The American founding was fundamentally a liberal project, grounded in Enlightenment principles that are ultimately incompatible with traditional Christianity and organic nationhood.
The American Experiment was built on Locke’s social contract theory, Rousseau’s general will, and Enlightenment rationalism
- all profoundly anti-traditional frameworks that replaced divine right with consent of the governed and Christian natural law with abstract individual rights.
The Declaration’s “self-evident truths” and Constitution’s mechanistic checks and balances represent the triumph of liberal political theology over centuries of Christian civilization.
This liberal foundation explains why conservative Christians have consistently found themselves on the losing side of America’s cultural evolution.
We’ve been trying to conserve something that was never Christian to begin with - trying to pour new wine into old wineskins.
The founding documents contain the seeds of every progressive victory that followed: from radical individualism undermining community to egalitarian premises justifying social revolution.
When Christians defend “American values,” we’re often defending liberal values in Christian language. The separation of church and state (initially a Protestant accommodation) became the secular public square.
Religious freedom became moral relativism. Free speech became pornography and blasphemy. The Second Amendment alone cannot sustain a Christian civilization when every other pillar supports its dissolution.
The truly anti-American position for Christians isn’t progressive activism - that’s just liberalism following its natural course.
The truly radical stance is rejecting liberalism itself and recognizing that any nation not explicitly founded on Christ and His Church will inevitably decay into the very paganism we see today.
America was never Jerusalem - it was Athens with a Protestant veneer. And that veneer has finally worn through.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A criticism not of de jure libertarianism/libertarians, but rather of their subsequent subversion and de facto use as a fifth column for managerialism.
In essence, libertarianism's theoretical purity is weaponized by managerial elites to advance their agenda while paying lip service to freedom.
True liberty requires not abstract individualism but ordered liberty within a framework of cultural and national continuity-something libertarianism, in its de facto form, fails to deliver.
Let's be realistic. The ideal of a thriving, self-governing republic of virtuous, informed citizens is a beautiful 18th-century fantasy.
Look at the world you're so keen to 'preserve.' The average voter is emotionally driven, poorly informed, and susceptible to demagoguery and base prejudices.
They vote based on which candidate they'd rather have a beer with, not on a nuanced understanding of monetary policy or geopolitical strategy.
The American Experiment was never a static ideal; it was a dynamic, predatory system designed by and for a propertied elite.
It required constant geographical and demographic growth to stave off its inherent contradictions-between liberty and slavery, between democracy and oligarchy, between promise and reality.
The Silence of the "In-Betweens": The analysis focused on the binary of White/Black and the triad of Protestant/Catholic/Jew. It was silent on those groups that have historically destabilized these neat categories.
Where do Mediterranean peoples (e.g., Sicilians, Greeks, Levantine Christians) fit? They were often considered non-White upon arrival.
During the 17th century, colonial elites did indeed use racial distinctions to prevent solidarity among oppressed groups, such as indentured servants (many of whom were of Celtic or other European descent) and enslaved Africans.
By creating a hierarchy based on skin color, they fostered divisions that served their economic and social control interests. This tactic is a classic example of divide and conquer, aiming to weaken collective resistance by emphasizing superficial differences.
If you place the starting gate of "classical liberalism" in the English Civil-War-era arguments of the Levellers (1640s) and John Locke's 1689 Second Treatise-then the very first hurdle it failed to clear was the question of who counts as a rights-bearing person.
Locke and the Levellers thundered that every man has a natural right to "life, liberty, and estate," yet both groups wrote slavery and hereditary bond-servitude straight into their social contract: