10 Myths The Left Should Abandon: How to Bring Facts into the Conversation

G.S. Muse
For the New Christian Intellectual
23 min readOct 13, 2017


In today’s heated political discussion, it’s easy to get lost in the rhetoric and the fake news. And to be fair, fake news exists on both the Left and the Right.

Personally, I think it’s good for people to have differences of opinions on politics. After all, if the Founding Fathers did not have differing views from those of King George III we might not be enjoying the ability to freely have these political discussions today, or freedom to discuss much of anything else for that matter.

Unfortunately, far far too often people come to their political beliefs based on things they’ve heard in the wind, or based on how they feel from what they heard someone say on TV. Ideas are filtered through based on what feeds into people’s biases or feelings, not based on what can be factually established.

But if we want to seek truth, it’s important to check our biases and preconceived notions as much as possible. We might come to different conclusions based on those facts, however searching and digging for the facts can and should be our starting point.

It is not necessary to simply take Fox News or CNN for Gospel Truth. If we want to fact check something supposedly said by a politician, we can watch the full context of their speech online. If we want to hear what experts say on a particular topic, we can watch interviews from scientists, historians, and economists for ourselves, while being sure to hear the views of experts with a broad range of opinions on these topics.

Unfortunately, while political rhetoric often involves misinformation and falsehoods on all sides of American politics (clickbait, rumors, etc.) patent absurdity and falsehoods are a staple of the mainstream Left. I am talking about the Feminist “Wage Gap”, which no economist in the world accepts, the accusation that all Conservatives are “White Supremacists” including Ben Shapiro and Ben Carson, and the treatment of Bill Nye as if he were a real-life scientist.

There is a saying that you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Here are a few of those staple errors.

1.) The So-Called Wage Gap

While it is true that women make less money than men, it is not true that overall women make 77 cents on the dollar for the exact same work as a man. That second part is what makes the statement untrue.

It would be more accurate to say that there is an “earnings gap” but this is due to life choices, not due to discrimination, as even female economists will tell you.

The biggest reason men make more money than women is because when men and women get married, men tend to be the primary breadwinners. The husband will work long hours at the office, while the woman will stay home with the kids, often getting a part-time job, or a job with a lot of time flexibility — ergo making less money per hour, and usually working fewer hours.

But when we look at women who have never been married and their male counterparts, and control for occupation etc., the earnings gap nearly vanishes, with women sometimes earning more than their male peers.

As the economist Thomas Sowell explained decades ago in an interview, the difference is not between men and women, it’s between married women and everybody else.

Another important, and obvious factor, is that men tend to go into higher paying occupations. During college, women are more likely than men to study sociology, while men are more likely than women to study engineering.

Doctors make more money than nurses — is this really any surprise?

Furthermore, male doctors tend to go into higher paying specialties compared to their female counterparts, such as heart surgery. Also male doctors tend to work more overtime.

The irony of all this is that women who never have been married tend to make about the same as their male counterparts — sometimes more.

In fact, all economists seem to agree that the earnings gap between men and women is not due to sexism in any statistically detectable amount in Twenty First Century America. Almost all of it seems to be due to differences in choice of career.

Now, one could argue that the individual who studied Art History and works at Starbucks should make the same amount as someone who performs open-heart surgery working three day long shifts to save lives. And if that is your position, then you are entitled to it. But is it really such an injustice that the individual, man or woman, who contributes more to society, such as a doctor, should reap more benefits from their hard-earned labor, than the person who took it easy and studied Art History?

This touches on the fundamental confusion of the Left between money and wealth. Economics is ultimately about creating and exchanging wealth. If I grow a million apples, then I can exchange the wealth I’ve created for more wealth than the guy who grew a hundred apples.

Granted, on this topic of differences in earnings a lot of issues could (and should) be discussed. Women who choose to have children ultimately can’t afford to work 60 hours a week as a doctor in most cases (and God bless them if they can and find that this is right for their families). That’s why it is usually the role of the husband to serve her by allowing her to stay at home with small children, while he goes off and earns a paycheck. But the key here is that in marriage what he earns is hers. In marriage there is no difference in ownership. The house, the TV, the dog, the kids, and the paycheck all belong to the man and the woman equally.

Also, I am not saying that sexism does not exist, as it clearly does. Women are often treated horribly in the world and not respected. But that is all the more reason for honorable, rational, and respectable women to keep a level head and not get sucked into propaganda.

