teaching is not about paranoia.
\r\n
It is about discernment.\r\nPART I — NARCISSISM AND THE IMAGE OF GOD
\r\nTheological Foundation
\r\nHuman beings were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Narcissism is not merely excessive self-love; it is a counterfeit image, a distortion of God’s likeness into self-deification.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Ye shall be as gods…”
\r\n
— Genesis 3:5Derek Prince taught that Satan’s primary strategy is identity corruption. When a person no longer reflects God’s image, they begin demanding worship, validation, obedience, or fear from others.
\r\nThat is not confidence.
\r\n
That is usurpation.\r\nPART II — JEZEBEL: THE SPIRIT OF CONTROL AND DOMINION
\r\nJezebel Is Not Gendered
\r\nScripturally, Jezebel represents:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nmanipulation
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nseduction
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nintimidation
\r\n- \r\n
\r\ncontrol through emotion or sexuality
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nsilencing truth-tellers
\r\n\r\n\r\n“I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel… to seduce my servants.”
\r\n
— Revelation 2:20Greg Locke often emphasizes that Jezebel:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nhates accountability
\r\n- \r\n
\r\ndestroys prophetic voices
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nweaponizes victimhood
\r\n- \r\n
\r\noperates best in religious environments
\r\nIn narcissistic expressions, Jezebel manifests as:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\ngaslighting
\r\n- \r\n
\r\ncharm in public, cruelty in private
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nrewriting history
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nemotional blackmail
\r\n\r\nPART III — LEVIATHAN: THE CROOKED SERPENT OF COMMUNICATION
\r\nLeviathan appears in Job, Psalms, and Isaiah. Early Jewish and Christian commentators saw Leviathan as pride embodied, particularly in speech.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“In that day the LORD… shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent.”
\r\n
— Isaiah 27:1Derek Prince taught that Leviathan:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\ntwists words
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nresists repentance
\r\n- \r\n
\r\ncauses circular arguments
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nmocks truth
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nhardens pride
\r\nIn narcissistic dynamics, Leviathan shows up as:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nendless debates with no resolution
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nrefusal to acknowledge facts
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nword games
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nmockery of humility
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nintellectual superiority
\r\nLeviathan protects pride by making truth impossible to land.
\r\n\r\nPART IV — AHAB: THE ENABLED SYSTEM
\r\nJezebel never rules alone.
\r\nAhab represents:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\npassivity
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nabdication of authority
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nappeasement
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nfear of confrontation
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?”
\r\n
— 1 Kings 21:19In families, churches, governments, and workplaces, Ahab systems allow narcissistic control to flourish by:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nstaying silent
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nprioritizing peace over truth
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nrefusing to confront abuse
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nsacrificing righteousness for comfort
\r\nBob Larson often warned that unchecked Jezebel spirits require an Ahab environment to survive.
\r\n\r\nPART V — EARLY CHURCH TEACHINGS ON PRIDE AND DEMONS
\r\nThe early church was not naïve.
\r\nAugustine
\r\nTaught that pride was the root sin of Satan and the seed of all others.
\r\nEvagrius Ponticus (4th century)
\r\nIdentified vainglory and pride as spiritual strongholds that resist repentance and distort perception.
\r\nJohn Cassian
\r\nWarned that pride “imitates virtue while destroying it.”
\r\nThese fathers did not deny psychology — they understood spiritual causality.
\r\n\r\nPART VI — REPENTANCE: THE LINE DEMONS CANNOT CROSS
\r\nHere is the critical distinction:
\r\nA narcissistic pattern cannot repent without supernatural intervention.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“Godly sorrow worketh repentance… but the sorrow of the world worketh death.”
\r\n
— 2 Corinthians 7:10True repentance includes:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nconfession without excuse
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nrestitution
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nhumility
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nsubmission to correction
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nchanged behavior over time
\r\nDeliverance ministers consistently note:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\ndemons resist confession
\r\n- \r\n
\r\npride resists exposure
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nLeviathan resists apology
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nJezebel resists accountability
\r\nWhere repentance appears, bondage loses its grip.
\r\n\r\nPART VII — DISCERNMENT WITHOUT ACCUSATION (CRITICAL SAFEGUARDS)
\r\nScripture warns against misusing spiritual insight.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“If a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.”
\r\n
— Galatians 6:3This teaching is NOT for:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nlabeling your enemies
\r\n- \r\n
\r\ndiagnosing exes
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nspiritual superiority
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nsocial media witch hunts
\r\nThis teaching IS for:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nself-examination
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nprayer
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nprotection
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nboundaries
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nunderstanding patterns
\r\nJesus rebuked demons — not people seeking truth.
\r\n\r\nPART VIII — PRACTICAL SPIRITUAL WARFARE (BIBLICAL, NOT DRAMATIC)
\r\n1. Guard Your Identity
\r\n\r\n\r\nRomans 12:2
\r\n2. Refuse Emotional Manipulation
\r\n\r\n\r\nProverbs 4:23
\r\n3. Do Not Argue with Leviathan
\r\nTruth is declared, not debated endlessly.
\r\n\r\n\r\nMatthew 10:14
\r\n4. Pray for Exposure, Not Revenge
\r\n\r\n\r\nLuke 8:17
\r\n5. Stay Submitted to God
\r\nAuthority flows from humility.
\r\n\r\n\r\nJames 4:7
\r\n\r\nPART IX — WHY THIS MATTERS CULTURALLY
\r\nWhen narcissism becomes normalized:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\ntruth becomes optional
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nfeelings replace facts
\r\n- \r\n
\r\npower replaces righteousness
\r\n- \r\n
\r\ndeception becomes virtue
\r\n\r\n\r\n“They did not like to retain God in their knowledge.”
\r\n
— Romans 1:28This is not just personal — it is civilizational.
\r\n\r\nFINAL WORD: CHRIST IS NOT AFRAID OF DEMONS
\r\nThe gospel is not about obsession with darkness.
\r\n\r\n\r\n“For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.”
\r\n
— 1 John 3:8Understanding spiritual dynamics does not weaken faith — it anchors it.
\r\nTruth exposes.
\r\n
Humility heals.
Light wins.Scripture Index
\r\n(All Scripture quotations are from the KJV unless otherwise noted)
\r\nCreation, Identity, and the Image of God
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nGenesis 1:27 — Humanity created in the image of God
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nGenesis 3:5 — The temptation of self-deification
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nRomans 12:2 — Transformation through renewed thinking
\r\nPride, Rebellion, and the Fall
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nProverbs 16:18 — Pride before destruction
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nProverbs 21:4 — A proud heart as sin
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nIsaiah 14:12–15 — Lucifer’s fall through pride
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nJames 4:6–7 — God resists the proud, gives grace to the humble
\r\n- \r\n
\r\n1 Samuel 15:23 — Rebellion likened to witchcraft
\r\nSpiritual Warfare and Demonic Influence
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nEphesians 6:12 — Wrestling against spiritual powers
\r\n- \r\n
\r\n1 Peter 5:8 — Sobriety and vigilance
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nLuke 10:19 — Authority over the power of the enemy
\r\n- \r\n
\r\n1 John 3:8 — Christ destroys the works of the devil
\r\nJezebel, Control, and Seduction
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\n1 Kings 16–21 — Jezebel and Ahab narrative
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nRevelation 2:20–23 — Jezebel in the church at Thyatira
\r\nLeviathan, Pride, and Twisted Communication
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nJob 26:13 — The crooked serpent
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nJob 41 — Leviathan described
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nPsalm 74:14 — Leviathan crushed
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nIsaiah 27:1 — Leviathan judged by the Lord
\r\nDeception, Accusation, and Offense
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nProverbs 26:28 — Lying and flattery destroy
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nRevelation 12:10 — Satan as accuser
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nMatthew 24:10 — Widespread offense
\r\n- \r\n
\r\n2 Thessalonians 2:10–11 — Strong delusion
\r\nRepentance, Humility, and Freedom
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nProverbs 28:13 — Confession and mercy
\r\n- \r\n
\r\n2 Corinthians 7:10 — Godly sorrow vs worldly sorrow
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nJohn 8:36 — Freedom in Christ
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nGalatians 6:3 — Warning against spiritual pride
\r\nDiscernment and Judgment
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nJohn 7:24 — Righteous judgment
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nHosea 4:6 — Destruction through lack of knowledge
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nLuke 8:17 — Nothing hidden that will not be revealed
\r\n\r\nFootnotes & Teaching Sources
\r\n\r\n\r\nImportant Note:
\r\n
The following sources are cited for theological perspective and ministry teaching, not as infallible doctrine. Readers are encouraged to test all teachings against Scripture (Acts 17:11).\r\n1. Derek Prince
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nThey Shall Expel Demons
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nBlessing or Curse: You Can Choose
\r\n
Prince emphasized pride as a spiritual gateway and taught extensively on Leviathan as a spirit of twisted resistance and false humility.2. Bob Larson
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nLarson’s Book of Spiritual Warfare
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nPublic deliverance teachings and Q&A sessions
\r\n
Larson consistently distinguishes psychological conditions from spiritual bondage, focusing on patterns, not labels.3. Greg Locke
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nPublic sermons on Jezebel, Ahab, and modern spiritual warfare
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nEmphasis on manipulation, control, and religious narcissism
\r\n
Locke frames Jezebel primarily as a control spirit operating in churches and leadership structures.4. Wyn Worley
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nBattling the Hosts of Hell
\r\n
One of the earliest modern deliverance ministers to systematize teachings on demonic hierarchies and behavioral manifestations.5. Early Church Fathers
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nAugustine — City of God (Pride as the primal sin)
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nEvagrius Ponticus — Eight evil thoughts (precursor to the seven deadly sins)
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nJohn Cassian — Institutes (Pride as the final and most dangerous vice)
\r\n6. Biblical Theology Framework
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nTripartite view of man: spirit, soul, body (1 Thessalonians 5:23)
\r\n- \r\n
\r\nWarfare worldview consistent with Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity
\r\n\r\nCitation Disclaimer
\r\n\r\n\r\nThis article discusses spiritual warfare concepts drawn from Scripture, historical theology, and contemporary deliverance ministry teachings. It is not intended as a medical or psychological diagnosis. Readers are encouraged to seek pastoral counsel, prayer, and professional help where appropriate, and to test all teachings against Scripture.
