As of 2021; anyone who is in the mainstream is not on the side of God, the Good and divine creation - and is almost certainly overall and in-effect against these - regardless of whether that person (or institution) self-identifies as Christian or affects to be against the Left.
The question is whether people such as myself (or Vox Day) should expend time, effort and zeal in identifying and criticizing mainstream fakes?
One main viewpoint is that criticism should be focused upon the worst examples of Anti-Christian activity - the explicit and extreme Left; rather than on the less extreme, or mixed, commentators; or 'liberal Christians', or cowardly and compromised, incoherent Christians (who are, after all, a minority).
And therefore that it is wrong when Christians are ruthless (even aggressive!) in pointing out the flaws and fraudulence of mainstream supposed Christians or anti-leftists.
This viewpoint argues that such people do some good, overall - or especially when read selectively; and that 'moderate' mainstream pundits may form a bridge (or 'entry drug') to The Truth (i.e. to better, realer, persons and institutions).
There is also a would-be Christian argument of the mote/ beam in eye kind; whereby it is suggested that nobody should criticize anybody on moral grounds, unless or until they are themselves free from sin...
But I regard these arguments as mistaken (when they are not merely deceptive and tendentious - i.e. when people are covertly trying to excuse themselves from courage and clarity, under guise of 'tolerance' for others).
My position is that it is necessary, but not sufficient, to criticize mainstream fake Christians/ anti-leftists; precisely because they are much more likely to influence people; and because their misrepresentation of Christianity tends to block conversion to the real thing (in multiple ways).
If these people (or institutions) are allowed to stand without their fraudulence being clearly stated, they will do the maximum of harm, and any good they do will tend to be swamped.
(Which is, after all, why such people are tolerated in the mainstream - why they are even subsidized and encouraged by the forces of evil.)
The fact that primarily-bad people may do some good is irrelevant; because the same applies to out-and-out evil people; who, by taking their bad ideas to extremes, may reach a reductio ad absurdum, waken up their audience, and provoke self-disgust leading to conversion.
...Much as the utter degradation of extreme alcoholism may lead to its own cure, in the Alcoholics Anonymous model - while socially-acceptable, keeping-up-a-facade alcoholics, may be able to deny their situation indefinitely.
An out and out, aggressive, public atheist - like the philosophers Freddie (A.J.) Ayer or Anthony Flew - is probably more likely to reach the end of the road, and convert to (real) Christianity; than is a liberal (fake) Christian of the Jorge Mario Bergoglio or Justin Welby kind, that dominates and leads the mainstream denominations.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the idea of the Antichrist is one who is 'mostly' (i.e. superficially) Christian - and self-identifies as Christian, while essentially (and by motivation) working-against Christ.
This is precisely what mainstream 'Christians' are and do; especially obviously so, if you agree with the validity of my 2020 Litmus Tests.
As for the mote/ beam in the eye argument; it results from a mistaken understanding of the nature of evil - which has become much clearer over the past year. The good are those on the side of God and divine creation; the evil are those who take the side of the devil in opposition to God/ Good and Creation.
Thus, good and evil are distinguished by allegiance, not by personal qualities. A nasty and badly behaved person can, with absolute legitimacy (so long as he recognizes and repents his sins), call-out a kind, compassionate and altruistic individual who serves Satan.
Not only can, but should.
However, although necessary; negative critique of fake mainstream Christians is not sufficient; and should be part of a way of life that includes positive examples of exemplary persons (and, if any can be found, institutions) - who are on the side of God.
Yet there may not be many such. Indeed, as of 2021; I suspect there are very few individuals who are widely enough known (i.e. sufficiently 'mainstream') to be discussed as exemplars of those who take the side of God - although there were plenty in the past.
In the meantime, it is inevitable that among the Rich, Famous, Influential and Powerful - there are going to be nearly-all fake-Good people; no matter how much we would hope it to be otherwise...
And that yearning we all share to find someone - anyone! - among the mainstream RFIP, who is 'on our side', is exactly why the fakes need to be exposed.