Gospel of woke: 'Love Is Blind' exposes the ugly truth about progressive politics



If you need any more evidence that progressive politics is a pseudo-religion, then look no further than "Love Is Blind" on Netflix.

The conclusion of the show's eighth season became the subject of controversy after contestant Sara Carton rejected her partner, Ben Mezzenga, at the altar. After walking away, Sara cited irreconcilable differences in political values and what she believed was Ben's failure to wrestle with progressive social activism.

There is no mercy for those unwilling to give their total and complete devotion to the progressive doctrines and creeds.

This is what Sara told her family after dumping Ben:

I remember I asked him about Black Lives Matter, and I’m no expert, but when I asked him about it, he’s like, "I guess I never really thought too much about it." That affected me. Especially in our own city, like how could it not? How could it not make you think about something?

I asked him, too, what his church's views are [on LGBTQ ideology], and he said he didn't know. And I watched a sermon online ... about sexual identity, and it was traditional. I told that to Ben. ... [But] he doesn't really have much to say about it.

The climactic moment was not exactly surprising.

While dating in the "pods" — the part of the show where singles "date" and become engaged without ever seeing their partner — Sara pledged allegiance to the LGBTQ movement and Black Lives Matter. Ben, on the other hand, attends church and clearly felt uncomfortable talking about his political and religious values, probably because he sensed that his did not align with Sara's.

That Sara ultimately decided to reject Ben over different views of "equality, religion, the vaccine" references an ugly truth: Progressive ideology today largely functions as a pseudo-religion.

Progressivism as a worldview even has a clear religious framework: It demands strict adherence to its doctrines and dogmas — like LGBTQ advocacy, DEI, anti-racism, woke worldview, social justice and climate activism, identity primacy, and government-as-messiah — and threatens to punish heretics with excommunication.

What happened between Sara and Ben even resembles a popular Christian teaching on relationships. Drawn from 2 Corinthians 6:14, Christians talk about not being "unequally yoked" in a relationship. Though Paul likely has a broader application in mind, the power of his agricultural metaphor highlights an important truth about relationships: Two parties with different purposes cannot advance together.

Sara's decision to leave Ben at the altar is a textbook secular example of this wisdom principle in action.

Clearly, Sara believed that she should not be yoked to someone who did not wholeheartedly share her ideology. Perhaps this is wise, generally speaking. But political differences haven't always required the end of a relationship or marriage. Not long ago, most people considered them to be minor obstacles that were easy to overcome. Today, they are tantamount to fundamental religious incompatibilities, and disunity in political convictions is viewed as righteous justification for severing relationships and divorce.

In fact, Sara was not the only woman on "Love Is Blind" season eight to cite political differences as a reason not to marry her fiancé.

At the "Love Is Blind" reunion, Virginia Miller admitted that she chose not to marry Devin Buckley, in part, because they did not align politically.

"Devin told me a lot about his core values, something that he did not want to talk about on camera. I still to this day don't feel really comfortable telling you Devin's views. But I will be very clear about mine. I 100% support the LGBTQ community. I also believe that women should have the decision to choose if they want to have an abortion or not. I also believe different religions should be valued," Miller said. "This was an important part of this decision."

The tragic reality is that, for many progressives, politics is more than a tangental facet of civic life. It's now a purity system that divides between the righteous and the heretics. Absolute adherence is required. Dissent demands repentance. And for the unrepentant who refuse to submit, exile awaits.

The contrast between progressivism as a pseudo-religion and Christianity could not be more glaring. Whereas progressive politics draws boundaries around orthodoxy and orthopraxy much like Christianity, progressivism as a faith system lacks grace, redemption, and reconciliation — principles central to Christianity.

In progressivism, there is no mercy for those unwilling to give their complete devotion to progressive doctrines and creeds.

The real irony of pseudo-religious progressivism is that many of its adherents have rejected Christianity and organized religion altogether — only to construct a new religion to fill the vacuum. And as Sara demonstrated, its adherents are perfectly willing to sacrifice relationships on the altar.

Progressives may preach a gospel of inclusion. But as Ben learned, only the converted are accepted at the altar.

Make no mistake — the 'JD Vance is weird' movement was very carefully calculated



As you may well know, Kamala Harris’ campaign and its media allies have taken to calling JD Vance “weird.”

“Yes, the same people who want to trans your kid, have abortion on demand, and open the borders say that a U.S. military veteran, who is a happily married father from the heartland, is weird,” says Liz Wheeler, pointing to the following Tweets from Kyle Mann and Greg Price that paint the perfect picture of how absurd such a statement is.

— (@)


— (@)

While the tactic of calling someone who is as normal as the rising sun weird seems like a strategy doomed to fail, apparently “it’s working,” says Liz.

Part of the movement’s success is attributed to the fact that this is “coordinated language from the losers in the mainstream media,” she explains, playing a montage of several examples of Vance and the Trump/Vance campaign being called “weird.”

What's REALLY Behind 'JD Vance Is WEIRD' | Ep 5youtu.be

“They were clearly given talking points,” she says. “The question is: Where did they get them from?”

“Undoubtedly they got the word ‘weird’ from focus groups who most likely found that the word weird resonated with liberal women voters” and “probably because focus groups found that when Kamala Harris runs on her own record, people ardently dislike her and reject her policies” says Liz.

“This strategy is actually very elementary. It's meant to appeal to the shallowest part of human nature, but here's the reason why they're utilizing this strategy. ... They are trying to assassinate JD Vance's character to distract from the fact that the Democrats are perverted commies who hate us. And JD Vance has committed the cardinal sin against the commies of being a Conservative Christian white man happily married with kids who goes to church and loves America. The Democrats hate that,” she explains.