\r\n
I originally posted this on my Substack and brought it over to my new site...
\r\n“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” - Isaiah 5:20
\r\n\"It is not the evil itself which is horrifying about our times – it is the way we not only tolerate evil, but have made a cult of positively worshipping weakness, depravity, rottenness and evil itself.\" - George Lincoln Rockwell
\r\nThanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
\r\n\r\n
The 2024 Election and Complete Meltdowns
\r\nA lot of people are talking about the election that we just had on November 5th. People are either thrilled and excited and happy or mad and pissed off, and having serious emotional breakdowns. They are even posting their emotional breakdowns online, and going as far as shaving their heads and promising to abstain from sex!
\r\nThe winning side can and is making fun of the losing side. Like we are enjoying liberal tears. What the losing liberal side are posting online can be viewed as funny. Because some of it is so ridiculous and even asinine.
\r\nI personally don’t think it is funny. I find it really sad and very disturbing. I decided to research the psychology of this because something is happening and did happen.
\r\nCognitive Dissonance:
\r\nIn the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is described as the mental disturbance people feel when they realize their cognitions and actions are inconsistent or contradictory. This may ultimately result in some change in their cognitions or actions to cause greater alignment between them so as to reduce this dissonance. Relevant items of information include peoples' actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment. Cognitive dissonance is typically experienced as psychological stress when persons participate in an action that goes against one or more of those things. According to this theory, when an action or idea is psychologically inconsistent with the other, people do all in their power to change either so that they become consistent. The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.
\r\nCognition is the \"mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses\". It encompasses all aspects of intellectual functions and processes such as: perception, attention, thought, imagination, intelligence, the formation of knowledge, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and computation, problem-solving and decision-making, comprehension and production of language. Cognitive processes use existing knowledge to discover new knowledge.
\r\nThe left is having cognitive dissonance over accepting the fact they lost, and their messages and actions were not resonating with the majority of Americans. Many of them will forever have a hard time accepting they lost because of what our society has done to them, rather than for them! A society they helped create!
\r\nWhat does this inconsistency-related discomfort look like in everyday life?
\r\nHere are just a few cognitive dissonance examples that you may notice in your own life:
\r\nYou want to be healthy, but you don't exercise regularly or eat a nutritious diet. You feel guilty as a result.
\r\nYou know that smoking (or drinking too much) is harmful to your health, but you do it anyway. You rationalize this action by pointing to your high stress levels.
\r\nYou'd like to build up your savings but tend to spend extra cash as soon as you get it. You regret this decision later, such as when facing an unexpected expense that you don't have the money to cover.
\r\nYou have a long to-do list but spend the day watching your favorite shows instead. You don't want your spouse to know, so you try to make it look like you've worked hard all day.
\r\nIt’s basically like people can’t admit they are wrong. Why do so many people have a hard time admitting they are wrong?
\r\nLack of accountability: People may not feel accountable for their mistakes, or they may believe that admitting their mistakes would not lead to a solution.
\r\nEgo: People may be reluctant to admit their mistakes due to a desire to protect their self-image or to maintain the perception of being always right.
\r\nWhat does narcissism correlate with?
\r\nGrandiose narcissism showed significant negative correlations with lack of emotional awareness and clarity, whereas vulnerable narcissism showed significant positive correlations with overall emotion regulation difficulties, impulse control difficulties, and lack of emotional clarity.
\r\nGrandiosity is the defining characteristic of narcissism. More than just arrogance or vanity, grandiosity is an unrealistic sense of superiority. Narcissists believe they are unique or “special” and can only be understood by other special people.
\r\nLeft-wing extremism is linked to toxic, psychopathic tendencies and narcissism, according to a new study published to the peer-reviewed journal Current Psychology.
\r\n“Based on existing research, we expected individuals with higher levels of left-wing authoritarianism to also report higher levels of narcissism,” the authors wrote.
\r\nAs result of the new data, study authors Ann Krispenz and Alex Bertrams have coined a new term for such psychological behavior: the “dark-ego-vehicle principle.”
\r\n“According to this principle, individuals with dark personalities — such as high narcissistic and psychopathic traits — are attracted to certain forms of political and social activism which they can use as a vehicle to satisfy their own ego-focused needs instead of actually aiming at social justice and equality,” they told PsyPost.
\r\n“In particular, certain forms of activism might provide them with opportunities for positive self-presentation and displays of moral superiority, to gain social status, to dominate others, and to engage in social conflicts and aggression to satisfy their need for thrill seeking.”
\r\nThe study on left-wing authoritarianism also showed that many times they do not practice what they so loudly preach.
\r\nSocial justice is often used as a guise for these activists to behave unhinged, the research noted.
\r\n“An individual high in LWA might declare anyone to be ‘old fashioned’ who is opposing their own ‘progressive values,’ strive to suppress free speech to regulate the expression of right-wing beliefs in educational institutions, and even endorse the use of violence to reach their own political goals,” the authors said.
\r\nBeyond using any means necessary, people of privileged backgrounds who are aligned with LWA often use their narcissism to make activism solely about themselves instead of achieving social equality for struggling groups.
\r\n“Minority groups should be made aware of the narcissistic ‘enemies’ from within their activist movement, as these individuals could hijack the cause thereby reducing the success of the activism in many ways,” the authors added.
\r\n“As grandiose narcissists typically desire fame, distinction, elevated social status and high social importance, they can be assumed to strive for influential positions that involve social visibility and outreach as well as access to financial and other resources.”
\r\nThe authors also made it clear that authoritarianism exists on both sides of the political spectrum and that “there is a wide range of literature and research in the field of right-wing authoritarianism.
\r\n“However, research on authoritarianism observed in individuals who are supportive of left-wing political ideologies are still rare.”
\r\nFrom: “Left-wing extremism linked to psychopathy and narcissism: study” https://nypost.com/2023/05/25/left-wing-extremism-linked-to-psychopathy-narcissism-study/
\r\nMoral Depravity Defines US Politics
\r\nAmerican linguist and activist Noam Chomsky wrote an article in 2018 that “Moral Depravity Defines US Politics” https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/23/11/2018/noam-chomsky-moral-depravity-defines-us-politics
\r\nA lot can be written and shared, and has been about powerful people who do not have America’s best interest at heart. They want to destroy America in order to rebuild it into their dystopian nightmare. Many of these people are so powerful that they have all the money they need, it’s about conrol.
\r\nWe know people will follow and believe something always. Even disbelief is belief. Even belief and worship in self is belief. So, the left’s common view that “religion and politics don’t mix” is not a logical belief, it’s a ideological belief. It’s a way to shut up and silence the Christian Conservative Right. Many followers in the Democrat Party are too ignorant to realize that, but their leaders know and realize this. A lot of what they are doing is by design and plan.
\r\nThese same powerful people have beliefs and religions. It is impossible to vote for someone, anyone without beliefs and a set of morals they live by, and people and things they follow and believe in.
\r\nEven immorality is morals. A person’s “morals” are only based on what they view is right and wrong. There are societal morals and a persons own morals. What is morally right and wrong is defined by a society and by a person’s own convictions. People can believe they are right even when they do very heinous things like murder and rape. They justify it in their mind and they aren’t wrong. It takes a lot of humility to admit you are wrong or were wrong. Getting there is the first stage of repentance and turning your life around and no longer doing that action.
\r\nGenerally how it is supposed to be is the majority of society defines and chooses what is morally right and wrong in a society. So, giving into the wishes of just a few is societally morally bankrupt. And that’s what we have been doing.
\r\nIt has been shown that narcissistic grandiosity and psychotic-like experiences (PLEs) may share the common psychological mechanisms. If our society rewards bad behavior and rewards losers and whiners and gives participation torphies. And gives into people's always and easily being offended. And we make ways for a small minority over a majority, like transgenders, it helps contribute to the moral depravity of society. This has been happening in stages by design.
\r\nIt’s scary when people become narcissists and in their mind they can do no wrong and are always right. People at this stage can lack sympathy or even empathy just like psychosis. When we get here we will start to see people like Jose Ibarra who was convicted of killing 22 year old college student Laken Riley in Georgia today. And as her family and friends stood there testifying to missing their daughter, friend, etc. And when he was sentenced with 2 life sentences, he just sat there and showed no emotions whatsoever. It was scary.
\r\nMost know Jose Ibarra was also here illegally. He even flew to Georgia hunting women on a tax funded airplane from New York City, where his hotel was also being paid for. Politicians on the left decided on this insanity. They didn’t decide it on the majority and the will of the people. They likely decided on it from a few very powerfully people who they listen to and who pays them. Like lobbysists and special intersts. The same lobbies that want to destroy America.
\r\nWe Need Morals in a Society
\r\nWe need morals in a society. Morals and laws can and do go together. 'Simply put, a law changes ''morality'' when it changes a person's behavior or attitudes, by changing how the person believes they and others ''ought'' to behave or think. The classic example is the control of crime. When we criminally punish a particular behavior, we expect less of it.
\r\nWe can’t survive as a country or even a free society without laws and enforced laws. We can’t survive as a society with an immoral society run amuck. We can’t survive as a society without responsibility for actions. Including justice being served. There is a fine line between rules and laws and freedom and liberty. This is why it is moral and right to have the majority decide, not the minority. We can vote and choose our morals and freedoms. This is why the founders of our country called it “we the people” in our documents including the US Constitution. This is why when a person is being charged with a murder, it is the state prosecutor prosecuting them. And we elect and vote who our “represetatives” in Washington DC should be.
\r\nPolitics in America is identical to pro wrestling
\r\nI can admit we have people trying to destroy us from within on both sides of the political spectrum. Both political parties got away from the will of the people.
