Peeking At Romney’s Acceptance Speech

I have come to the point in life where I believe those elected as President are merely empty suits doing the bidding of the international banking interest that operates behind the scenes pulling the strings of policy that emanates from every White House administration. As such, I have for some time not really taken these elections seriously since I believe the fix is in no matter which major party candidate wins.

If people want to understand the reasoning behind this conviction I would encourage them to consider the truth in this video.

Still, having admitted that, I want to take a peek at just a few excerpts from Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech.

“We are a nation of immigrants.”

And again later,

“When every new wave of immigrants looked up and saw the Statue of Liberty, or knelt down and kissed the shores of freedom just ninety miles from Castro’s tyranny, these new Americans surely had many questions.”

The is the official myth that Americans have been propagandized into believing since the Immigration Act of 1965. This unofficial American creed supports both the ridiculous assertion that “diversity is our strength,” and the attempt to officially codify multiculturalism as the basis of our social order.

First of all, the statement is just not true. Despite thirty-plus years of mass immigration set off by the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 — an act dedicated to overturning the White, Anglo, Saxon, and marginally Christian essence of the American nation — the vast majority of Americans are still American-born children of American-born parents. The idea that “we are a nation of immigrants” is also historically false as scores of millions of Americans are neither immigrants nor had parents who were immigrants.

Also the idea that, “we are a nation of immigrants” flounders on the reality that a nation of immigrants would not and could not be a nation. Were we literally a nation of immigrants we would be a Hodge-Podge of heterogeneous peoples having nothing in common except living in the same geographic area. A nation of immigrants would mean a nation with nothing to unify the varied religions, ethnicity, and people group history of the multitudinous immigrant groupings inhabiting the nation. Of course, such a irregularity of a nation of immigrants, would give us not a nation, but a anti-nation. Such a anti-nation would be characterized by balkanization, tensions, and distrust between the various immigrant groups.

This is not to deny that immigration has been important to our country. It has. However, originally most of that immigration came from people groups that were already homogenous in significant ways with the host culture they would eventually be assimilated with. However, the kind of immigration that we have been looking at since 1965 promises to overthrow the essentially British culture and largely Christian underpinnings that have informed this nation. (See David Hackett Fisher’s “Albion’s Seed.”) What the mantra of “we are a nation of immigrants” is effectuating now is the work on the part of the State to dissolve the historic faith and culture by electing a new people. It shouldn’t be surprising that those who identify with the historic faith and culture do not like hearing the multicultural mantra that “we are a nation of immigrants.”

With that statement, Romney might also be signaling not only an appeal to the Hispanic vote that Republicans believe they so desperately need, but it also may be communicating that a President Romney would support some kind of amnesty program for the current 15 million illegal aliens currently present in these united States. That the Republican establishment desperately desires some kind of amnesty program is a certainty.

Elsewhere in his acceptance speech Romney said,

“I wish President Obama had succeeded because I want America to succeed.”

I am fairly sure that this was placed in the text in order to counter Rush Limbaugh’s now famous statement, spoken shortly after Obama’s inauguration, “I hope he (Obama) fails.”

Limbaugh took incredible heat for that statement. I think we can agree with both Limbaugh and Romney here. Because Obama is a Marxist it was necessary for any Patriot to hope he failed. Who would want a Marxist leader to succeed in his plan to implement Marxism? We could also say that we wished Obama had succeeded in the sense that it would have been nice if his policies had been a success, even though everyone knew it advance that Marxism never succeeds except for the elite ruling class.

Romney went on speaking of his wife, Ann,

“I knew that her job as a mom was harder than mine. And I knew without question, that her job as a mom was a lot more important than mine.”

This is a bone thrown to counter the Democrat accusation that Republicans are waging war on women. However, it is a falsity. A Mom’s job is not more important than a Dad’s job, just as a Dad’s job is not more important than a Mom’s job.

Romney went on and on supporting the idea of Feminism. He said he chose a female as his Lt. Governor. He said he chose a female chief of staff. He talked about all the female Republican governors. God speaks in Scripture that ruling women are a sign of being cursed (Isaiah 3:12).