As I said before, there may be other issues at play in the world, such as the possibility that there is a hiring bias if a resume says “Jack” or “Jill” at the top. However, that is a separate issue from the claim that women make 77 cents on the dollar for the exact same work as a man.

The bottom line is that no economist in the World believes in the Feminist Wage Gap. It’s a myth pushed by politicians and those with an axe to grind. And it’s wrong for these politicians to knowingly lie to female voters to try to manipulate their emotions. That doesn’t mean that sexism does not exist, but it does mean that this particular claim is untrue. Those of the Left who use it should disavow this argument.

Economists like Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Claudia Goldin, a Harvard economist who has studied earnings differences between men and women, have done a lot of work on this topic.

Thomas Sowell — Gender Bias and Income Disparity: A Myth?

2.) Do Unequal Outcomes Prove Racism/Sexism?

A lot is made of the fact that black Americans make less money than their white counterparts. It is generally assumed that this is due to racism.

However Chinese Americans, Indian Americans, and even Nigerian Americans make more money than their white counterparts. If one assumes that all inequity is due to some underlying societal prejudice, then why is it that Nigerian Americans make more money than white Americans whose families have lived in this country for generations?

Economists suggest a number of reasons why certain demographics will be more successful than others, including how much one culture values education over another.

There is a lot of talk these days about “White Privilege” and the fact that white Americans on average make more money than black Americans. This is often seen as proof of “sexism.” But when we look at the broader picture, such as the fact that other minorities, including people from China, India and Nigeria, make more money than white Americans, claims of “white privilege” start to lose their empirical credibility.

Poverty in the black community is a huge problem in the United States, and we need better solutions, which brings us to the problem of failing (Democrat-run) inner city schools.

Thomas Sowell is Back Again to Discuss His Book Wealth, Poverty, and Politics

3.) Inner City Schools Fail Due To A Lack Of Funding

False. The reality is that some inner city schools get more money than their suburban counterparts, and yet still are absolute failures. This is due to a number of societal factors, including problems with teacher’s unions demanding that incompetent teachers not be fired.

Yet in those same inner cities, charter schools that receive less funding than the public schools per student are often wildly successful, even going so far as to match the success of the most affluent suburban schools, despite the obvious differences in funding.

And to make things even more interesting, the kids in the charter schools are chosen by lottery, not by “skimming the cream.”

Charter schools and school choice vouchers have been proven to help inner city kids, particularly inner city black kids to rise out of poverty. Yet politicians in the Democratic Party, such as Barack Obama have gone out of their way to get rid of school choice and school voucher programs while sending their own kids to private school!

To get rid of school choice and school voucher programs is to condemn most black kids to a life of failure, a true example of modern day Jim Crow.

This is not an issue that should be politicized, and yet it is!

Dr. Thomas Sowell explains in more detail:

4.) Does Planned Parenthood Sell Dead Baby Parts?

Not long ago, there were some videos circulating about Planned Parenthood admitting to selling fetal organs for profit, a practice which is illegal.

Now perhaps you are someone who does not think that killing babies before they are born is immoral, but your feelings and your morality are irrelevant to the facts in this situation.

In the videos Planned Parenthood officials were very clear about the fact that they were selling human body parts for profit. It was no secret.

Yet Leftist politicians dismissed the videos as having been edited out of context, even though at least one of these politicians, Nancy Pelosi, admitted that she hadn’t even bothered to watch the videos.

The excuses from the Left on this one were beyond absurd, and were downright brainless. The organization responsible for these videos released the raw footage as well as the shorter, edited versions. If you want to watch the raw footage, you are free to do so.

Notice Planned Parenthood did not deny that these videos were from actual PP employees, they simply dismissed the videos as being invalid.

There is a saying in Spanish that describes how the Left has collectively behaved with regards to these facts: “You covered up the Sun with your finger.”

Now, perhaps you are someone who votes Democrat, and perhaps you don’t want to be lumped in with Nancy Pelosi, and that’s fair. As someone who is a Conservative, I don’t like being lumped in with everyone else, because I am an individual. But if that is you, then you have a responsibility to stand for truth, and this is an issue where the facts are cut and dry. Honest Democrats, including pro-choice Democrats, need to practice intellectual honesty and hold their elected officials to a higher standard.