\r\nJesse Ventura said \"Politics in America is identical to pro wrestling. In front of the crowd, in front of TV, they pretend they hate each other. They pretend like they are big adversaries and that’s the sell job they do to us, the citizens. Just like pro wrestling, my job was to go out and piss everybody off so bad they would pay their hard earned money to go out and see me get my butt kicked. Well, the point is, we are all friends in the locker room. We all work together. It’s entertainment. We put on a show and this is no different. They are putting on a show, because behind the scenes, they are all friends. They go out to dinner together and cut their deals together. It’s a show.”
\r\nGeorge Carlin said “It’s a big club and you ain’t in it.”
\r\nWokeism can drift off into superiority, narcissism and moral depravity
\r\nThe left call themselves “woke”. Their wokeism can be and often is moral depravity.
\r\nProponent of wokeism Michael Karson Ph.D. wrote for Psychology Today: “Wokeness, in my view, is a good thing, as I have often blogged.”
\r\nBut he goes on in his blog, “On the political left, wokeness sometimes drifts into wokeism—a system of thought and behavior characterized by intolerance, policing the speech of others, and proving one’s own superiority by denouncing others.”
\r\nSource: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/feeling-our-way/202108/the-psychology-wokeism
\r\nI quote this “doctor”, because even though he believes in wokeism he admits wokeism is intolerant, policing or silencing the speech of others, and a superiority complex and denouncing others, again just like a narcissist.
\r\n“Blueskies”
\r\nA lot of the left especially after the election are now leaving “X” once called “Twitter” for “bluer skies”, a social media platform called “Bluesky”. They can’t accept that Elon Musk a now Trump supporter bought it. They make claims that Elon “broke it” or “ruined it”. He broke it or ruined it because a person they disagree with now owns it. They can’t in “good conscience” (their morality or superiority they established for themselves) be on such a site with such “hate”.
\r\nWhen Elon Musk decided to buy Twitter for a bad price, and expose what they were doing to repress free speech, and decided to give the right a voice again. And then when Elon decided to freely support Trump and talk about his beliefs that got him there. The left decided they weren’t going to have it. They claimed all of Twitter now is bad and a swamp. Twitter was already online and one of the largest public social networks. It was always plagued by bot accounts and bad people too!
\r\n“Hate Speech”, Redefined
\r\nWe already know the left has already redefined words like “woke”, “hate”, “racist”. It often now means people that disagree with them. Many of them don’t even know what they are doing!
\r\nSaul Alinsky a community activist and political theorist, who Hillary Clinton wrote a thesis on, wrote “12 Rules For Radicals”. Rule number 5 is “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)”
\r\nThe left repeat left wing talking points they hear like “a woman’s body”, “a right to chose”, “racist, racist”, etc.
\r\nRegular citizen Democrat voters are just followers, they dont even see what they are saying and doing, and what is happening.
\r\nA lot of their politicians know exactly what they are doing or atleast their handlers, lobbyists and special interests do. You will hear subtle lies to twist and lie about the narrative. Trump said the first time he ran that “some” illegals were rapists and murderers. We noticed the news then left out that key word. They made him out to be a racist.
\r\nNow they (liberal politicians and “journalists”) are claiming that Trump and Tom Homan the new “border Czar” are “going to deport immigrants and citizens.” That is not what they are saying and going to do. They are going for the criminals who shouldn’t be here anywway. People that broke our laws including people like Jose Ibarra who killed Laken Riley!
\r\nThey always try to scare people into fear tactics and continually lie!
\r\nPropaganda: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil”
\r\nJoseph Goebbels the propagandist of Nazi Germany said \"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.\"
\r\nMost news media in America today is political commentary and propaganda to support one side. A more Conserative person will just watch Fox News or Newsmax and a more liberal person will just watch MSNBC or CNN. They will listen to they agree with to continue solidifying their beliefs and they are right. This has become dangerous! The same “Deep State” people who want to destroy America and control us know all of this. Look to their quotes and beliefs and what they have said. Again a lot can and has been said and written about them. We can also look back at history and see when America’s trajectory was set on this course and different things happened.
\r\nI don’t even believe they always knew what they were doing either. They have made plenty of mistakes or they would have already succeed with what they planned to do. But they still did a lot to get us here. Certain justified arguments can be made that things like taking prayer and ten commandments out of school got us here.
\r\nThere was a lot more than just that, for instance!
\r\nOperation Mockingbird is an alleged large-scale program of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that began in the early years of the Cold War and attempted to manipulate domestic American news media organizations for propaganda purposes. According to author Deborah Davis, Operation Mockingbird recruited leading American journalists into a propaganda network and influenced the operations of front groups. CIA support of front groups was exposed when an April 1967 Ramparts article reported that the National Student Association received funding from the CIA. In 1975, Church Committee Congressional investigations revealed Agency connections with journalists and civic groups.
\r\nThere was a long existing law called “The Smith-Mundt Act”, but was officially called the “U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948”, where the Act was developed to regulate broadcasting of programs for foreign audiences produced under the guidance by the State Department, and it prohibited domestic dissemination of materials produced by such programs as one of its provisions.
\r\nH.R. 4310 refers to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, a bill that outlined the budget and expenditures for the Department of Defense for that fiscal year. Obama signed it into law in January 2013, according to a White House press release. A search of the law’s text turned up no clause about what traditional, private news organizations can or cannot publish.
\r\nA person online wrote: “Thanks to Obama, it is perfectly legal for the media to purposely lie to the American people,” reads the text inside the image. “He quietly signed into law HR 4310 in 2012, allowing propaganda to be used on the citizens of the USA by its own government, essentially repealing the Smith-Mundt act of 1948, banning the use of domestic propaganda.”
\r\nI don’t know what the truth on this is, factcheck believes the poster was wrong. However, they (meaning: “the elite”) have been slowly eroding our society, laws, speech and morals over a long period of time. To write all about it and what they have been doing for decades could be written in novels and has been. We know many of them look to “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu and to Karl Marx.
\r\nWhat is going on with the left?
\r\nI can’t say for complete certainty all that is going on with the left in this country. I’m not the biggest expert on any of this and I certainly don’t think like them. I’m writing about what I’m observing. My name means “watchman”. I’m also writing snipets of what others have said.
\r\nWhat I do know is that we are dealing with a bunch of morally superiority narcissists. They are suffering from cognitive dissonance. They will attack and call others “stupid” and put a smiley face laughter emoji on any social media post they disagree with.
\r\nThey can never admit they were wrong and will never learn from their mistakes. They claim to be “woke” but they are very asleep and can’t see where they were wrong and made mistakes. Many of their politicians and news anchors are suffering from this too. Many of them really believed they were right and what they were saying was the truth. They believe they are morally superior and enjoy being heard and listened to and the attention.
\r\nMany of them are told and paid off what to say. Someone is a news journalist (political commentator)’s boss and pays their paycheck. And it is just a few big US Corporations who own all mainstram news. Which is why people are now listening to independent online journalists and podcasts.
\r\nWe who are really woke or awake, know we are and we don’t have to prove it to anyone. Narcissists usually deep down inside are weak and have low self-esteem. This is why they don’t like to be challenged and have to be right. It’s dangerous that these same people are looking for answers and truth and they end up rejecting the truth. It’s all about the source. They reject the bible and Christianity. They will reject you if you quote any source that is more Conservative. They believe they are tolerant and open-minded but anything but.
\r\nDo you know the majority of progressives are white? Only like 8% are Hispanic and 13% are black according to Pew Research? Again they push their agendas on people the most. People can’t be individualistic. They want to lump people together in groups and terms for a reason, it’s a way to control and control the dialogue.
\r\nSadly, so many of them haven’t woke up yet and believe everything they’re told and are hearing. Their “journalists” compared Trump to Hitler and his followers like Nazis. Joe Biden insulted us and called us “garbage”. Hillary Clinton called us a “basket of deplorables”. They repeat these lies.
\r\nThey wanted their side to bring up “the fact” and believe “Trump is a convicted felon.” His followers are “insurrectionists” and he “tried to overthrow the government”. They don’t even know the truth on any of that and what really happened! I could write novels about this, but others already have as well.
\r\nWhen the truth does come out like Robert Mueller after his tax payer funded investigations saying “he found no evidence of Trump Russian Collusion”, the news seems to forget to tell their listeners or don’t cover it or repeat it as much as their lies they want people to believe and follow!
\r\nYou can’t debate people like this. You can’t tell and share the truth with people like this. They don’t think they are wrong and they put up a defense if you call them out and revert back to liberal talking points.
\r\nIf they really aren’t being seen or heard they will post about it online, cry on Tiktok or shave their heads or say they are abstaining from sex. They can’t accept they were wrong and no one really cares what they have to say and they weren’t that important after all.
\r\nThey parrot arround talking points and if you disagree with them “racist\", racist”! It just isn’t working as much as it used to be! More people are waking up especially after we had 4 years of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and what was happening!
\r\nMore people have woken up! Those who haven’t yet it’s like the Matrix, to quote Morpheus, “you have to understand most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.”
\r\nAgain I have been saying since the Obama days that, the left are like the “reprobate minds” of Romans chapter 1:21-23: (“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”)
\r\nWhen Obama was running for reelection in 2012 the DNC booed God at their convention! Anyone can still find this video! Which party mostly embraces homsexuality that is clearly defined in this passage? Yes, Trump tried to unite and get their support too. He’s called to be a president, not a minister!
\r\nSomething the world will never understand until they join our side and decide to follow God and Jesus too. The Holy Spirit dwells in Christian believers. The Holy Spirit in the bible is called the “Spirit of Truth” (John 14:17, 15:26 and 16:13 and 1 John 4:6 and 5:6). We are the ones following and believing the truth and are awake! We are not “brainwashed Nazis” or “stupid”.
\r\nI have heard preachers compare the left’s woke movement, to eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and Adam and Eve’s eyes being awakened. Freemasons are all about enlightenment and spiritual understanding while getting away from God. You actually learn higher levels of freemasonry, they actually worship Satan, Baal and Baphomet, etc and do oaths to them. They call it “the Dawn of Man” and the “age of Aquarius”.
