[** Export to PDF](/wp-admin/tools.php?ghostexport=true&submit=Download+Ghost+File&pdf=102)
In the aftermath of the Inauguration, progressives met in Washington, DC, and other deeply blue areas for so-called “women’s marches.” As it happens, the national co-chair of the primary march is a Muslimah by the name of Linda Sarsour, who is the executive director of the Arab American Association of New York as well as a proponent of Sharia law in the United States. It is not surprising that a hijab-wearing Muslimah would have such views. After all, polling has shown that 1-in-2 Muslims in America want Sharia law in the US, and 1-in-4 say that it is “legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.” ([Source](http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/24/shock-poll-51-of-american-muslims-want-sharia-25-okay-with-violence-against-americans/)) Similarly, 4-in-10 Muslims in Britain also want Sharia law ([Source](http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/738852/British-Muslims-Sharia-Law-enforced-UK-Islam-poll)).

Linda Sarsour attempting to subvert the West in the name of her paynim religion is not surprising, but it is perhaps somewhat surprising just how easily subverted progressives are in such instances. Take, for example, the fact that the “Women’s March” in DC included white feminists donning “American flag” hijabs and learning how to tie them (Source). And others carried posters and such depicting a Muslimah wearing such a “patriotic” hijab (Source). Islam is everything that progressives accuse the West of being, but there were those same progressives willingly and gleefully submitting to it in the name of anti-racism and tolerance. Now, it would be all too easy to dismiss this as being a case of the progressives being too ignorant to understand what they were doing, but consider the possibility that progressives rather know exactly what they are doing.

It is impossible to believe that progressives do not understand how Muslims treat women in their own countries, or homosexuals, and so on. How could progressives not know that even our supposed allies still execute people in the street for things progressives claim are fundamental rights? How could they not know that the hijab is tied to Sharia law, which, in turn, allows for executing homosexuals? They must know all of that, and yet they still donned what they would have quickly labeled symbols of oppression had Christians required that women wear them. If you take progressive talking points at face value, you will never truly understand what they do and why because they are not being honest.

A progressive can attack a white Christian for oppressing women through mean thoughts and words even while they wear a literal symbol of Islam’s oppression, and they will have no concept of being a hypocrite or cuckold for doing so. This is because the progressive is not actually motivated by a desire to combat oppression, but they are rather motivated by a desire to subvert the West. They seek to destroy the white, Christian male, and everything else can be shaped and formed around that even when that means they hold multiple contradictory positions. In light of that, let’s consider what they were actually marching for in DC.
**1. Women deserve free birth control and on-demand abortions.

In Matthew 15:19, Jesus lists fornication along with murder, adultery, and other heinous sins. In John 8:7-11, we see Jesus save an adulteress from being stoned to death, but His final words to her were, “Go, and now sin no more.” Consider then that all premarital sex is fornication, and single women using birth control for that purpose are embracing their sin rather than turning from it. They have not only embraced their sin, but they are actively working to avoid any consequences. The same is true of them having an abortion, going so far as to end a small life because they wish to lead hedonistic lives without risking the natural consequences.

2. Women deserve to be in positions of authority and power.

Feminists believe that Hillary Clinton should have been President, and their argument is usually only that “it is time.” They assume that women belong in positions of authority, but is that the case? 1 Timothy 2:11-12 tells us, “Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.” This is also seen in 1 Corinthians 14:34—”Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith.” The Bible is clear that woman can indeed speak in churches within their allotted roles, so these verses must be understood as speaking to positions of authority. If the Bible tells us that women cannot be priests, why should we assume that they should be presidents? After all, 1 Peter 3:7 tells husbands to honor their wives, but it also makes it clear that women are the weaker vessel. Indeed, 1 Peter 3:1-6 also says that wives are to submit to their husbands, calling him lord in all obedience. If a woman were to become President, would she not inherently usurp the authority of her husband as both head of household and ruling him as a monarch, against God’s will?

3. LGBT rights are human rights.

Leviticus 18:22 says, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.” This is reiterated in Romans 1:26-27, which states that homosexuality is a “shameful affection” that changes “the natural use into that use which is against nature … working that which is filthy.” Deuteronomy 22:5 shows us that engaging in “trans” behavior is also a sin: “A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.” Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trannies are all abominations before God, and the leftist desire to normalize and encourage the degenerate, sinful behaviors of such a tiny minority serves no other purpose but to subvert our values.

4. Immigrants and refugees welcome.

In Luke 22:36, Jesus said, “But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.” In Matthew 10:34,38, Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword,” “And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me.” And John 14:6: “Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” Muslims are heathen enemies of the Lord, and they have sought to overthrow Christendom since their religion was established in the 7th century AD. Why should we willingly import infidels who openly support bringing their bastard faith with them, who rape the wives and daughters of our own men, and who do not share our values in the slightest? Jesus made it clear that paynims are not right with the Lord, and at no time did Jesus command that we should help to destroy our peoples, nations, and the Church itself in favor of foreigners.

Following the “Women’s March,” one liberal woman informed me that “Jesus was a liberal” and that their march “might be his Second Coming.” It is painfully obvious that the Bible does not support the beliefs held by the progressives, and the Old and New Testament both speak to the fact that they not only sin but that they wallow in their own filth. This liberal and others like her are fond of loosely referencing Matthew 7:1—”Judge not, that you may not be judged”—and John 8:7—”He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone “—because they believe Jesus was saying that we are to never interfere with the lives of others, to never judge or condemn even the most egregious of sins. This is, of course, not what the Bible says. Jesus was condemning blatant hypocrites who were taking enjoyment from their condemnations of others.

Indeed, Matthew 18:15-17 tells us that if our brother sins against us that we should first rebuke him privately, then before witnesses, and then before the whole church. If he still will not change his ways, then you are to treat him as a stranger. Similarly, James 5:19-20 tells us that “he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.” Why would we be called to rebuke one who has sinned against us if we are never to judge? Is rebuking them not in itself a judgment on their behavior? Why would Jesus tell us that saving another from sin saves not only them but also ourselves? How can we correct error and save others if we must act as though their sins are acceptable?

Ultimately, the truth is that progressivism does not exist to promote “progress,” or to combat “isms,” or anything else of the sort. Progressivism is just a new incarnation of godless Marxism, and its entire purpose is to subvert the Christian West so as to make it easier to overthrow entire nations. This is why progressives only condemn racism, sexism, and so on in one direction. They do not actually care about bigotry, but they do care about tearing down every defensive barrier that Christendom has standing in their way. They seek to subvert and destroy the European man because he stands in the way of their global Marxist goals, but he can only truly defeat them when bolstered by his faith and pride in his ancestors. If the Marxists can reduce the European man to a sniveling, godless shell of a creature wherever he is found, who else will stand in their way? Progressivism is not an assault on anyone’s views on race, gender, sexuality, or the like beyond how the European Christian understands and challenges the godless barbarity seen in the modern world.