5.) The CNN Russia “Nothing Burger”

For months after the election CNN and the Leftist Media in general kept talking about Russia and accusing Russia of hacking the DNC, affecting the outcomes of the election.

What we know for a fact is that SOMEONE hacked the DNC, releasing documents exposing corruption from within. But rather than addressing that corruption, the Left decided to accuse Russia of hacking the DNC and thereby doing wrong for exposing the corruption with the Democrat party.


Yet in a series of undercover interviews with CNN officials, the officials from CNN ADMITTED that they made up the entire Russia conspiracy, and that there was no evidence to back it up, saying that it was a “nothing burger”.

In other words, CNN admitted that they knowingly and intentionally lied to the American people.

6.) Everyone Who Disagrees With The Left Is A NAZI

The folks on the Left constantly day in and day out accuse those who disagree with them of being NAZIs, White Supremacists, racists, sexists, homophobic, Islamophobic, etc. etc. etc.

Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos, two Right-Wing Jewish men are regularly called NAZIs and White Supremacists.

It’s gone so far that Chelsea Handler has accused Ben Carson of being a White Supremacist.

It is true that there are bad apples in every group of people. But this accusatory type of behavior is mainstream on the Left. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a NAZI shows that you don’t have what it takes to engage in an adult conversation. This is the sort of thing I might expect from a third-grader, not grown adults with degrees in journalism.

If you are someone on the Left, I recommend calling it a day with the name calling. If you are someone on the Right, I recommend that you chill with the “Libtard” comments. Immature name calling is the domain of children, not grown adults.

Now, one thing that I will say here is that baseless name calling is far more common on the Left than the Right. I’ve never heard Fox News call someone a “Libtard” and Steven Crowder actively discourages it.

That said people on the Left routinely accuse people who are on the Right of being Klan members or NAZI sympathizers. All of this, even though it was the Democrats who started the Ku Klux Klan, and even though the NAZIs themselves said they had more in common with American Progressives than with American Conservatives. That does not make the American Left NAZIs, but the fact does remain that when we break down a comparison of Left with NAZIs, from a policy perspective, there are a lot of similarities.

7.) “Science VS Religion”

This is one that is not as much a Leftist error in-particular, as it is a falsehood that has seeped deep into the mind of Western thought.

We are told growing up that the history of science and religion in general (and Christianity in particular) has been one of warfare. Hence the reason this conception of history is known as the “Warfare Hypothesis.”

Whether this view was ever popular with mainstream historians or not, it certainly isn’t held with any regard today.

In fact, historians of science will tell you that modern science arose because of Christian philosophy, not in spite of it! It was Christians in the Middle Ages who laid the foundation of what we now consider to be modern science.

It was the Christian belief that God was rational, logical, and unchanging that lead to the belief that the universe must operate based on laws that were rational, logical and unchanging. In fact, the Church was the biggest funder of science during the Middle Ages. The church thought it was amazing that we could rationally study God’s Creation, rather than be blinded by the magical superstition of the Pagans.

Unfortunately, the average person (and even most scientists) have been told that Christians used to believe that the Earth was flat, and that this was the official position of the Catholic Church until Christopher Columbus came along. The problem is that the entire Flat-Earth story was a work of 19th Century fiction written by a lawyer who was angry at the Church for not accepting Darwinism.

The Flat-Earth story never happened. Christians knew that the Earth was round.

In fact, nearly all of what the average person has been told about the history of science and Christianity is either complete fiction or a gross misrepresentation of historical events.

Galileo, for example, got into a debate with the other Natural Philosophers of his day, and when the Pope (a friend of Galileo’s) got involved, Galileo responded by writing a satirical character based on the Pope called “Simplicio.”

At the time, the vast majority of scientists believed that the Sun went around the Earth, and when the Catholic Church wanted to take a stance on the matter, they deferred to the scientific consensus of the day, rather than the other way around.

The idea that the Earth was at the center of the universe came from scientific consensus, not the Bible. And it was this popular scientific consensus of academia that ultimately became the official position of the Catholic Church.

Far from being a case of “Science VS Religion”, this was a case of two groups of scientists having a debate. A lot of rhetoric was thrown around. Pride was wounded, and feelings got hurt. Galileo was ultimately put under house arrest for disagreeing with the scientific consensus and making fun of the Pope. (He was never burned or executed, despite weird ideas that some of your friends might have.)