However elementary the tactic may be, it’s effective because “presidential campaigns are not policy debates” but rather culture wars.

“Democrats understand how to use the culture or even human nature to win because they control the culture and they know how to harness it,” says Liz, adding that this “killer instinct” is the one thing Democrats have that Republicans don’t.

Unfortunately, this repeated defaming of JD Vance is adding up — the Ohio senator’s “popularity rating just in the last week has dropped nine points.”

“There's even a report that President Trump is regretting the fact that he picked JD Vance to be his vice presidential running mate,” says Liz, adding that she hopes this is nothing more than a nasty rumor.

Regardless of the veracity of the hearsay, “The 'JD Vance is weird' language ... is intended to also target how Trump feels about JD Vance in order to breed chaos in the Trump campaign in these final months before the election,” says Liz.

“Again — the left has this killer instinct. They have studied their enemy; they know their enemy.”

“If there’s one thing we should learn from the ‘JD Vance's weird’ narrative it’s that the Democrats are like sharks. They get just a whiff of blood and BAM — they'll gut you,” she says.

But according to Liz, there is an antidote. To hear it, watch the episode above.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Wayne Brady from 'Whose Line Is It Anyway?' comes out as PANSEXUAL



Many will fondly recall the improvisational comedy series “Whose Line Is It Anyway?” featuring Ryan Stiles, Colin Mochrie, Drew Carey, and Wayne Brady, who recently came out as pansexual.

We’ll give credit where credit is due – Brady is a very talented improv comedian. However, this sudden pledgeship to the Alphabet Mafia reeks of virtue-signaling.

“I advocate mental health for all, and a part of that is self-transparency,” Brady said. “I want to be free to love whomever I want; this truth makes me pan and part of the LGBTQ+ family.”

“You don’t have to make some statement about what you are,” says Stu Burguiere. “You are free to love whoever you want, like it’s 2023.”

“We’d like to just yawn when you tell us this crap. Instead we’re supposed to cherish it or something,” he adds.

For those who have a hard time wrapping their heads around what pansexual even means, Stu has a great explanation: “It’s like a bisexual plus – you like men, women, or whatever else is in the LGBTQ+ community.”


Join Stu Burguiere as he offers a humorous conservative perspective on Wayne Brady's recent pansexual coming out announcement. Stu questions the necessity of...

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Liberal journalist delivers scathing rebuke of the left's new politics of 'social control'



Zaid Jilani — a journalist who formerly reported for liberal organizations such asThinkProgress, United Republic, Alternet, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee — recently took aim at members of his own ideological tribe over their newfound penchant for censorship, suppression, and cancellation.

What did he say?

In an op-ed for Newsweek published Monday, Jilani, who now hosts the podcast "Extremely Offline," masterfully exposed the left's drift from its "old politics of social liberation" to its new "politics of social control," a movement he claims escalated during the Trump presidency.

As proof of this new politics, Jilani cited the immediate actions taken by newly elected Democratic Rep. Cori Bush (Mo.). Her election, he thought, had "created an opportunity for progressive change," yet her very first bill introduced in Congress "called for an investigation into and possible expulsion of over 100 House Republicans who objected to the certification of electoral college votes on Jan. 6th, the same day as the Capitol riot."

Should such an expulsion take place, he noted, not only would it disenfranchise tens of millions of voters, but it would "demonstrate a glaring double standard," since Democratic lawmakers in the not-so-distant past voted to do the same thing. That's not even to mention the woefully problematic precedent that would be set.

"After all, if we were to hold everyone who holds a certain belief responsible for a small number of their ideological allies who resort to violence, then Bush herself would have to be expelled; she is after all an outspoken supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement, whose protests have at times devolved into violent riots," he wrote. A stunning admission from a progressive writer.

What else?

If people should need further proof of the left's politics, they need to look no further than "bias response teams" on college campuses or big tech's evolution into "a 21st century speech police," Jilani argued as if writing for some conservative outlet.

"This new politics of social control means using public and private institutions, almost all of which are now controlled by left-leaning people, to coerce individuals into their preferred modes of being and even thinking," he wrote.

He later added: "The left's system of social control is focused squarely in one direction: at individuals, organizations, and ideologies perceived to be representing the excesses of the right," noting that the left believes "the only way to deal with this conflagration is with repression, ranging from classmates snitching on each other to a new domestic anti-terrorism law."

Jilani also argued that mainstream media has played a major role in the left's transformation by exaggerating racism and sexism in the country and thus fomenting division and stoking fear. This fear, he argues, is the impetus for the left's crusade of "surveilling, censoring, punishing, and expelling."

"When we're in a climate of fear, the impulse to just do something is overwhelming," he notes.

Anything else?

By way of conclusion, Jilani offered some salient advice for his friends in the progressive movement:

The left should move away from a posture that sees social control as its primary function and remember its roots in social liberation. Bullying and repressing people backfires. The best way to fight hate is by building trust, even with those who dislike us.

The left has traditionally existed to liberate human beings, not take pleasure in controlling and punishing people it views as aberrant or evil. Social control should be a last resort, not a pastime. Only by realizing this can the left resume its mission of expanding human freedom by promoting the dignity of every person.

For the conservative reader, Jilani's arguments are hardly anything new. Though still, conservatives should celebrate the fact that a progressive writer would wield them.

It appears there is yet some self-awareness in left-leaning circles. Perhaps it will win the day.