\r\nThere is a reason we (Trump supporters) feel we won a major victory for America, even for them, even if they are too stupid to see it. Only the elite want to destroy America, a lot of Americans are stupid and brainwashed. America was given a second chance and grace from God to turn around from going down this path to Hell! God heard our prayers.
\r\nI truly believe after Covid and what they tried to do, and then after Joe Biden, many more woke up. In the long run it’s better we had to deal with Biden and the left’s “garbage” for 4 years! And now we have a reset on the Deep State’s plan for a “Great Reset”, as the founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab wrote a book called “Covid: The Great Reset”!
\r\nSupport me and future writings!
" }, { "id": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/articlesplus/28", "url": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/fi/blog/general/28-truth-vs-feeling-why-modern-america-treats-opinions-as-more-important-than-facts-and-why-history-and-scripture-warn-us-this-never-ends-well", "title": "Truth vs. Feeling Why Modern America Treats Opinions as More Important Than Facts — and Why History and Scripture Warn Us This Never Ends Well", "summary": "", "date_published": "2026-07-22T06:06:55+00:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-07T06:12:39+00:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Greg Loucks" } ], "tags": [], "_articlesplus": { "article_id": 28, "subtitle": "", "type": "blog", "categories": [ { "id": 117, "title": "Culture & Politics", "alias": "blog-culture-politics" } ], "reading_time": 0, "hits": 108, "language": "*", "canonical": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/fi/blog/general/28-truth-vs-feeling-why-modern-america-treats-opinions-as-more-important-than-facts-and-why-history-and-scripture-warn-us-this-never-ends-well" }, "image": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/images/kofi/28-truth-vs-feeling-why-modern-america-treats-opinions-as-more-important-than-facts-and-why-history-and-scripture-warn-us-this-never-ends-well.jpg", "content_html": "“Buy the truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding.” — Proverbs 23:23
\r\nWe are living through something deeper than political polarization, deeper than media bias, and deeper than generational disagreement. What we are witnessing is an epistemological collapse — a breakdown in how people determine what is real, what is true, and what deserves authority.
\r\nIn today’s America, many people sincerely believe they can disagree with facts themselves, not merely with interpretations. Feelings, lived experience, and personal opinion are often treated not as inputs into understanding reality, but as final authorities that override it. The phrase “my truth” has become socially sacrosanct — even when it directly contradicts evidence, logic, biology, history, or shared experience.
\r\nThis is not merely a cultural irritation.It is not just “kids these days.”It is not confined to one political side.
\r\nIt is a civilizational fault line.
\r\n1. This Is Not New — But It Is Unprecedented in Scale and Structure
\r\nHuman beings have always struggled with truth.
\r\nAncient empires employed propaganda.Medieval authorities suppressed inconvenient facts.Totalitarian regimes in the 20th century perfected mass psychological manipulation.
\r\nBut something fundamentally different is happening now.
\r\nThe scale, speed, and personalization of modern information systems have created an environment where millions of parallel realities can coexist simultaneously — each emotionally reinforced, socially rewarded, and algorithmically protected from challenge.
\r\nThe RAND Corporation’s concept of Truth Decay captures this shift precisely: a measurable decline in the role of facts, evidence, and shared reality in public life. Earlier eras experienced intense disagreement over interpretation. Our era increasingly experiences disagreement over whether facts exist at all.
\r\nThat distinction is not academic.It is existential.
\r\nA society can survive competing interpretations of reality.It cannot survive competing realities.
\r\n2. Why Facts Lose to Feelings: The Human Mind Was Never Neutral
\r\nModern neuroscience and psychology now confirm what Scripture has declared for thousands of years: human beings are not objective information processors.
\r\n“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” — Jeremiah 17:9
\r\nThis verse is not poetic pessimism.It is a diagnostic statement.
\r\nHuman cognition prioritizes:
\r\nemotional coherence over accuracy
\r\nidentity protection over truth
\r\nnarrative meaning over empirical verification
\r\nThis made sense in small tribal societies. It is disastrous in complex, technological civilizations.
\r\nCognitive Bias Is Not a Bug — It’s a Feature
\r\nBiases such as:
\r\nconfirmation bias
\r\nmotivated reasoning
\r\nthe illusory truth effect
\r\nmean that people often evaluate claims based on how those claims make them feel or what they imply about their identity — not whether they correspond to reality.
\r\nScripture anticipated this long before psychology named it:
\r\n“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” — Proverbs 14:12
\r\nWhat feels right is not the same as what is right.
\r\n3. Social Media Didn’t Create the Crisis — It Weaponized It
\r\nSocial media platforms did not invent human bias.They industrialized it.
\r\nAlgorithms are optimized for:
\r\nengagement
\r\nretention
\r\nemotional reaction
\r\nThey are not optimized for:
\r\ntruth
\r\ncoherence
\r\nlong-term social stability
\r\nContent that provokes anger, fear, affirmation, or moral superiority spreads faster than content that carefully explains facts. Over time, popularity becomes a proxy for truth, and emotional resonance replaces verification.
\r\nThe result is not merely misinformation.It is epistemic fragmentation.
\r\nPeople do not simply disagree — they inhabit different conceptual universes.
\r\nScripture describes this condition with startling clarity:
\r\n“Truth has stumbled in the public squares, and uprightness cannot enter.” — Isaiah 59:14
\r\nWhen truth collapses publicly, justice soon follows it into the ground.
\r\n4. Feelings Are Not the Enemy — But They Are Terrible Masters
\r\nThis must be said clearly and repeatedly:
\r\nTruth is not anti-compassion.Truth is what makes compassion possible.
\r\nModern culture often frames facts as cold and feelings as moral. This is a false and dangerous dichotomy.
\r\nThe Bible never dismisses emotion:
\r\nJesus wept.
\r\nDavid cried out in anguish.
\r\nThe Psalms are saturated with grief, joy, anger, longing, and hope.
\r\nBut Scripture never treats emotion as authoritative.
\r\n“Whoever trusts in his own heart is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.” — Proverbs 28:26
\r\nFeelings are indicators, not judges.They tell us that something matters, not what is true.
\r\nWhen feelings become supreme, compassion detaches from reality. At that point:
\r\nmercy becomes indulgence
\r\nempathy becomes enablement
\r\nlove becomes affirmation without accountability
\r\nThis is not kindness. It is abandonment disguised as care.
\r\n5. History’s Relentless Warning: When Truth Becomes Optional, Power Takes Over
\r\nHere is the historical pattern that repeats without exception:
\r\nWhen truth collapses, power fills the vacuum.
\r\nWhen facts can no longer arbitrate disputes, the winners are not the wise — they are the loud, the manipulative, and the coercive.
\r\nThroughout history:
\r\nRegimes did not begin by banning facts — they relativized them.
\r\nPropaganda did not replace truth overnight — it buried it under emotion.
\r\nAtroccity was rarely justified with logic — it was justified with feelings, fear, and identity.
\r\nOnce shared reality disappears, persuasion gives way to force.