Even though Galileo ultimately turned out to be correct scientifically, and even though he was unjustly prosecuted for criticizing the Pope and challenging conventional scientific ideas, this was not a case of theologians frothing at the mouth, threatened by scientific progress.

This was an issue in which science became very politicized, as science unfortunately is today.

But when we are told that this was an issue of Biblical Fundamentalism standing in the way of science, we are being told an outright falsehood. Theologians of the time period, such as Martin Luther, recognized that when the Bible talked about the Sun rising or setting, it was very possibly just using the “language of appearance” using the Earth as the reference point. Rabid Atheists can complain all day that the Bible uses the Earth as a convenient reference point, and claim that this is scientifically inaccurate, but if they were to ever open up an Astronomy textbook, they would see that even 21st Century Astronomers STILL use the Earth as their reference point.

In other words, even PhD Astronomers use phrases like “sunrise” and “sunset” and use the language of appearance, with the Earth as their reference point, just like the Bible.

That doesn’t make them wrong. This kind of language makes things easier to describe.

In all likelihood, most of what you think you know about the history of “science and religion” is simply false, including the claim that the Inquisition went around persecuting people for scientific ideas or that Christians held back the development of Modern Science.

Ironically, during the Middle Ages scientists had more academic freedom than today. In the 21st Century, there have already been countless cases of scientists being fired from their jobs for raising criticisms about Darwinism. Most of these scientists are not Creationists. Many are not even Christians!

The painful irony is that today if you raise scientific questions that call the religion of Materialism into account, you are deemed a heretic and often fired from your job. Atheists bark at their cartoon understanding of history that they heard somewhere from other Atheists in their echo chambers, but then have no problem when actual scientists are being persecuted for scientific objections to Darwinism and the Holy Book of Materialism.

What can we learn from the history of science and religion?

The biggest lesson is to get history from historians. We should read for ourselves the writings of those who lived long ago. Far too often, people hear nonsense on TV and assume that the TV is conveying what the experts actually think.

Another important lesson is the need for academic freedom and free speech. Scientists who are “wrong” should not be persecuted for their “wrong” opinions. People who have ideas that might offend someone still have the same rights to speak as everyone else.

Yet in our day those scientists who hold to politically incorrect ideas about Evolution or Global Warming are routinely targeted by “Progressive” academia and attacked by fake Leftist “scientists” such as Bill Nye.

8.) Is Bill Nye a Scientist?

No he isn’t. Bill Nye has a mechanical engineering degree, so he would have taken his fair share of physics courses. However, he has not done the work typically required to be considered a “scientist.”

Time and time again, I see Bill Nye brought on national TV to speak as an expert on scientific issues. And amazingly Bill Nye views himself as being qualified to come on such shows! But Bill Nye has no scientific credentials whatsoever besides being a comedian in a lab coat. He has never contributed any research to the scientific community.

Much is made of the fact that Bill Nye has six “honorary doctorates.” The problem, as anyone who knows anything about what an honorary doctorate is can tell you, is that an honorary doctorate is meaningless. They are typically handed out to speakers simply for showing up to graduation ceremonies, and they don’t hold any weight in the real world.

In the case of Bill Nye, he was given these awards because of his work on his educational TV programs and because he agreed to speak at these universities for graduation ceremonies.

That’s it! Bill Nye has not done any scientific research to earn a PhD or done so much as the coursework for an Associate’s Degree in the field.

Unfortunately, Bill Nye is brought on CNN as if he were an actual scientist, often to mock and criticize actual scientists, accusing them of not knowing what they are talking about. (Yes, this actually happened. A climate expert with an actual PhD was ridiculed by Bill Nye on CNN and told that he was ignorant.)

It amazes me that journalists are so intellectually incompetent as to bring Bill Nye on as a scientific expert, when he has no scientific credentials outside of being a comedian with a lab coat, and it amazes me even more that Bill Nye has the arrogance to criticize actual atmospheric physicists and actual medical doctors for not buying into Bill Nye’s political delusions.

By “criticism” here, I don’t mean merely debating, I mean Bill Nye’s habit of name-calling people who disagree with his uneducated ideas (such as physicist Dr. William Happer). Don’t get me wrong, Bill Nye is entitled to his opinion. But his opinion is not an expert opinion, and it doesn’t hold the same weight as experts in the fields in question, i.e. real scientists with actual degrees.

I also have a longer article on Bill Nye. Click here to read a more detailed analysis of Bill Nye, and his “degrees.”