Elsewhere Romney soft-pedaled his Mormonism,

“We were Mormons and growing up in Michigan; that might have seemed unusual or out of place but I really don’t remember it that way. My friends cared more about what sports teams we followed than what church we went to.”

This is Romney’s way of saying that his Mormonism is nothing to be concerned about by Evangelicals and Catholics. Clarity requires me to insist that attending a Mormon Church is not the same as attending a Christian Church since Mormonism is a different religion.

Romney revealed what may very likely become a theme in the campaign,

T”he President hasn’t disappointed you because he wanted to. The President has disappointed America because he hasn’t led America in the right direction. He took office without the basic qualification that most Americans have and one that was essential to his task. He had almost no experience working in a business. Jobs to him are about government.”

This is the whole, “Obama is a nice guy but he was inexperienced and ill equipped to do the job as President” routine. I don’t buy that Obama is a nice guy. I don’t consider Marxists of any stripe in any position to be nice people. Obama has already revealed his fangs in the campaign by approving the add that connected Romney’s work at Bain Capital with the death of a man’s wife. Obama is more than incompetent. Obama is malevolent.

Now, I believe Romney to be every bit as malevolent but I believe he believes that he can’t win by attacking Obama as a socialist.

Romney said,

“And it means that we must rein in the skyrocketing cost of healthcare by repealing and replacing Obamacare.”

I’m all for repealing Obama-care. I get nervous when I hear Romney (the author of socialist Romney-care in Massachusetts) talks about replacing Obama-care. Replacing with what? A better “more efficient” socialist health care?

Finally we look at Romney saying,

“Every American is less secure today because he has failed to slow Iran’s nuclear threat.

I get nervous at the thought of Romney and saber rattling with Iran. Why would I want to vote for someone who may very well get us even further in the slough of the Middle East?

Caleb’s Baptism — Those Who Are Saved (Heidelberg Catechism Q. 20)

Question 20. Are all men then, as they perished in Adam, saved by Christ?

Answer: No; only those who are in-grafted into him, and, receive all his benefits, by a true faith.

Let’s briefly remind ourselves of the flow of the catechism’s flow of thought. In the last few questions and answers the catechism has been teaching us the character qualities and attributes that are required of any mediator who would rescue us from God’s just wrath and our sins. They have taught us that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only one who has these character qualities and attributes thus teaching us that there is no salvation in any other name but that of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, the Catechizers ask, in question 20, the very sensible question’ “Whether all men are saved by Christ.” It is sensible because it might be reasonable to assume that as all perished in Adam, so all would be saved by Christ. But the answer they give, following Scripture, is that relief from perishing is only had by those who have a true faith in Christ.

Notice several obvious matters here.

1.) The question presumes that all men are lost, or if you prefer, are in the way of perishing. If the descendants of Adam are to be released from the state of perishing that they are born under then they must have a true faith. If they do not have a true faith in Jesus Christ they will eternally perish.

That man outside of Christ is in the way of perishing is everywhere assumed by Scripture. Here are just a few verses,

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Notice in all those verses from John 3 that the presupposition of Scripture regarding man without Christ is that he is in the way of perishing, underneath the penalty of God’s just wrath. As we have noted earlier, the reason that man without Christ, is in the way of perishing, is that man without Christ has a sin nature and consequently sins and so is in high rebellion to God.

2.) The catechism negates any notion of Universalism. Universalism is the doctrine that teaches that all men through all time will go to heaven no matter their relation to Jesus Christ while on earth. To the contrary the catechism, following Scripture, teaches that not all men are saved. Jesus speaking could say,

Matthew 25:45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Of course the corollary of this denial of Universalism is the truth that God does not love everybody. If God loved everybody, with redemptive love, then everyone would be saved. However, as it is the case that not all people are saved, this means that God does not and did not love, with a redemptive love, those who are not saved and who are not in-grafted into Christ.

Now, being postmillennialists we believe that a vast majority of mankind will be saved because we believe Scripture when in Revelation John sees in heaven

Revelation 7:9 … a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

That great multitude is in keeping with God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore. So, we assert, with the catechism and with Scripture, that not all men will be saved, but also that the number of men that will be saved will testify to the greatness of God’s grace to save and the vast reach of God’s saving power in Christ.