\r\nThe Bible names this danger explicitly:
\r\n**“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own (2 Timothy 4:3-4)6. The Compassion Trap: How Truth Came to Be Seen as CruelOne of the most effective cultural sleights of hand in the modern era is the idea that truth and compassion are opposites.In contemporary discourse:Facts are framed as coldEvidence is framed as harmfulDisagreement is framed as violenceCorrection is framed as oppressionThis framing did not arise organically. It emerged from a slow cultural shift in which emotional safety became the highest moral good, eclipsing truth, responsibility, and accountability.But Scripture draws a very different picture.“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.” — Proverbs 27:6Here, the Bible teaches that truth can wound, and that this is not cruelty — it is fidelity. By contrast, affirmation without truth is portrayed as deceitful, even predatory.The modern insistence that truth must never cause discomfort misunderstands both truth and compassion. Real compassion aims at healing, not merely soothing. And healing often requires diagnosis — which means naming what is, not what feels pleasant.“Speak the truth in love.” — Ephesians 4:15This verse is often quoted but rarely obeyed in full.Love without truth becomes indulgence.Truth without love becomes brutality.Scripture demands both — not as rivals, but as partners.7. Predictable Objections — and Why They FailAny serious defense of truth in a post-truth culture will encounter the same objections. It’s important to address them directly, not dismissively.Objection 1: “All truth is relative.”This claim collapses under its own weight.If all truth is relative, then that statement itself must also be relative — and therefore not universally binding.Biblically, truth is grounded not in human perspective but in God’s nature:“God is not a man, that he should lie.” — Numbers 23:19Reality does not bend to perception. Perception bends to reality — or breaks.Objection 2: “Facts are just tools of power.”It is true that facts can be abused.It is not true that facts are abuse.The solution to corrupted truth is not abandoning truth, but recovering it. When facts are discarded, power does not disappear — it becomes unchecked.Scripture warns against exactly this inversion:“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.” — Isaiah 5:20When truth is reduced to power dynamics, the strongest narrative wins — not the truest one.Objection 3: “Lived experience matters more than data.”Lived experience matters — but it does not interpret itself.Experience is evidence, not conclusion. Without a truthful framework, experience can be misunderstood, misdirected, or weaponized.The Bible consistently submits experience to discernment:“Test the spirits to see whether they are from God.” — 1 John 4:1Testing implies standards. Standards imply truth.8. Historical Case Studies: When Feeling Replaced FactHistory does not need to be mined selectively to make this point — the pattern is universal.A. Propaganda and Emotional NarrativeTotalitarian movements did not convince populations through spreadsheets and peer-reviewed studies. They mobilized:grievancefearhumiliationidentityFacts were not debated — they were drowned.Once emotion replaced verification, dissent became treason and questioning became betrayal.B. Moral Panics and Mass DelusionSocieties periodically enter moments where emotional contagion overrides reason:accusations multiplyskepticism disappearsevidence becomes irrelevantIn every case, the inability to appeal to shared facts leads to injustice — not enlightenment.Scripture captures this dynamic soberly:“The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps.” — Proverbs 14:159. Why This Crisis Is Also SpiritualThe decay of truth is not only cultural or psychological.It is spiritual.Jesus tied deception directly to spiritual rebellion:“Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” — John 18:37To reject truth is not merely to make an intellectual error — it is to reject an ordering principle of reality itself.Scripture portrays deception not as neutral confusion, but as captivity:“They exchanged the truth about God for a lie.” — Romans 1:25This exchange always comes at a cost — personally and collectively.10. What an Individual Can Do in a Truth-Decaying WorldLarge cultural trends feel overwhelming, but Scripture never leaves responsibility at the abstract level.1. Cultivate Intellectual HumilityAdmit fallibility without surrendering conviction.“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God.” — James 1:52. Learn to Distinguish Emotion from EvidenceFeelings are signals.Truth is structure.Wisdom learns to listen to both — in the right order.3. Refuse to Share What You Cannot VerifyTruth dies not only through lies, but through carelessness.“Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak.” — James 1:194. Speak Carefully — But Do Not Stay SilentSilence in the face of falsehood is not neutrality.“Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” — James 4:175. Anchor Yourself in What Does Not MoveTruth rooted in God does not fluctuate with outrage cycles.“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” — Isaiah 40:811. Final Warning — and Final HopeCivilizations do not collapse only from external threats.They collapse when they lose the ability to tell the truth about themselves.When feelings replace facts:justice erodestrust collapsespower concentratesreality fracturesBut truth is resilient.It does not need to be reinvented — only recovered.Jesus did not promise comfort.He promised freedom.“You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” — John 8:32Freedom begins when reality is faced — not reimagined.Preface: Why This Essay ExistsThis is not written to persuade everyone.It is written because a society that cannot agree on what is true cannot remain free, just, or humane — no matter how sincere its intentions.The following pages do not argue that feelings are fake, that compassion is weakness, or that disagreement is immoral. They argue something more uncomfortable: that truth is prior to all of those things, and when truth is dethroned, everything built on top of it begins to warp.This is not an attack on people.It is a warning about patterns.It is not a call to domination.It is a call to clarity.Readers should not expect comfort. They should expect coherence.12. How This Essay Will Be Misread — and Why That MattersIn a culture shaped by emotional primacy, arguments about truth are often distorted before they are even encountered. This section exists to remove common misinterpretations before they take root.Misreading 1: “This is anti-emotion.”It is not.Emotions are acknowledged throughout as real, meaningful, and powerful. What is rejected is emotional sovereignty — the belief that feeling determines reality.Scripture never condemns emotion; it consistently condemns misplaced authority.“Why are you cast down, O my soul? … Hope in God.” — Psalm 42:5The emotion is real.The emotion is not in charge.Misreading 2: “This is about winning arguments.”It is not.A culture obsessed with winning arguments has already lost the truth. This essay is about shared ground, not rhetorical dominance.When facts disappear, persuasion gives way to coercion. No one truly wins in that environment — they merely survive until power shifts.Misreading 3: “This is nostalgia for a perfect past.”It is not.No historical era handled truth perfectly. But many recognized that truth existed independently of preference, and that acknowledgment alone restrained excess.The argument here is not for returning to a moment in time, but for returning to a principle.13. Why Neutrality Is No Longer PossibleIn a functioning society, neutrality toward truth is conceivable. In a truth-fragmented society, it is not.When facts are negotiable:silence favors the loudest voicehesitation empowers manipulationrestraint benefits those willing to exploit itThis is why Scripture treats truth as an active responsibility, not a passive posture:“Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” — Ephesians 5:11Exposure is not cruelty.It is prevention.14. The Difference Between Conviction and ContemptOne of the great moral confusions of the present moment is the belief that strong conviction is identical to hatred.Scripture rejects this equation.Jesus spoke with uncompromising clarity while displaying unmatched compassion. The problem is not firmness; the problem is pride.“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong.” — 1 Corinthians 13:1Truth spoken without love corrodes the speaker.Love spoken without truth deceives the hearer.The essay you are reading attempts neither.15. A Structural Summary (For Readers Who Need Orientation)This work advances a single, coherent claim:Truth is objective and prior to feelingModern culture increasingly treats emotion as authoritativeThis shift erodes shared realityWhen shared reality collapses, power replaces persuasionHistory confirms this pattern repeatedlyScripture explains why this pattern is spiritually dangerousIndividuals still retain moral agency within cultural decayRecovery begins with truth, not outrageIf any one of these steps is removed, the argument weakens. Together, they form a single diagnostic arc.16. Final Conclusion: The Choice Before UsEvery generation inherits the same decision, though it dresses itself in new language:Will reality be discovered — or declared?Will truth be received — or negotiated?Will feelings inform wisdom — or replace it?Scripture frames the choice plainly:“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil.” — Deuteronomy 30:15A culture that elevates feeling above fact does not become more humane. It becomes more unstable. And instability always invites control.Truth does not promise safety.It promises orientation.And orientation is what allows a society — and a soul — to remain free even in turbulent times.17. Publication Note (Optional but Intentional)This piece is designed to be:read slowlyshared selectivelyreturned to over timeIt is not optimized for outrage cycles or viral consumption. Its value lies in durability, not immediacy.Truth rarely trends.But it endures.Final Word (Author to Reader)If this essay unsettles you, pause — not to dismiss it, but to examine why.Discomfort is not always a warning sign.Sometimes it is the sensation of reality pressing back.“Let God be true though every one were a liar.” — Romans 3:418. Beyond America: This Is a Human Pattern, Not a National FlawAlthough this essay has focused on modern America, the phenomenon it describes is not uniquely American. It is human.Cultures across geography and time demonstrate the same progression when subjective feeling overtakes objective truth. Limiting this diagnosis to one nation would itself be a failure of truth.A. Revolutionary France: Emotion as Moral AuthorityDuring the French Revolution, appeals to reason were publicly celebrated — but in practice, emotion and ideological purity became the real arbiters.Fear of being labeled an enemy of the people replaced evidence.Accusation became proof.Moral outrage justified execution.The guillotine did not fall because facts disappeared entirely — it fell because facts no longer mattered once a feeling-aligned narrative took hold.This is the danger of moral certainty unrestrained by truth: it becomes self-justifying.Scripture warned of this long before 1789:“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” — Proverbs 18:17When examination is no longer permitted, injustice accelerates.B. Maoist China: Lived Experience as Ideological WeaponDuring the Cultural Revolution, personal testimony replaced objective reality.“Correct” feelings toward the Party mattered more than observable facts.Revision of history became a moral duty.Public confession of incorrect thoughts was treated as moral cleansing.The result was not liberation but mass trauma.This illustrates a recurring truth: when feelings are treated as proof, dissent becomes heresy.“They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.” — Jeremiah 6:14C. The Soviet Union: Reality by DeclarationIn the USSR, science itself bent under ideological pressure.Genetics was rewritten to match political doctrine.Agricultural reality was ignored in favor of ideological optimism.Millions starved while official narratives declared success.The state did not deny that reality existed — it claimed authority to redefine it.This is what happens when truth is subordinated to power.“A lying tongue hates its victims, and a flattering mouth works ruin.” — Proverbs 26:2819. Why Education Alone Cannot Fix ThisA common response to epistemological collapse is to call for “better education.” While education matters, history shows it is insufficient on its own.Highly educated societies have embraced mass delusions before.Intelligence does not immunize against self-deception.In some cases, it merely rationalizes it more elegantly.Scripture explains why:“Claiming to be wise, they became fools.” — Romans 1:22Knowledge without moral orientation does not produce wisdom. It produces sophistication in error.Truth requires not only information, but submission to reality — something no credential can guarantee.20. The Psychological Cost of Living Without TruthA rarely discussed consequence of truth relativism is psychological fragmentation.When reality is negotiable:anxiety increasesidentity becomes fragilesocial trust collapsesmeaning becomes unstableHumans are not built to create reality ex nihilo. We are built to inhabit one.The Bible frames this not merely as confusion, but as exhaustion:“They are weary of following worthless pursuits.” — Jeremiah 2:5A world without truth does not feel freeing for long. It feels disorienting — then oppressive.21. Why This Moment Feels Different (Even Though It Isn’t New)This cultural shift feels unprecedented because of three converging forces:Technological AmplificationEmotion spreads faster than reason at digital scale.Moral InversionQuestioning feelings is framed as cruelty, while rejecting facts is framed as authenticity.Institutional AbdicationMany institutions once tasked with truth-keeping now mirror public emotion instead of correcting it.When all three align, correction becomes nearly impossible from within the system.“If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” — Psalm 11:322. What This Essay Is Ultimately DefendingThis essay is not defending tradition for its own sake.It is not defending religion as a tribal identity.It is not defending authority as such.It is defending the possibility of correction.A society that believes truth exists can repent.A society that believes truth is negotiable cannot — because repentance requires a standard.“Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults.” — Psalm 19:12Only truth reveals what needs correcting.23. Why Scripture Refuses to Separate Truth from FreedomModern culture often treats truth as restrictive and freedom as expressive.Scripture reverses this entirely.“I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts.” — Psalm 119:45Freedom does not come from inventing reality.It comes from aligning with it.A train is not free because it can leave the tracks.It is free because it moves powerfully on them.24. A Final Historical ObservationCivilizations rarely announce their collapse.They explain it away.They rename confusion as progress.They rename indulgence as compassion.They rename denial as courage.But reality remains unmoved.“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.” — Galatians 6:7Truth has a long memory.History records the bill when it comes due.25. Closing Addendum: Why This Still Leaves Room for HopeThe endurance of truth is precisely why hope remains.Truth does not require majority approval.It does not require constant defense.It does not expire when ignored.It waits.And when cultures exhaust their experiments with self-created reality, truth remains what it always was: the only stable ground left to stand on.“The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.” — Psalm 119:160
" }, { "id": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/articlesplus/16", "url": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/fi/blog/general/16-americas-leftist-woke-psychological-sickness", "title": "America's Leftist, \"Woke\" Psychological Sickness", "summary": "", "date_published": "2026-07-22T05:58:59+00:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-07T06:11:00+00:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Greg Loucks" } ], "tags": [], "_articlesplus": { "article_id": 16, "subtitle": "", "type": "blog", "categories": [ { "id": 117, "title": "Culture & Politics", "alias": "blog-culture-politics" } ], "reading_time": 0, "hits": 108, "language": "*", "canonical": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/fi/blog/general/16-americas-leftist-woke-psychological-sickness" }, "image": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/images/substack/16-americas-leftist-woke-psychological-sickness.jpg", "content_html": "“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” - Isaiah 5:20
\r\n\"It is not the evil itself which is horrifying about our times – it is the way we not only tolerate evil, but have made a cult of positively worshipping weakness, depravity, rottenness and evil itself.\" - George Lincoln Rockwell
\r\n\r\nThe 2024 Election and Complete Meltdowns
\r\nA lot of people are talking about the election that we just had on November 5th. People are either thrilled and excited and happy or mad and pissed off, and having serious emotional breakdowns. They are even posting their emotional breakdowns online, and going as far as shaving their heads and promising to abstain from sex!
