Category: Marxism/Cultural Marxism

Mr. Marinov’s Internationalist New World Order Kingdom of God

“The Gospel IS the New World Order and yes it IS against sovereign nations. The only difference between the Biblical New World Order and the counterfeit statist “New World Order” (which is not new at all, the same old crap) is who the world ruler is.”
Bojidar Marinov
1.) We quite agree that the Gospel creates the Christian New World Order. What we don’t agree with is that a Gospel is against the whole idea of Nations.  Mr. Marinov’s idea testifies to the fact that he does not comprehend the implications of “The One and the Many.” By insisting that all must be uniform he communicates a belief in a Unitarian God.2.) The Internationalists would love this marketing campaign

The Gospel: “Destroying National Sovereignty for over 2000 years”

 3.) Mr. Marinov’s “reasoning” flounders on verses where we still find Nations existing in the New Jerusalem.Revelation 21:23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, 25 and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there. 26 They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations.

Rev. 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

4.)  Mr. Marinov provides a modern clear example of what Tolkien pointed out in his Middle Earth trilogy. Bojidar is advocating that Christianity, as Saruman, set up  a New World Order to overcome the New World Order of Sauron. Mr. Marinov can not envision Christ’s Kingdom as a plurality of kingdoms … a Kingdom of kingdoms. This in spite of the fact that God Himself gives instructions to (plural) Kings to “kiss the Son, lest He be angry and they perish in the way.”

The Communist Eschatological Vision

“The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. National differences and antagonisms between people are daily more and more vanishing.”

(Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)).”

“Socialism … gives full play to the “sympathies” of the population, thereby promoting and greatly accelerating the drawing together and fusion of the nations.” (Vladimir Lenin ).”

The Communist vision has always been for a time when all colors bleed into one. The Communist eschatology has always thus been the “fusion of nations” that the Communist Manifesto sets forth.

Lately however, this vision has also become the vision of some “Christian” expressions. There seems to be a vision among even putative conservative Christians that the postmillennial success will be measured by the increasing fusion of the Nations as that there is a “Christian” new earth where all colors bleed into one.

This is a clear and unequivocal denial of the Christian one and the many, wherein what is taught that there is unity in diversity and not unit in uniformity.

What shall we be my friends? Shall we be Christians or shall we be Marxist who call ourselves Christians?

Religion & Culture

“So, while we believe that the same religion may inform a variety of cultures, we may ask whether any culture could come into being, or maintain itself, without a religious basis. We may go further and ask whether what we call the culture, and the religion of a people are not different aspects of the same thing: the culture being, essentially, the incarnation (so to speak) of the religion of a people.”

~T.S. Elliot, CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURE, p.101

“In the case of kinists, the issue is not social structure, the issue is “What determines and defines a culture? Genes or faith?” As Henry Van Til demonstrated in his book, The Calvinistic Concept of Culture, culture is entirely defined by religion, and this is the only Biblical conclusion we can make about a culture. No other factor defines a culture, whether genetics (racism/kinism), environment, or economic conditions (Marxism).

Mr. Bojidar Marinov
Former Communist and Bulgarian

1.) Marinov raises a false dichotomy as social structure is always related to culture. The issue for Kinists is social structure precisely because the issue is culture.

2.) Marinov reveals his odd combination of Gnosticism and Cultural Marxism in this quote. By denying who God has created us to be in our generations has anything to do with culture is to curse the reality that God created us body and soul. Marinov wants to insist that faith can be abstracted from the person who has faith, and further that said person likewise can be abstracted from his people. It is true that culture is religion externalized but it is the religion of a real live person who belongs to a real live people. Marinov’s gnostic tendencies is seen in the fact that he wants a culture driven by a religion that isn’t connected to a person who isn’t connected to a people group. Genetics does not independently create culture but it contributes to the creation of culture inasmuch as the religion externalized that creates culture is a product of a people’s faith. That this is true is painfully obvious. Not all Christian cultures throughout history have been exactly the same. Not all Christian cultures that have existed in different places have been exactly the same. What accounts for the differences in these differing Christian culture in time and place? One difference that accounts for these differences is genetics. God has created different people groups to be different and those differences expressed themselves in the differing Christian cultures that different people groups built. They all held a like Christian faith and were all counted as the people of God but the differences in the way God created different people groups, in their generations, accounts for the differences that demonstrated themselves in the Christian cultures that were uniquely built. To not recognize this and to expect that all Christians will build the same cultures is nothing but gnosticism. It is to deny the physicality of whom God created us to be in favor of some abstracted spiritual category called “religion,” as that abstracted spiritual category is thought by seemingly non-corporeal persons and peoples.

