Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 45

Mr. Bojidar Marinov & His Insistence That Open Borders Is Not Marxist Policy

‘Anyone who claims that open borders is a Marxist and Communist policy is an idiot who understand neither Marxism nor history.’

Bojidar Marinov

My only grievance with the former Communist and now Libertarian Bojidar Marinov is that he is so often wrong and yet still taken so seriously by formerly Theonomic organizations like American Vision and Chalcedon. In this quote we find yet another example of how egregious Mr. Marinov’s error usually is.

First, we should note that Karl Marx promoted a stateless border-less world. The abolition of the state was the central point of Marxism. This fact is echoed by Marx’s co-laborer Engels. When asked, “What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities, Engels responded by saying,

“The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

Secondly, we need to remember that the Communists promoted immigration. It was emigration that the Communists so strigently controlled. Americans were free to leave America and move to the Soviet Union or East Germany back in the 1950’s. So, they championed porous borders to enter but closed borders to leave. The Communists were vicious about closed borders but that was because they didn’t want anybody to get out of their Utopian paradise. The Marxist talk today about “open borders,” is the talk of “open borders” in a Communist New World Order where it would not be possible for anyone to escape. “You can go to any Communist Country you want to go to Comrade.”

Thirdly, Mr. Marinov’s call for “open borders” is misleading, and deliberately so. This nomenclature is intended to foster the illusion that one can be both open and closed. It is akin to advocating for pregnant virgins. Such language borders on lunacy. Retaining the word for “borders” in an “open borders” policy does not mean you have actually retained the borders. By opening them, you destroy them. If your policy is openness, openness is what you have. You are no longer closed off and so you no longer have borders. Pull the door off of your house and you soon cease to have a house. Why? Because one of the things making it a house was its door. The walls will soon follow as invaders tear them down using the hole that was formerly a door.

There is no way to have a national area that is both open and closed. It is difficult to imagine that Mr. Marinov does not understand this. You can have integrity in your borders, or you can have dissipation and lack of national definition. You cannot have both. What illness could possibly explain the fantasy of having both openness AND borders?

Thirdly, Mr. Marinov is just in error with his statement as this quote from Marxist theorist Karl Kautsky, demonstrates,

“Very differently from the apprentice or the merchant is the modern proletarian torn loose from the soil. He becomes a citizen of the world; the whole world is his home.

No doubt this world-citizenship is a great hardship for the workers in countries where the standard of living is high and the conditions of labor are comparatively good. In such countries, naturally, immigration will exceed emigration. As a result the laborers with the higher standard of living will be hindered in their class-struggle by the influx of those with a lower standard and less power of resistance.

Under certain circumstances this sort of competition, (that we Marxists are calling for) like that of the capitalists, may lead to a new emphasis on national lines, a new hatred of foreign workers on the part of the native born. But the conflict of nationalities, which is perpetual among the capitalists, can be only temporary among the proletarians. For sooner or later the workers will discover that the immigration of cheap labor-power from the more backward to the more advanced countries, is as inevitable a result of the capitalist system as the introduction of machinery or the forcing of women into industry.

In still another way does the labor movement of an advanced country suffer under the influence of the backward conditions of other lands. The high degree of exploitation endured by the proletariat of the economically undeveloped nations becomes an excuse for the capitalists of the more highly developed ones for opposing any movement in the direction of higher wages or better conditions.

In more than one way, then, it is borne in upon the workers of each nation that their success in the class-struggle is dependent on the progress of the working-class of other nations. For a time this may turn
them against foreign workers, but finally they come to see that there is only one effective means of removing the hindering influence of backward nations: to do away with the backwardness itself. German workers have every reason to co-operate with the Slavs and Italians in order that these may secure higher wages and a shorter working-day; the English workers have the same interest in relation to the Germans, and the Americans in relation to Europeans in general.

The dependence of the proletariat of one land on that of another leads inevitably to a joining of forces by the militant proletarians of various lands.

The survivals of national seclusion and national hatred which the proletariat took over from the bourgeoisie, disappear steadily. The working-class is freeing itself from national prejudices. Working-men learn more and more to see in the foreign laborer a fellow-fighter, a comrade.