\r\nThe winning side can and is making fun of the losing side. Like we are enjoying liberal tears. What the losing liberal side are posting online can be viewed as funny. Because some of it is so ridiculous and even asinine.
\r\nI personally don’t think it is funny. I find it really sad and very disturbing. I decided to research the psychology of this because something is happening and did happen.
\r\nCognitive Dissonance:
\r\nIn the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is described as the mental disturbance people feel when they realize their cognitions and actions are inconsistent or contradictory. This may ultimately result in some change in their cognitions or actions to cause greater alignment between them so as to reduce this dissonance. Relevant items of information include peoples' actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment. Cognitive dissonance is typically experienced as psychological stress when persons participate in an action that goes against one or more of those things. According to this theory, when an action or idea is psychologically inconsistent with the other, people do all in their power to change either so that they become consistent. The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.
\r\nCognition is the \"mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses\". It encompasses all aspects of intellectual functions and processes such as: perception, attention, thought, imagination, intelligence, the formation of knowledge, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and computation, problem-solving and decision-making, comprehension and production of language. Cognitive processes use existing knowledge to discover new knowledge.
\r\nThe left is having cognitive dissonance over accepting the fact they lost, and their messages and actions were not resonating with the majority of Americans. Many of them will forever have a hard time accepting they lost because of what our society has done to them, rather than for them! A society they helped create!
\r\nWhat does this inconsistency-related discomfort look like in everyday life?
\r\nHere are just a few cognitive dissonance examples that you may notice in your own life:
\r\nYou want to be healthy, but you don't exercise regularly or eat a nutritious diet. You feel guilty as a result.
\r\nYou know that smoking (or drinking too much) is harmful to your health, but you do it anyway. You rationalize this action by pointing to your high stress levels.
\r\nYou'd like to build up your savings but tend to spend extra cash as soon as you get it. You regret this decision later, such as when facing an unexpected expense that you don't have the money to cover.
\r\nYou have a long to-do list but spend the day watching your favorite shows instead. You don't want your spouse to know, so you try to make it look like you've worked hard all day.
\r\nIt’s basically like people can’t admit they are wrong. Why do so many people have a hard time admitting they are wrong?
\r\nLack of accountability: People may not feel accountable for their mistakes, or they may believe that admitting their mistakes would not lead to a solution.
\r\nEgo: People may be reluctant to admit their mistakes due to a desire to protect their self-image or to maintain the perception of being always right.
\r\nWhat does narcissism correlate with?
\r\nGrandiose narcissism showed significant negative correlations with lack of emotional awareness and clarity, whereas vulnerable narcissism showed significant positive correlations with overall emotion regulation difficulties, impulse control difficulties, and lack of emotional clarity.
\r\nGrandiosity is the defining characteristic of narcissism. More than just arrogance or vanity, grandiosity is an unrealistic sense of superiority. Narcissists believe they are unique or “special” and can only be understood by other special people.
\r\nLeft-wing extremism is linked to toxic, psychopathic tendencies and narcissism, according to a new study published to the peer-reviewed journal Current Psychology.
\r\n“Based on existing research, we expected individuals with higher levels of left-wing authoritarianism to also report higher levels of narcissism,” the authors wrote.
\r\nAs result of the new data, study authors Ann Krispenz and Alex Bertrams have coined a new term for such psychological behavior: the “dark-ego-vehicle principle.”
\r\n“According to this principle, individuals with dark personalities — such as high narcissistic and psychopathic traits — are attracted to certain forms of political and social activism which they can use as a vehicle to satisfy their own ego-focused needs instead of actually aiming at social justice and equality,” they told PsyPost.
\r\n“In particular, certain forms of activism might provide them with opportunities for positive self-presentation and displays of moral superiority, to gain social status, to dominate others, and to engage in social conflicts and aggression to satisfy their need for thrill seeking.”
\r\nThe study on left-wing authoritarianism also showed that many times they do not practice what they so loudly preach.
\r\nSocial justice is often used as a guise for these activists to behave unhinged, the research noted.
\r\n“An individual high in LWA might declare anyone to be ‘old fashioned’ who is opposing their own ‘progressive values,’ strive to suppress free speech to regulate the expression of right-wing beliefs in educational institutions, and even endorse the use of violence to reach their own political goals,” the authors said.
\r\nBeyond using any means necessary, people of privileged backgrounds who are aligned with LWA often use their narcissism to make activism solely about themselves instead of achieving social equality for struggling groups.
\r\n“Minority groups should be made aware of the narcissistic ‘enemies’ from within their activist movement, as these individuals could hijack the cause thereby reducing the success of the activism in many ways,” the authors added.
\r\n“As grandiose narcissists typically desire fame, distinction, elevated social status and high social importance, they can be assumed to strive for influential positions that involve social visibility and outreach as well as access to financial and other resources.”
\r\nThe authors also made it clear that authoritarianism exists on both sides of the political spectrum and that “there is a wide range of literature and research in the field of right-wing authoritarianism.
\r\n“However, research on authoritarianism observed in individuals who are supportive of left-wing political ideologies are still rare.”
\r\nFrom: “Left-wing extremism linked to psychopathy and narcissism: study” https://nypost.com/2023/05/25/left-wing-extremism-linked-to-psychopathy-narcissism-study/
\r\nMoral Depravity Defines US Politics
\r\nAmerican linguist and activist Noam Chomsky wrote an article in 2018 that “Moral Depravity Defines US Politics” https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/23/11/2018/noam-chomsky-moral-depravity-defines-us-politics
\r\nA lot can be written and shared, and has been about powerful people who do not have America’s best interest at heart. They want to destroy America in order to rebuild it into their dystopian nightmare. Many of these people are so powerful that they have all the money they need, it’s about conrol.
\r\nWe know people will follow and believe something always. Even disbelief is belief. Even belief and worship in self is belief. So, the left’s common view that “religion and politics don’t mix” is not a logical belief, it’s a ideological belief. It’s a way to shut up and silence the Christian Conservative Right. Many followers in the Democrat Party are too ignorant to realize that, but their leaders know and realize this. A lot of what they are doing is by design and plan.
\r\nThese same powerful people have beliefs and religions. It is impossible to vote for someone, anyone without beliefs and a set of morals they live by, and people and things they follow and believe in.
\r\nEven immorality is morals. A person’s “morals” are only based on what they view is right and wrong. There are societal morals and a persons own morals. What is morally right and wrong is defined by a society and by a person’s own convictions. People can believe they are right even when they do very heinous things like murder and rape. They justify it in their mind and they aren’t wrong. It takes a lot of humility to admit you are wrong or were wrong. Getting there is the first stage of repentance and turning your life around and no longer doing that action.
\r\nGenerally how it is supposed to be is the majority of society defines and chooses what is morally right and wrong in a society. So, giving into the wishes of just a few is societally morally bankrupt. And that’s what we have been doing.
\r\nIt has been shown that narcissistic grandiosity and psychotic-like experiences (PLEs) may share the common psychological mechanisms. If our society rewards bad behavior and rewards losers and whiners and gives participation torphies. And gives into people's always and easily being offended. And we make ways for a small minority over a majority, like transgenders, it helps contribute to the moral depravity of society. This has been happening in stages by design.
\r\nIt’s scary when people become narcissists and in their mind they can do no wrong and are always right. People at this stage can lack sympathy or even empathy just like psychosis. When we get here we will start to see people like Jose Ibarra who was convicted of killing 22 year old college student Laken Riley in Georgia today. And as her family and friends stood there testifying to missing their daughter, friend, etc. And when he was sentenced with 2 life sentences, he just sat there and showed no emotions whatsoever. It was scary.
\r\nMost know Jose Ibarra was also here illegally. He even flew to Georgia hunting women on a tax funded airplane from New York City, where his hotel was also being paid for. Politicians on the left decided on this insanity. They didn’t decide it on the majority and the will of the people. They likely decided on it from a few very powerfully people who they listen to and who pays them. Like lobbysists and special intersts. The same lobbies that want to destroy America.
\r\nWe Need Morals in a Society
\r\nWe need morals in a society. Morals and laws can and do go together. 'Simply put, a law changes ''morality'' when it changes a person's behavior or attitudes, by changing how the person believes they and others ''ought'' to behave or think. The classic example is the control of crime. When we criminally punish a particular behavior, we expect less of it.
\r\nWe can’t survive as a country or even a free society without laws and enforced laws. We can’t survive as a society with an immoral society run amuck. We can’t survive as a society without responsibility for actions. Including justice being served. There is a fine line between rules and laws and freedom and liberty. This is why it is moral and right to have the majority decide, not the minority. We can vote and choose our morals and freedoms. This is why the founders of our country called it “we the people” in our documents including the US Constitution. This is why when a person is being charged with a murder, it is the state prosecutor prosecuting them. And we elect and vote who our “represetatives” in Washington DC should be.