3.) As the catechism, following Scripture, negates Universalism, that means by necessity it teaches particularism. This is only to say that the Scripture teaches that God saves only who He intends to save. God is particular in His choosing. All people who believe that there are those who go to Hell believe that there is a particularity in God’s grace. The difference is that some locate the reason for that particularity in the individual human’s sovereign choice while others locate the reason for the particularity that Scripture teaches in God’s sovereign choice. Biblical Christians, believing in God’s exhaustive sovereignty, follow the Scripture when it insists that God is the reason that Universalism isn’t true and God is the one who makes the decision as to who and who will not be saved (particularism). Either man is sovereign over salvation or God is. We see this particularism in action in Acts,

16:13 And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there. 14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.

God opened Lydia’s heart while not opening the hearts of the other women who met there.

This particularity of God’s was even recognized by the Lord Jesus Christ,

25 At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. 26 Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. 27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

So, Universalism is not true. Not all men will be saved. And, those who will be saved are saved by God’s sovereign Particularism. Finally, God’s particularism is so vast that no man can number all those God intends to save via His sovereign particular choice.

4.) Heidelberg question 20 puts an end to the old liberal canard of “the Fatherhood of God over all men” and the “Brotherhood of all men under God.” Since Universalism isn’t true therefore it follows that God is not the Father of all men. God is nothing but an avenging Judge to those outside of Christ. The idea of the God’s Fatherhood of all men and so the Brotherhood of all men has often been used as a anti-Christ liberal ploy to force Christians to embrace people of other faiths as those who are our Brothers because God is the Father of us all. The nonsense of this idea has even made it into some of our hymnody.

Let there be peace on earth,
And let it begin with me.
Let there be peace on earth
The peace that was meant to be.
With God as our father
We are family.
Let us walk with each other
In perfect harmony.

When we embrace the idea of God’s universal Fatherhood and man’s universal Brotherhood the temptation for us is to compromise our Christian beliefs in order that we can all get along with all our putative Brother’s on the earth. It is precisely because God is not the Father of all, redemptively speaking, that we must not yield our beliefs to the siren song of a compromise that would promise a compromised peace. Also, such thinking of the Fatherhood of God over all and the Brotherhood of all cuts the heart out of evangelism. If we are all Brothers then what is the need to evangelize? In point of fact if God is Father of all and we are all Brothers than it would be insensitive and insulting to others to suggest that their faiths are sub-optimal by seeking to evangelize them.

5.) Notice the language about being in-grafted Caleb. The phrase, “only those who are in-grafted into Christ,” linguistically supports God’s sovereignty. We are passive until we are in-grafted. God does all the in-grafting and only after we are in-grafted do we have a true faith. This is just to say that in salvation God does all the saving and we only do our required all (repentance, faith, obedience) after God has done all, but God having done all we always respond by working out our salvation with fear and trembling. God initiates and we respond and when God initiates with saving intent the elect never fail to respond.

The language of grafting communicates the idea of being taken out of one place and put into another. In the way that the language is used here it communicates being taken out of our Covenant head Adam where there is nothing but death and being placed in Christ where there is abundant life. To be in-grated into Christ is to be united with Christ. Christ is our covenant head and represents us before the Father so that the Father has the disposition towards us that He has towards His Son. Further to be in-grafted into Christ means to be given the Holy Spirit so that we increasingly become what we have been freely declared to because we are in-grafted into Christ. Romans 11 speaks a little regarding this being grafted into Christ,

Rom.11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Rom.11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Rom.11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

Being in-grafted into Christ we thus begin to desire what Christ desires, and we begin to conform to the likeness of Christ. In being in-grafted into Christ we receive the life of Christ and are sustained by that life, and over the course of time the graft begins to take on the characteristics of divine olive tree.