As a footnote, Bill Nye has done work for NASA. However this was work done as an engineer, not as a scientist. I explain that in detail in my other article.

9.) Capitalism Persecutes the Poor

This is something that a lot of people throw around, especially Leftists who go to school for a $200,000 Bachelor’s degree in Gender Studies and suddenly discover that they can’t find a job.

The reality is that starvation-level poverty has fallen by 80% around the World since 1970.

“But … but Bernie says that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer!”

This is patently false. In the United States over the course of the past several decades, the rich have gotten richer, but the poor have also gotten richer.

When we look at individual families, say the Jones’s, we find that on average poor families are growing economically.

But the problem is that some people misread the data, noting that people on the bottom rung of the ladder in the U.S. (the lowest income bracket) may be slightly poorer than those on the bottom rung in 1970. The problem is that those on the bottom rung today are often those who just came here “fresh off the boat” from countries that are in poverty.

In other words, the poor people from 1970 are not the same people as the poor people from today. The poor families from 1970 have climbed the ladder and are already in a higher economic category. Those who push this mistaken narrative are looking at averages within brackets, but they are ignoring the fact that people are moving from one bracket to another.

If you were to look at all the people in the lowest bracket from 1970 and look at them again today, they will be on average richer than they were back then. As economist Thomas Sowell says, “One of these wild cards is that most Americans do not stay in the same income brackets throughout their lives. Millions of people move from one bracket to another in just a few years.”

What that means statistically is that comparing the top income bracket with the bottom income bracket over a period of years tells you nothing about what is happening to the actual flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving between brackets during those years.

The IRS data (which are for people 25 years old and older and which follow the same individuals over time) shows those in the bottom 20 percent of income-tax filers almost doubling their income in a decade. That is why they are no longer in the same bracket.

This explains why the share of income going to the bottom 20 percent bracket can be going down, as the Census Bureau data show, while the income going to the people who began the decade in that bracket is going up by large amounts.

A helpful reference on this issue: https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/11/07/income-confusion

As an illustration, picture a Chinese family who came here in 1970 and opened a restaurant. They worked hard and smart. In 2017 their kids are now working as engineers making more money than white families that have been here since the Boston Tea Party — and more power to those Chinese families!

But consider a Chinese family that came here in 2010. They own a restaurant, but they are just starting out. Their kids are sitting at the restaurant doing their homework so that they can be the engineers. The second family might be more poor in 2017 than the family that came here in 1970, giving the illusion that the poor are getting poorer, because the “bottom bracket” or “bottom rung” has less money. But the reality is that both families are on the rise economically!

“But .. but … the poor are getting poorer.”

No they are not! That phrase is misleading. (Most likely, deliberately so.) The phrase seems to paint a picture of generational poverty that cannot be escaped and that is getting worse. But “the poor” are not a fixed group of people.

I don’t deny that according to the data, the average person on the bottom rung has somewhat less money (when controlled for inflation) than those who were on the bottom run in 1970. But why do Leftists obscure the simple explanation for this trend? Namely, that in each decade since World War II, the immigration rate to the United States has been increasing, bringing new people who are starting — but not staying — at the bottom bracket.

When economists look at the data for families who have been in the U.S. for at least a few generations, they find that those families, including poor families, are, on average, rising economically. Moreover, the Chinese family that just got here and may be poor at the moment, but their grandkids will be making more money and creating more wealth than the Jones’s. And America will have more wealth because of it.

The fallacy can be summed up as: We don’t understand statistics. We look at brackets instead of people. We don’t take into account the fact that those in the lowest income bracket are not the same families 40 years later.

Thomas Sowell suggests, “Considering the millions of dollars being paid to each of the anchors who broadcast network news, surely these networks can afford to hire a few statisticians to check the statistics being thrown around, before these numbers are broadcast across the land as facts on which we are supposed to base policies and elect presidents.”

Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. Many black families in the United States, for example, are caught in a perpetual cycle of poverty, thanks to Democrat policies such as the opposition to school choice (aka the modern Jim Crow policy).

10.) Is Black Lives Matter a peaceful organization out to protest injustice and help the black community?

If BLM is a peaceful organization that only wants to help the black community, then why do their followers loot black neighborhoods and burn black communities to the ground? And why are their allegedly “peaceful” leaders not condemning this violent behavior from the rooftops?