\r\nPolitics in America is identical to pro wrestling
\r\nI can admit we have people trying to destroy us from within on both sides of the political spectrum. Both political parties got away from the will of the people.
\r\nJesse Ventura said \"Politics in America is identical to pro wrestling. In front of the crowd, in front of TV, they pretend they hate each other. They pretend like they are big adversaries and that’s the sell job they do to us, the citizens. Just like pro wrestling, my job was to go out and piss everybody off so bad they would pay their hard earned money to go out and see me get my butt kicked. Well, the point is, we are all friends in the locker room. We all work together. It’s entertainment. We put on a show and this is no different. They are putting on a show, because behind the scenes, they are all friends. They go out to dinner together and cut their deals together. It’s a show.”
\r\nGeorge Carlin said “It’s a big club and you ain’t in it.”
\r\nWokeism can drift off into superiority, narcissism and moral depravity
\r\nThe left call themselves “woke”. Their wokeism can be and often is moral depravity.
\r\nProponent of wokeism Michael Karson Ph.D. wrote for Psychology Today: “Wokeness, in my view, is a good thing, as I have often blogged.”
\r\nBut he goes on in his blog, “On the political left, wokeness sometimes drifts into wokeism—a system of thought and behavior characterized by intolerance, policing the speech of others, and proving one’s own superiority by denouncing others.”
\r\nSource: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/feeling-our-way/202108/the-psychology-wokeism
\r\nI quote this “doctor”, because even though he believes in wokeism he admits wokeism is intolerant, policing or silencing the speech of others, and a superiority complex and denouncing others, again just like a narcissist.
\r\n“Blueskies”
\r\nA lot of the left especially after the election are now leaving “X” once called “Twitter” for “bluer skies”, a social media platform called “Bluesky”. They can’t accept that Elon Musk a now Trump supporter bought it. They make claims that Elon “broke it” or “ruined it”. He broke it or ruined it because a person they disagree with now owns it. They can’t in “good conscience” (their morality or superiority they established for themselves) be on such a site with such “hate”.
\r\nWhen Elon Musk decided to buy Twitter for a bad price, and expose what they were doing to repress free speech, and decided to give the right a voice again. And then when Elon decided to freely support Trump and talk about his beliefs that got him there. The left decided they weren’t going to have it. They claimed all of Twitter now is bad and a swamp. Twitter was already online and one of the largest public social networks. It was always plagued by bot accounts and bad people too!
\r\n“Hate Speech”, Redefined
\r\nWe already know the left has already redefined words like “woke”, “hate”, “racist”. It often now means people that disagree with them. Many of them don’t even know what they are doing!
\r\nSaul Alinsky a community activist and political theorist, who Hillary Clinton wrote a thesis on, wrote “12 Rules For Radicals”. Rule number 5 is “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)”
\r\nThe left repeat left wing talking points they hear like “a woman’s body”, “a right to chose”, “racist, racist”, etc.
\r\nRegular citizen Democrat voters are just followers, they dont even see what they are saying and doing, and what is happening.
\r\nA lot of their politicians know exactly what they are doing or atleast their handlers, lobbyists and special interests do. You will hear subtle lies to twist and lie about the narrative. Trump said the first time he ran that “some” illegals were rapists and murderers. We noticed the news then left out that key word. They made him out to be a racist.
\r\nNow they (liberal politicians and “journalists”) are claiming that Trump and Tom Homan the new “border Czar” are “going to deport immigrants and citizens.” That is not what they are saying and going to do. They are going for the criminals who shouldn’t be here anywway. People that broke our laws including people like Jose Ibarra who killed Laken Riley!
\r\nThey always try to scare people into fear tactics and continually lie!
\r\nPropaganda: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil”
\r\nJoseph Goebbels the propagandist of Nazi Germany said \"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.\"
\r\nMost news media in America today is political commentary and propaganda to support one side. A more Conserative person will just watch Fox News or Newsmax and a more liberal person will just watch MSNBC or CNN. They will listen to they agree with to continue solidifying their beliefs and they are right. This has become dangerous! The same “Deep State” people who want to destroy America and control us know all of this. Look to their quotes and beliefs and what they have said. Again a lot can and has been said and written about them. We can also look back at history and see when America’s trajectory was set on this course and different things happened.
\r\nI don’t even believe they always knew what they were doing either. They have made plenty of mistakes or they would have already succeed with what they planned to do. But they still did a lot to get us here. Certain justified arguments can be made that things like taking prayer and ten commandments out of school got us here.
\r\nThere was a lot more than just that, for instance!
\r\nOperation Mockingbird is an alleged large-scale program of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that began in the early years of the Cold War and attempted to manipulate domestic American news media organizations for propaganda purposes. According to author Deborah Davis, Operation Mockingbird recruited leading American journalists into a propaganda network and influenced the operations of front groups. CIA support of front groups was exposed when an April 1967 Ramparts article reported that the National Student Association received funding from the CIA. In 1975, Church Committee Congressional investigations revealed Agency connections with journalists and civic groups.
\r\nThere was a long existing law called “The Smith-Mundt Act”, but was officially called the “U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948”, where the Act was developed to regulate broadcasting of programs for foreign audiences produced under the guidance by the State Department, and it prohibited domestic dissemination of materials produced by such programs as one of its provisions.
\r\nH.R. 4310 refers to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, a bill that outlined the budget and expenditures for the Department of Defense for that fiscal year. Obama signed it into law in January 2013, according to a White House press release. A search of the law’s text turned up no clause about what traditional, private news organizations can or cannot publish.
\r\nA person online wrote: “Thanks to Obama, it is perfectly legal for the media to purposely lie to the American people,” reads the text inside the image. “He quietly signed into law HR 4310 in 2012, allowing propaganda to be used on the citizens of the USA by its own government, essentially repealing the Smith-Mundt act of 1948, banning the use of domestic propaganda.”
\r\nI don’t know what the truth on this is, factcheck believes the poster was wrong. However, they (meaning: “the elite”) have been slowly eroding our society, laws, speech and morals over a long period of time. To write all about it and what they have been doing for decades could be written in novels and has been. We know many of them look to “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu and to Karl Marx.
\r\nWhat is going on with the left?
\r\nI can’t say for complete certainty all that is going on with the left in this country. I’m not the biggest expert on any of this and I certainly don’t think like them. I’m writing about what I’m observing. My name means “watchman”. I’m also writing snipets of what others have said.
\r\nWhat I do know is that we are dealing with a bunch of morally superiority narcissists. They are suffering from cognitive dissonance. They will attack and call others “stupid” and put a smiley face laughter emoji on any social media post they disagree with.
\r\nThey can never admit they were wrong and will never learn from their mistakes. They claim to be “woke” but they are very asleep and can’t see where they were wrong and made mistakes. Many of their politicians and news anchors are suffering from this too. Many of them really believed they were right and what they were saying was the truth. They believe they are morally superior and enjoy being heard and listened to and the attention.
\r\nMany of them are told and paid off what to say. Someone is a news journalist (political commentator)’s boss and pays their paycheck. And it is just a few big US Corporations who own all mainstram news. Which is why people are now listening to independent online journalists and podcasts.
\r\nWe who are really woke or awake, know we are and we don’t have to prove it to anyone. Narcissists usually deep down inside are weak and have low self-esteem. This is why they don’t like to be challenged and have to be right. It’s dangerous that these same people are looking for answers and truth and they end up rejecting the truth. It’s all about the source. They reject the bible and Christianity. They will reject you if you quote any source that is more Conservative. They believe they are tolerant and open-minded but anything but.
\r\nDo you know the majority of progressives are white? Only like 8% are Hispanic and 13% are black according to Pew Research? Again they push their agendas on people the most. People can’t be individualistic. They want to lump people together in groups and terms for a reason, it’s a way to control and control the dialogue.
\r\nSadly, so many of them haven’t woke up yet and believe everything they’re told and are hearing. Their “journalists” compared Trump to Hitler and his followers like Nazis. Joe Biden insulted us and called us “garbage”. Hillary Clinton called us a “basket of deplorables”. They repeat these lies.
\r\nThey wanted their side to bring up “the fact” and believe “Trump is a convicted felon.” His followers are “insurrectionists” and he “tried to overthrow the government”. They don’t even know the truth on any of that and what really happened! I could write novels about this, but others already have as well.
\r\nWhen the truth does come out like Robert Mueller after his tax payer funded investigations saying “he found no evidence of Trump Russian Collusion”, the news seems to forget to tell their listeners or don’t cover it or repeat it as much as their lies they want people to believe and follow!
\r\nYou can’t debate people like this. You can’t tell and share the truth with people like this. They don’t think they are wrong and they put up a defense if you call them out and revert back to liberal talking points.
\r\nIf they really aren’t being seen or heard they will post about it online, cry on Tiktok or shave their heads or say they are abstaining from sex. They can’t accept they were wrong and no one really cares what they have to say and they weren’t that important after all.
\r\nThey parrot arround talking points and if you disagree with them “racist\", racist”! It just isn’t working as much as it used to be! More people are waking up especially after we had 4 years of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and what was happening!
\r\nMore people have woken up! Those who haven’t yet it’s like the Matrix, to quote Morpheus, “you have to understand most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.”
\r\nAgain I have been saying since the Obama days that, the left are like the “reprobate minds” of Romans chapter 1:21-23: (“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”)
\r\nWhen Obama was running for reelection in 2012 the DNC booed God at their convention! Anyone can still find this video! Which party mostly embraces homsexuality that is clearly defined in this passage? Yes, Trump tried to unite and get their support too. He’s called to be a president, not a minister!
\r\nSomething the world will never understand until they join our side and decide to follow God and Jesus too. The Holy Spirit dwells in Christian believers. The Holy Spirit in the bible is called the “Spirit of Truth” (John 14:17, 15:26 and 16:13 and 1 John 4:6 and 5:6). We are the ones following and believing the truth and are awake! We are not “brainwashed Nazis” or “stupid”.