6.) The catechism speaks of receiving all of Christ’s benefits. The consequence of being in-grafted into Christ is that we receive all the spiritual blessings of Christ. This means that we have peace with God, which means not only the cessation of God’s just hostility towards us but also all the blessings that come by being favored of God. We no longer have reason to cower in fear before God. Receiving all Christ’s benefits means we no longer have to live with the guilt of sin and the misery of being without God and without hope. Receiving all Christ’s benefits means a boldness and confidence coming from knowing that the Sovereign God of the whole universe is ordaining all that comes into our lives for His advance and our profit. Receiving all Christ’s benefits means the end of temporal and earthly fear, for if God be for us, who or what can be against us? Receiving all Christ’s benefits means a profound sense of security and comfort because I know that I am not my own but belong to my faithful savior Jesus Christ. There are so many other benefits we could speak of that we receive. Death is no longer an enemy to us because we have the benefit of knowing to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. We are increasingly given the ability to think God’s thoughts after him so that we confound God’s enemies. We are given the benefit of belonging to Christ’s body the Church so that we have precious fellowship with the Saints of God. We know that our Elder Brother, the Lord Christ, continues to plead our cause before the Father. We know that we shall finish our race here well because God who won us is able to keep us until the very end. We are given the benefit of having a continued affection for our High Captain the Lord Christ and a desire to defend His honor at every turn.

As we move through the catechism we will see many of these benefits up close in more detail.

The fact that we receive all Christ’s benefits in light of being united to Christ is seen in Ephesians,

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,

7.) Answer 20 ends by noting the necessity of true faith. The idea that we must have a “true faith” implies that such a thing as false faith exists. We will talk more about that in the next question and answer that provides a biblical definition of faith. Suffice it to say here that not all professions of faith qualify as true faith.

I would like to end though by observing that a true faith in Christ can not be held apart from knowing the true Christ. I only bring this up because there are those who say that people can be saved by Christ even though they have never heard of him. These people will argue that if people who have never heard of Christ will just follow the good that they know then they will be saved by Christ. Some will even contend that well intentioned practitioners of other gods will have their well intentioned but misguided worship accepted as worship of Christ precisely because they were well intentioned. C. S. Lewis makes such a argument in his novel, “The Last Battle.” Such types of doctrine (and there are many nuances to this teaching I have not brought forth here) are nowhere found in Scripture. Only those who have had Christ placarded before them and so have embraced Christ in faith, in this life, will have the Lord Christ as their mediator. Scripture not only looks for a general faith in a known Christ but it also expects a intimate faith in a known Christ. We must not only believe in the Son but we must pay Him homage,

Ps.2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

If there are exceptions to the necessity to have faith in a known Lord Jesus Christ those exceptions would be the unborn, the newly born, and the mentally impaired. In such cases it is best for us to simply say, “Will not the Lord of all the earth do right,” though we can have complete confidence of their salvation if they were Baptized members of the covenant community.

Scripture clearly teaches that eternal life is pinned upon knowing the Christ of Scripture,

John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

The fact that Jesus Christ requires the knowledge of Himself along with the Father, for eternal life, is a strong testimony to the deity of Jesus Christ.

Now couple that scripture with Jesus’ statement,

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

And you have the clear teaching that one can not be saved (have fellowship with the Father) except by a true faith in a known Christ.

Don’t let your faith be shipwrecked by those who insist on Universalism by appealing to a few texts in Scripture not properly read against God’s complete revelation.

I sign off by citing a few more Scripture that convey how important faith in Christ is,

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Rom.3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Heb.4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. Heb.4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Heb.10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

Heb.11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Propositional Nationhood

As long as Republicans support the idea of propositional nationhood you can consider them a Marxist party. Marxist political theory is guided by the putative truism that nations can be held together with the glue of propositions and ideas. Last night Condoleeza Rice gave us, in her speech, that same idea that so many Republicans and Democrats buy into. It is the same propaganda that the American citizenry has had pounded into their head for decades.

This from the speech of Condoleeza Rice last night at the RNC

“After all, when the world looks to America, they look to us because we are the most successful political and economic experiment in human history. That is the true basis of “American Exceptionalism.” The essence of America—that which really unites us—is not ethnicity, or nationality or religion—it is an idea…”

It is not possible for a nation to be a nation unless the citizenry share ethnicity, and religion, as well as sharing a History, literature, music and heroes. Also, the fact that a educated person could say that the essence of America (that which defines us as a nation) is not nationality is mind boggling. How can nationality not define a nation?

Well, one reason I suspect that Republicans and Democrats both thump the idea that nationality can’t define a nation is that nation itself is defined as, “a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.”