The strongest bonds of international solidarity, naturally, are those which bind groups of proletarians, which, though of different nationalities, have the same purposes and use the same methods to
accomplish them.’

Here is an explicit statement by a known Marxist on the positive good that immigration and open borders are to Marxist.

Mr. Marinov, once again, despite his cocksure confidence, is in major error on this matter. Given all that has been adduced here we must ask Mr. Marinov, “Who is the idiot” and “Who is the one who does not understand either Marxism nor History.”

How many times does someone have to be wrong before American Vision and Chalcedon quit listening to him?

_______________
Assists for this post goes to Habakkuk Mucklewrath, Martin Svetislav, Colby Malsbury

“The Other Worldview; Exposing Christianity’s Greatest Threat” … A Book Review

Dr. Peter Jones has been a great benefactor to the Christian Church in the West with his work on Gnosticism, Egalitarian Pantheism, and Oneism. Via his various works his has been a prophetic voice warning the Church of a worldview switch that is already upon us. The greatest threat to the Church and the West is what he calls “Oneism,” but could just as easily be called “systematic Cultural Marxism.” He mentions Cultural Marxism but his focus is more on Karl Jung and Jung’s disciples. He locates animistic type religion in Jung’s psychoanalysis and insists that the goal of this religious Cultural Marxism is “thus all men Shamans.”

Dr. Peter Jones relates that the problem of the Jung(ians) is that they live in a Cosmos that is defined by Outsidelessness. This is another way of saying that there is no Transcendent Reference point by which meaning can be determined. Without a Transcendent outsidedness (that is also Trinitarian and so personal) what results is man sinking into himself to find meaning and to discover the divinity within.

This new Monistic Cultural Marxist religion is committed to the New Age goal of combining the opposites. This gives us a “beyond good and evil” morality where each man does what is right in his own eyes. Of course this is just another way of embracing the Hegelian dialectic of Marxism.

What has happened in our lifetimes is that we have moved from a Monistic Humanistic materialism where spiritual realities were folded into material reality to a Monistic Humanistic spiritualsim where material realities are now folded into spiritual reality. Both humanisms are Monistic with the only difference being that during the Enlightenment age that which was genuinely spiritual was reduced to the material whereas now that which is genuinely material is reduced to being categorized as spiritual. When one looks at the modern sciences of Quantum indeterminacy, quantum holism, and quantam non-locality (sub sets of Quantum physics) along with Quantum mechanics one begins to see a “science” that is more friendly to the New Ageist Spirituality of Eastern Mysticism and Western Romanticism.

In this new gnostic Monism the goal is the elimination of not only Modernity but also of Biblical Christianity. All of the distinctions that one finds in Biblical Christianity are eliminated in favor of the merging of the opposites. As a result we can speak of now of a Homocosmology, Homostoricism, Homorality, as well as Homosexuality. Indeed so great is the push for the elimination of distinctions that Jones’ opines that a day is coming when Biblical Christianity will be criminalized. The sodomites are NOT interested in equality folks. They are interested in turning normalcy into the aberrant.

Jones’ goes out of his way to agree with what I’ve been saying since I was 30 and that is psychiatry and psychology are the cutting edge expressions of this new religion that intends to crush Biblical Christianity. My angst at this confirmation is that much of the Church and Church Mission agencies have already redefined themselves in terms of the Monistic psychiatry and psychology that Jones’ warns against. It has been the case for years that in many denominations one cannot enter into the ministry or missionary field without first submitting to a battery of Monistic humanistic psychological exams, as well as- required time spent with the Denominational Shrink – Shaman. What has happened is that instead of these fields being reinterpreted through a biblical grid (if indeed that is even possible) the disciplines of humanistic shamanistic psychology have reinterpreted Christianity through their Monistic – gnostic grids. You can be sure that Christ’s Church has suffered as a result of this.

As a criticism of the book, I’m not convinced that Jones’ himself has extirpated all the Monism from himself that he so clearly sees elsewhere. In point of fact, given some of Jones’ complaint about “Institutional racism,” and “Institutional Sexism” one wonders if Jones’ despite his excellent work here hasn’t himself swallowed a poison pill of Monistic making.