\r\nI have heard preachers compare the left’s woke movement, to eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and Adam and Eve’s eyes being awakened. Freemasons are all about enlightenment and spiritual understanding while getting away from God. You actually learn higher levels of freemasonry, they actually worship Satan, Baal and Baphomet, etc and do oaths to them. They call it “the Dawn of Man” and the “age of Aquarius”.
\r\nThere is a reason we (Trump supporters) feel we won a major victory for America, even for them, even if they are too stupid to see it. Only the elite want to destroy America, a lot of Americans are stupid and brainwashed. America was given a second chance and grace from God to turn around from going down this path to Hell! God heard our prayers.
\r\nI truly believe after Covid and what they tried to do, and then after Joe Biden, many more woke up. In the long run it’s better we had to deal with Biden and the left’s “garbage” for 4 years! And now we have a reset on the Deep State’s plan for a “Great Reset”, as the founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab wrote a book called “Covid: The Great Reset”!
\r\nSupport me and future writings!
" }, { "id": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/articlesplus/337", "url": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/fi/blog/general/337-from-mileikowsky-to-netanyahu", "title": "From Mileikowsky to Netanyahu", "summary": "", "date_published": "2026-03-15T07:42:17+00:00", "date_modified": "2026-03-15T07:42:17+00:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Greg Loucks" } ], "tags": [], "_articlesplus": { "article_id": 337, "subtitle": "", "type": null, "categories": [ { "id": 117, "title": "Culture & Politics", "alias": "blog-culture-politics" } ], "reading_time": 0, "hits": 35, "language": "*", "canonical": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/fi/blog/general/337-from-mileikowsky-to-netanyahu" }, "image": "https://www.gregloucks.blog/images/blog/substack/sub-e0246bc334500eae.jpg", "content_html": "Jewish Surnames, Migration, Identity, and Questions About Biblical Heritage
\nMany people around the world recognize the name of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. However, fewer people know that his family surname was not always Netanyahu. His father, the historian Benzion Netanyahu, was originally born Benzion Mileikowsky in Warsaw, in what is now Poland.
The family later adopted the Hebrew surname Netanyahu, which roughly means “God has given.” This change was part of a broader historical movement among many Jewish immigrants who moved to the modern State of Israel and adopted Hebrew names.
Learning about this history raises interesting historical and theological questions. Many people have heard the biblical phrase describing Israel as God’s chosen people, yet history also shows that Jewish identities, languages, and surnames developed in many regions over centuries.
For some readers, this leads to thoughtful questions rather than accusations:
Who exactly were the people called Israel in the Bible?
How do modern Jewish identities connect to ancient biblical tribes?
How did centuries of migration influence Jewish culture and surnames?
How do the teachings of the New Testament relate to these questions?
Some Christians reflect on passages in the book of Revelation when considering these topics.
📖 Revelation 2:9
“I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”
📖 Revelation 3:9
“Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”
These verses have been interpreted in several ways by historians and theologians. Many scholars explain that these passages referred to specific conflicts between early Christian communities and some Jewish groups in the first century, rather than a statement about all Jewish people everywhere.
Exploring history carefully—without accusations—can help people better understand the relationship between ancient Israel, Jewish history, and biblical faith.
One place to begin is by examining how Jewish surnames developed.
Before immigration to Israel, Jewish families often had surnames shaped by the languages, governments, and cultures of the regions where they lived.
In Eastern Europe—especially in places like Poland, Lithuania, Germany, and territories of the Russian Empire—many Jewish surnames developed with Germanic or Slavic linguistic forms.
Historically, many Jewish communities used patronymic naming systems, meaning people were identified by their father’s name rather than by permanent surnames.
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, several European governments required Jewish populations to adopt fixed surnames for administrative purposes such as taxation, census records, and military registration.
This policy led to the creation of many surnames that are still common today.
Some surnames referred to the town or region where a family lived.
Examples include:
Mileikowsky – associated with the town of Mileikow
Warszawski – from Warsaw
Berliner – from Berlin
📖 Biblical Reflection
“If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her skill.”
— Psalm 137:5
For many Jewish immigrants, the land of Israel remained a powerful cultural and spiritual symbol.
Other surnames came from a father’s name.
Examples include:
Abramovich – son of Abraham
Jacobson – son of Jacob
Davidovich – son of David
📖 Biblical Connection
“I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great.”
— Genesis 12:2
Some surnames described professions.
Examples include:
Schneider – tailor
Fischer – fisherman
Zimmerman – carpenter or woodworker
📖 Biblical Reflection
“And let every wise hearted among you come, and make all that the Lord hath commanded.”
— Exodus 35:10
In some cases, surnames were assigned by authorities and simply chosen because they sounded pleasant.
Examples include:
Rosenberg – rose mountain
Goldberg – gold mountain
Goldstein – gold stone
📖 Biblical Reflection
“The law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.”
— Psalm 119:72
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Zionist movement encouraged the revival of Hebrew language and culture.
One of the key figures involved in this revival was Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, who worked to restore Hebrew as a modern spoken language.
Many Jewish immigrants adopted Hebrew surnames to symbolize:
a connection to biblical history
unity in a new nation
cultural renewal
📖 Biblical Reflection
“For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”
— Isaiah 2:3
The father of Benjamin Netanyahu was historian Benzion Netanyahu.
He was born Benzion Mileikowsky in 1910 in Warsaw (modern-day Poland).
His father Nathan Mileikowsky was a rabbi and Zionist activist.
During the early twentieth century the family adopted the Hebrew surname Netanyahu, meaning “God has given.”
📖 Biblical Reflection
“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above.”
— James 1:17
Several early Israeli leaders adopted Hebrew surnames.
Examples include:
David Ben-Gurion — originally David Grün
Golda Meir — originally Golda Mabovitch
Moshe Sharett — originally Moshe Shertok
Yitzhak Ben-Zvi — originally Yitzhak Shimshelevich
📖 Biblical Reflection
“Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.”
— Psalm 133:1
Many Jewish families retained surnames that developed during the diaspora.
German word meaning carpenter.
📖 Matthew 13:55
“Is not this the carpenter’s son?”
Meaning gold stone.
📖 Psalm 19:10
“More to be desired are they than gold.”
Meaning gold mountain.
📖 Psalm 24:3
“Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord?”
Meaning rose mountain.
📖 Isaiah 35:1
“The desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose.”
Associated with silver trade.
📖 Psalm 12:6
“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace.”
Meaning son of Abraham.
📖 Romans 4:3
“Abraham believed God.”
Associated with the priestly lineage.
📖 Deuteronomy 33:10
“They shall teach Jacob thy judgments.”
Connected to the tribe of Levi.
📖 Deuteronomy 10:8
“The Lord separated the tribe of Levi.”
Meaning man of peace.
📖 Matthew 5:9
“Blessed are the peacemakers.”
From German meaning black.
📖 Song of Solomon 1:5
“I am black, but comely.”
Also the German word for amber.
📖 Ezekiel 1:4
“The likeness of amber.”
Derived from Kohen Tzedek, meaning righteous priest.
📖 Malachi 2:7
“The priest’s lips should keep knowledge.”
From German meaning white.
📖 Isaiah 1:18
“Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow.”
Many Jewish surnames actually originated because of government policies in Europe.
During the late 1700s and early 1800s, rulers such as:
Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor
Napoleon Bonaparte
introduced laws requiring Jewish communities to adopt permanent surnames.
Before these laws, many Jews simply used Hebrew patronymic names such as:
Isaac ben Abraham
Jacob ben Moses
These laws forced Jewish families to register official surnames.
In some places families chose their own names, while in others officials assigned them.
This is why many Jewish surnames have German-style words like:
Gold
Berg
Stein
Rosen
Silver
These naming laws helped governments track taxation, property ownership, and military service.
In the Bible, the people of Israel are described as descending from the twelve sons of Jacob, also called Israel.
📖 Genesis 49
These twelve tribes were:
Reuben
Simeon
Levi
Judah
Dan
Naphtali
Gad
Asher
Issachar
Zebulun
Joseph
Benjamin
After ancient conflicts and exiles—especially the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles—many of these tribes became dispersed across the ancient world.
Historians often refer to the “lost tribes of Israel” when discussing these historical dispersions.
📖 Biblical Reflection
“And I will sift the house of Israel among all nations.”
— Amos 9:9
These migrations contributed to the complex global history of Jewish communities.
Many Jewish surnames originated in Central and Eastern Europe—including regions such as Poland, Germany, and the Russian Empire.
Over time Jewish migration carried these names across the world:
North America
Western Europe
the modern State of Israel
Some families adopted Hebrew surnames when immigrating to Israel, while others kept their traditional European names.
The story of Jewish surnames reflects centuries of migration, culture, and identity.
For many immigrants arriving in Israel, adopting a Hebrew surname symbolized:
a new beginning
the revival of Hebrew language
participation in nation-building
connection to biblical heritage
📖 Biblical Reflection
“I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.”
— Jeremiah 16:15
At the same time, diaspora surnames reflect the reality that Jewish communities lived across many lands for many centuries.
Studying these histories can help people explore the relationship between ancient Israel, modern Jewish identity, and biblical faith traditions.
A Dictionary of Jewish Surnames from the Russian Empire — Alexander Beider
A Dictionary of Jewish Surnames from the Kingdom of Poland — Alexander Beider
Hebrew and Israeli Family Names — Edwin D. Lawson
The Jews of Eastern Europe, 1772–1881 — Israel Bartal
Zionism: A Very Short Introduction — Michael Stanislawski
The Hebrew Language Revival and Eliezer Ben‑Yehuda — Shlomo Haramati
Netanyahu: The Biography — Ben Caspit
Yad Vashem — historical research on Jewish history and migration
Jewish Virtual Library — articles on Jewish surnames and Zionist history
Israel State Archives — records on early Israeli society and name changes