That this is true in our own founding is seen in the reality that America was founded by those of the British Isle who had a firm understanding of the Rights of Englishmen, and further who shared, Maryland excepting, a Protestant religion. The essence of America in its founding was most definitely not, contra Dr. Condoleeza Rice, an idea or series of propositions. Now, propositions may have eventually been part of the equation but it was only part of the equation after a shared ethnicity, religion, and culture was already in place. That this is so can be seen by our own US Constitution.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Note that both the Founders and Ratifiers of the US Constitution founded this country upon the premise that it would be for them and their posterity. They did not premise it upon a idea or proposition. I know it is not PC to say it but they and their posterity were all Northern Europeans. They all believed in the Rights of Englishmen. They all believed in English Common law. They did not create a propositional country.

It’s acceptable if Japan is occupied by Japanese. Very few people argue that Japan should be a propositional nation. It’s acceptable if Kenya is occupied by Kenyans. Very few people argue that Kenya should be a propositional nation. It’s acceptable if Saudi Arabia is occupied by Saudi Arabians. Very few people argue that Saudi Arabia should be a propositional nation. But American has become a International nation … a nation without borders and so what has been forced upon us is the silly idea of propositional nationhood.

That such an idea is quickly falling apart can be readily seen by those with eyes to see.

And to be precise … if it is true, Per Condoleeza Rice, that we are united based on that idea (proposition) that Condi gives, that idea thus becomes our religion so that we are indeed united by religion.

Appendix

Below is the original proposition upon which Marxist nations are united.

The fundamental proposition of the Communist Manifesto

In the words of Frederick Engels:

The Manifesto being our joint production, I consider myself bound to state that the fundamental proposition which forms its nucleus, belongs to Marx. That proposition is: That in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes; that the history of these class struggles form a series of evolutions in which, nowadays, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class—the proletariat—cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class—the bourgeoisie—without at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinctions, and class struggles.

From the 1888 Preface of The Manifesto

The Marxist propositional theme that united their Nations, as the Nation became merely an extension of the State, (they eventually wanted to eliminate Nations in their movement towards globalist utopia), was upon the Hegelian proposition of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. That was the idea (proposition when stated) upon which they based the nation they were seeking to eliminate. So they were and remain propositional nations,

The Marxist nation-states were not united by ethnicity. The Marxists consistently try to eliminate that by either amalgamation or outright destruction. The Marxist leaders would insist that the nation-state was not united by religion (though it actually was to a degree — the religion of Marxism). The only thing left to unite a nation at that point, is either a proposition or brute force. Now, brute force is actually what keeps Marxist nation-states together but when they advertised themselves they will never admit that and so the only thing left for them to admit, as to what holds their nation-state together, is a proposition.

The Psychological Culture — A Few Thoughts

Imagine a core that radiates heat. Around that core are concentric circles that are conduits for the same heat that pulses at the core. Each succeeding concentric circles provides warmth for all living within the psychological culture. As each subsequent concentric circle is further away from the core the heat is less intense though remaining of the same nature. In their living people move closer to and further away from the core but nearly all of them are conditioned by the heat of the core.

This is the way the psychological functions in our culture. The core that is white hot is Psychology / Psychiatry proper. First developed by Wihlem Wundt but turned into a core of white hot influence by a combination of Wundt’s disciples and the heavy financing of the Robber Barons and / or their Foundations (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, etc.) this heat then radiated into almost every other discipline. In the States it begins with G. Stanley Hall who brought Wundt’s presuppositions and methodology to the States. From there Disciples of Hall such as Dewey and Thorndike arise, followed by many many others.

The main presupposition of the Psychological remains that man is a animal that is trained on the basis of stimulus and response. Wilhelm Wundt and his disciples believed that in a child there is nothing to begin with but a body, a brain, and a nervous system. As such, training must be achieved by inducing sensations into that nervous system. The Child is not thought capable of volitional control over his actions, or of deciding whether he will act or not act in a certain way. Wundt and his disciples believed the child’s actions were preconditioned and beyond his control precisely because the child was a stimulus response machine. Because this premise ruled stimulus used looked to create a certain experience for the child while seeking to draw out the proper emotions. The presence of the Psychological can be observed by the continued emphasis on the experience and the emotions. Men are not trained to think but are conditioned into the proper experience by just the right stimuli playing upon their emotions seeking to evoke certain proper emotions. People are trained and that training is reinforced at every turn.