I’ve read most of Jones’ published work now and viewed many many of his lectures. That should tell you that I value his work. In point of fact I think it is indispensable given our time and historical situation. When combined with more thorough works on Cultural Marxism and Postmodernism by other authors I think one has the opportunity to see Christianity’s greatest worldview opponent at this time.

In ending I think it should be said again that Radical Two Kingdom theology works perfectly in tandem with what Dr. Jones calls “Oneism.” R2K, in its most virulent and consistent forms, insists that the public square is, by definition, a-religious. As such Christians have no business in trying to appeal to Christianity in order to set aright the inroads of “Oneism.” R2K aids “Oneism” by not only not resisting to Oneism but by suggesting that it is sin to resist to “Oneism.”

What Was Sacrificed In The 60’s Cultural Revolution

If the 60’s sexual and cultural Revolution was the morning of the Cultural Marxist agenda then we are now living in the full noon day sun of its consequences. That noon day sun reveals the flotsam and jetsam of total cultural destruction. The former sanctity of life is dead. The former sanctity of sex has been forever illicitly penetrated. The former sanctity of marriage is annulled. Indeed, even the idea of sanctity itself lies in ruin, reserved only for the idea that sanctity only applies to the idea that nothing is sacred.

Because of that Revolution the family lies in shatters and children are now defacto orphans and waifs being raised by the vicious ministrations of the State and the cruel mercies of the culture. Because of the 60’s Cultural Marxist Revolution the Church is now itself an agent of the Revolution seeing itself tasked with helping people to become well adjusted to the our new Revolutionary context.

All is backwards, upside down and inside out.

DR. PIPER AND HIS INSISTENCE THAT CHRISTIANS SHOULD LIE DOWN AND DIE PART III

We continue to deal with the Anabaptist theology of Dr. Piper

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/should-christians-be-encouraged-to-arm-themselves

#3.) Next John gives us a series of passages from the NT where Jesus talks about coming suffering and persecution. Because the Lord Christ does not say anything about self defense in those passages (even though it is brought forth in a passage Piper neglects [Luke 22:36-38]) therefore the implication is that we should lay down and die.

Response,

Those passages are in a historical context. Jesus is speaking to his disciples about eventualities that will come upon them. Even if the message to the disciples was to “lay down and die” that wouldn’t necessarily mean that would be the message for all time and all disciples everywhere. The fact that the passages that Dr. Piper quotes (Luke 21:12-19, Matthew 10:28, Matthew 10:16-22) are not necessarily for all disciples at all times everywhere is proven by a differing counsel that the Lord Christ gave to His disciples in Luke 22:36-38

36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

The Lord Christ counsel the purchase of a sword in vs. 36 because unlike the previous, in-house missionary journeys to their fellow Israelites, the Lord Christ knew that He was now sending his disciples out into the hostile/pagan Gentile world and they would need to be prepared to defend themselves. Dr. Piper is reading the Scripture through his Anabaptistic – Pacifistic lenses and so he concludes what he concludes but Anabaptist theology is not God honoring theology.

Next Dr. Piper goes on to say that there is more of Jason Bourne in defense of others and self then there is Jesus and the Bible. He is a very clever man to come up with such alliteration. Then he implies that those who would defend themselves and others haven’t been regenerated, unlike people who will lay down and die when they are unjustly attacked by sociopaths with guns. Indeed, per Piper, self defense of others and self is as “common and easy as eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil.” All Piper is doing here is demonizing his opponents.

Dr. Piper then insists that laying down and dying is the proper response to maniacs with guns shooting up the public square filled with unarmed and judicially innocent citizens. He implies it is impossible to bear witness unto Christ by defending unarmed and judicially innocent citizens against the attacks of madmen. If this is evangelical Christianity Piper and his ilk can have it.

Finally, on Piper’s point #3 he invokes the sainted and holy Jim Elliott and company who “refused to fire their pistols at their killers, while the spears plunged through their chests?”

Let’s keep in mind on this point that Elliott and company orphaned their children and widowed their wives with their behavior. A case could be made that, in acting so recklessly Elliot and company were in violation of the Scripture that teaches, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

Second, Piper doesn’t and can’t know that if Elliott and company had defended themselves on that day the result still would have eventually been that the Auca Indians would have converted.