Why do Leftists support them, when even President Obama and Eric Holder (both black) had to admit that “Hands Up! Don’t Shoot!” did not fit with the evidence?

How does rioting, looting, and inciting the murder of police officers actually help the black community? How does demonizing police officers who are proven innocent help anyone’s cause?

Are such lawbreakers just people using the slogan “Black Lives Matter”? Is it true that they have nothing to do with the founders or the organization? That’s a question worth asking.

Alicia Garza, the primary cofounder of Black Lives Matter — I say this again: THE MAIN COFOUNDER OF BLACK LIVES MATTER — said in an interview with Al Jazeera that she supports violence and looting. She also openly cites Assata Shakur, the cop killer on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists, as being one of her greatest inspirations. (See the video at the end of this section.)

Now don’t get me wrong, I get why people might disagree on different issues, but to not see this as a problem is willful ignorance in the highest degree.

We hear a lot about “white supremacists” these days, and yes, actual white supremacy needs to be condemned and refuted with logical argument. But how can the Left watch this group burn down black communities and turn a blind eye, while constantly being on the lookout for the “microagressions” of “White Supremacy”?

Liberals … if someone came along and started burning your home or business to the ground, while chanting nice things, would you regard them as your friend or as your enemy?

What BLM is doing is the work of the Klan. They do incredible evil to black communities, but then get away with it because they chant a nice-sounding slogan.

On top of all this, the death toll is rising in black communities, thanks to police being forced to withdraw because of the lies and propaganda of Black Lives Matter.

Interestingly, BLM says that they do not deal with black-on-black crime. They say it is not one of their issues. Yet they do deal with Global Warming and transgender issues, and they do oppose the nuclear family.

Black Lives Matter is directly to blame for the rising rates of black homicide in the inner city, so it’s no surprise that they choose to ignore the issue of black-on-black crime.

I honestly can’t believe the world we live in where an organization can go around setting fire to black communities, and bringing death and destruction due to gang violence when police are forced to withdraw, and then people take them seriously when they say that they are friends of the black community.

It’s as if Nero were alive today, setting Christians on fire, and using them as human torches, and then being welcomed into our churches because he said “Christian Lives Matter”.


Yes, there are those on the Right who say stupid things (such as President Trump), but the difference is that the factual errors I list here are a staple of the Left.

I personally believe that people SHOULD have differences of opinion on politics, and that we should talk about them. But when those on the Left continually call people NAZIs (including black people and Jewish people) simply for disagreeing with them on economics, or when people on the Left continually push narratives that have been proven false — such as the “Wage Gap,” then it tells me that the Left is intellectually bankrupt and it makes me not want to listen to anything else they have to say.

Everyone has different opinions and different beliefs, and that’s fine, but if the Left’s worldview is so fragile that it requires holding onto beliefs that have been proven to be false, then perhaps it’s time for those on the Left to reexamine their worldview in light of the facts.

For my readers who might consider themselves Leftist, or Liberal, or Democrat, or even Socialist or Communist, I don’t want you to leave this article feeling beaten over the head.

Even more than fact-checking, I want to point out the need for open dialogue and tolerance even for those with ideas with which you or I might disagree. If Galileo had turned out to be wrong, and the Geocentrists right, it would not have made his sentence of house-arrest any more just. The world would not have ended because one person had an idea that made people look at things in a different way.

Often I see those on the Left talk about “tolerance” and being open-minded. But then they will call someone a NAZI for being pro-life. A tolerance for people who look or dress differently as long as they think exactly like you isn’t any different from the Inquisition that we rightly condemn today.

Perhaps it’s time to be open to other worldviews and other views in general. Perhaps it’s time to reconsider free-market economics, and even to reconsider Christianity.

Thank you for reading!

I can also be found at:

GreenSlugg.com -My primary website where I blog and seek to promote Christian intellectual thought, seeking to teach Christians how to witness to others.

My YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/GreenSlugg

My Amazon author page, where I publish sci-fi and speculative fiction: https://www.amazon.com/G.S.-Muse/e/B074DPZ8PZ/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1

The Twitterz: https://twitter.com/GSMuse1

Patreon, where you can donate to my work: https://www.patreon.com/GreenSlugg

And FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007936336782



G.S. Muse
For the New Christian Intellectual

G.S. Muse, also known as GreenSlugg on YouTube or simply as “Greg” is a lab technician, youtuber, author, and blogger. His work can be found at GreenSlugg.com