You find the core in Academia especially but also wherever the Psychological is practiced as a trade or craft. The first concentric circle that is produced by the psychological and shares its now only slightly diminished heat is the Teaching profession. It is the case now that what you find in someone trained to be a Teacher is someone who has been saturated in a non-Biblical way of thinking. The whole premise of the teaching profession is the Psychological — Wundtian in one form or another. This is not to say that teachers cannot be Christians but it is to say that teachers, generally speaking, (and generally speaking allows for exceptions folks) don’t think Biblically because they have been saturated in the premises and presuppositions of the Psychological. So great as the Psychological been upon the teaching industry (Teaching Colleges) that the trade of “Teacher” and “Psychologist” and the mindset trained in those trades is nearly identical.

Of course another concentric circles is the whole Sociological. Here you find the social workers that we are besotted with as a people. From “Welfare worker,” to “Friend of the Court,” to those working as School Counselors, to those contracted to choose our Pastors and Missionaries, and in a thousand other capacities the Social Worker does their bit to continue to insure that our culture is defined by the Psychological.

Another concentric circle would be the Church where people are not taught their undoubted Catholic Christian faith so much as they are trained into a Faith that is naught but a baptism of the Psychological. Conversion is sought for by setting up just the right conditions that will produce the proper stimuli that will produce the necessary emotion to “get folks saved.” The is one reason why the Emergent Church (and the Church Growth movement before them) is so popular. The Emergent Church is predicated upon giving people the stimuli that they have been conditioned to covet 24-7.

The evidence of the success of the culture of the Psychological is seen in the way in which we are advertised to. The appeal is intended to be stimuli that is to evoke a certain trained response. There is no appeal to the mind. Advertising then is another concentric circle. In point of fact, most communication in our culture, from talk radio, to mainstream media, to print media, to television, to Movies, to many of the books printed, to the political speech, are nothing but glorified advertising. Propaganda via advertising is how the Psychological culture communicates. We have become the mob and the mob is communicated with via propaganda and propaganda is best delivered by advertising.

The culture of the Psychological results in a dumbed down citizenry as citizens are now manipulated by those elites who know what stimuli buttons to push to get a conditioned result that people have been trained into.

One consequence of all this is that those who have been educated, according to an earlier model where critical and analytical thinking are developed, are now those who are like the last remaining survivors in the Donald Sutherland movie, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” There is no safe place for them that allows them from being attacked by the psychological pod people.

What Does R2K and Cultural Marxism Have In Common?

The humanist / Cultural Marxist want Christians to stay out of politics as Christians. R2K agrees going so far as to insist that the Church as the Church has no word for public square politics. The humanists / Cultural Marxists deny that there is a valid Biblical word that applies to this public square. R2K agrees opting instead to appeal to a neutral common realm that is ruled by a wax nose Natural law. The humanists / Cultural Marxists argue that Old Testament laws, if applied today, would produce tyranny. R2K seemingly agrees and so in order to avoid the dastardly taint of “tyranny,” so called, can find it theoretically acceptable for Christians to support legislation creating space for civil unions. The humanists / Cultural Marxists say that the civil government should be run in terms of putatively religiously neutral laws. R2K agrees. The humanists / Cultural Marxists deny that the God of the Bible brings predictable sanctions in history against societies that do not obey His law. R2K agrees insisting that evil will never triumph over good apart from a cataclysmic in-breaking. The humanists / Cultural Marxists deny that the preaching of the gospel will ever fundamentally change the way the world operates. R2K agrees arguing, in a Manichean fashion, that good and evil will always grow together. The humanists / Cultural Marxists say that Christians should sit in the back of the cultural bus. R2K agrees just so long as they can be irrelevant on Sundays during worship time.

This is why both of these positions hate the message of Christian Reconstruction and both of these positions will make common cause to insure that biblical Christianity will never come to the fore.

Both Cultural Marxism and R2K will lose as Christ will conquer both.