Third, there are countless examples of Christians being murdered where people didn’t convert. Stalin killed millions of unarmed Christian Ukrainians who didn’t fight back and Mother Russia did not convert. How many people were converted when Christians laid down and died when the shooter at Virginia Tech filled the facility with the dead who didn’t fight back? How many were converted when Christians died at Columbine High School when the shooters filled the facility with dead who didn’t fight back? Dr. Piper absolutizes the experience of Jim Elliott and company and suggests that if people defend themselves and others against the murderous intent of crazed gunmen then they aren’t as Holy, Righteous, and Noble as the Sainted Ecuador 5.

This is just pacifism on steroids and Dr. Piper needs to repent for writing like this and so misleading countless young people.

In his fourth “reasoning” Dr. Piper offers as proof of pacifism the fact that Christ’s servants didn’t fight to keep Him from going to the cross (John 18:36). Dr. Piper seems to imply that we can’t defend ourselves because the followers of Jesus didn’t take up the sword to defend Him when He was about to die.

Response,

a.) When one defends others and one’s self, one isn’t necessarily trying to bring in the Kingdom with the sword. One is merely obeying the sixth commandment which esteems life as worthy of defending because it is the Image of God.

b.) Piper then appeals to I Peter for proof of the need to suffer. Nobody denies that there is a time and a place for silent suffering when God has placed us inescapably under such suffering. Having lived under that paradigm for years I gladly admit that there are seasons where God desires to bear suffering with grace. However, I Peter can’t be twisted into meaning that when maniacs show up at the local Boys’ High Schools basketball game and starts shooting up the place therefore all the Christians have to surrender because they love Jesus.

c.) Lastly, Piper assures us that if we conceal carry and return fire when a “Allahu Akbar Barker” shows up and starts spraying bullets in a crowded place that nobody will ask us for the reason for “hope that lies within us,” because, as Piper says, “they will already know” that our hope lies in our concealed carry weapons.

This statement makes us much as sense as saying that when Piper puts his seat belt on when he goes out for a drive therefore no one will ask him for “hope that lies within him,” because they will already know that he does not have a hope in Jesus but in his seat belt.

Piper’s “reasoning” throughout this piece is just atrocious but it must be dealt with because what John Piper is trying to do is hard bake Anabaptist Pacifism into basic Christianity. We must approach Anabaptist theology the way that the writers of the Belgic Confession dealt with it and agree that we detest it.

DR. PIPER AND HIS INSISTENCE THAT CHRISTIANS SHOULD LIE DOWN AND DIE Part II

We continue to pick apart Dr. John Piper’s Anabaptist theology.

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/should-christians-be-encouraged-to-arm-themselves

Next, Dr. Piper appeals to Romans 12:17-19

¹⁷Recompense to no man evil for evil: procure things honest in the sight of all men. ¹⁸If it be possible, as much as in you is, have peace with all men. ¹⁹Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine: I will repay, saith the Lord.

The reader will have to look at Piper’s link under his #1 in order to the reason why I am responding the way I am.

1.) Self defense or the defense of others is not a matter of avenging ourselves. Self defense is self defense.

2.) Dr. Piper insists that when we enter into defense of others and / or ourselves that we instantly are guilty of not returning good for evil. But, if, as we saw in the previous post, our other and self defense is consistent with the sixth commandment then the firing of our weapons most certainly is an example of returning good for evil. Further, not to enter into self or other defense by firing a weapon would be a matter of returning evil for evil. Any exaltation, or Christianization, of pacifism that silences the sixth commandment has lost its way.

3.) It is true, as Dr. Piper notes, that the Magistrates wields the sword but the Scripture likewise teaches that self defense is allowed,

^{Exodus 22:2}If –a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him…

In Proverbs 25:26, God tells us: “A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring.”

And Yet, Dr. Piper, in contradiction to God’s Word, would have the righteous falling down before the wicked be considered a matter of righteousness.

3.) Any claim that a private citizen doesn’t have the God given obligation to defend themselves or others from aggressive attack as coming from the unjust psychopath and / or the maniacal religious nutcase is elevating a misplaced Anabaptist pietism that belittles the gift of life that God has given us over biblical revelation.