My insistence that distinctions exist between people’s (genetics) is hardly new with me. It has been a common staple of Christianity before people like Marinov have tried to reinterpret Christianity through a Marxist grid. Consider the Princeton Luminary, Charles Hodge

[The] differences between the Caucasian, Mongolian, and negro races, which is known to have been as distinctly marked two or three thousand years before Christ as it is now. . . . [T]hese varieties of race are not the effect of the blind operation of physical causes, but by those cause as intelligently guided by God for the accomplishment of some wise purpose. . . . God fashions the different races of men in their peculiarities to suit them to the regions which they inhabit.

Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Section 3

And again from Hodge,

It is admitted that nations as well as tribes and families, have their distinctive characteristics, and that these characteristics are not only physical and mental, but also social and moral. Some tribes are treacherous and cruel. Some are mild and confiding. Some are addicted to gain, others to war. Some are sensual, some intellectual. We instinctively judge of each according to its character. . . . [A]dmitting that these dispositions are innate and hereditary, and that they are not self-acquired by the individual whose character they constitute, we nevertheless, and none the less, approve or condemn them according to their nature. This is the instinctive and necessary, and therefore the correct, judgment of the mind.

-Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 5, Section 6 (1872–73)

And here is Abraham Kuyper on the same matter,

The Javanese are a different race than us; they live in a different region; they stand on a wholly different level of development; they are created differently in their inner life; they have a wholly different past behind them; and they have grown up in wholly different ideas. To expect of them that they should find the fitting expression of their faith in our Confession and in our Catechism is therefore absurd.

Now this is not something special for the Javanese, but stems from a general rule. The men are not all alike among whom the Church occurs. They differ according to origin, race, country, region, history, construction, mood and soul, and they do not always remain the same, but undergo various stages of development. Now the Gospel will not objectively remain outside their reach, but subjectively be appropriated by them, and the fruit thereof will come to confession and expression, the result may not be the same for all nations and times. The objective truth remains the same, but the matter in appropriation, application and confession must be different, as the color of the light varies according to the glass in which it is collected. He who has traveled and came into contact with Christians in different parts of the world of distinct races, countries and traditions cannot be blind for the sober fact of this reality. It is evident to him. He observes it everywhere.

-Common Grace

Is Mr. Marinov willing to label Charles Hodge and Abraham Kuyper “racist” merely because they held that genes had something (not everything) to do with culture?

3.) To suggest that the admission that genetics has an impact and so is a contributor to culture is racist is nothing but Marxist thinking. It was Marx and Marxists who have always insisted that the grand goal of social structure is Uniformity. If the differences of men, can not at least in part, be explained by who God has created us to be then the consequence of such thinking is that when all men become Christian then Nations will cease to exist. After all, if all that explains culture is religion externalized abstracted from the peoples who are externalizing that religion then when all share the same religion then all idea of peoples or Nationalities will disappear. Voila … we have arrived at John Lenon’s “Imagine.”

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…

What Marinov is offering as Christianity is a type of thinking perfectly consistent with what Frederick Engels opted for in his Communism.

”What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

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 hereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

~ Frederick Engels in “The Principles of Communism”, 1847

4.) Is it really “racist” to say that since God recognizes distinctions we should likewise? To recognize distinctions between a Greyhound and a Schnauzer is not to argue for Supremacy for either Greyhound or Schnauzer. It is merely to recognize that distinctions exist.

5.) Mr. Marinov complaint against Kinists is vitiated by the fact that a long known synonym for Culture is “Folkway.” So if we use this synonym in Dr. Henry Van Til’s definition what we get is “Folkways is religion externalized.” Obviously one can not have the externalization apart from the ways of the Folk.

Mr. Marinov’s work is reductionistic to a fault. One simply cannot have a religion to be externalized without a people doing the externalizing. One can’t have religion without people and you can’t have people without the common ties of blood, family, tribe, ethnicity, and race. To try to separate religion from people is madness.

Mr. Marinov’s theology is a throwback to his former Communist days while at the same time combined with some kind of Gnosticism. Some might contend that Mr. Marinov apparently has not yet put off the thinking in which he was originally trained. I don’t know about that. My plea is simply that Christians would see the shallowness of his arguments despite Mr. Marinov’s ability to blow impressive Marx like smoke.

Marinov’s Mistakes On Immigration

Recently, a social media site found former Communist and Bulgarian Bojidar Marinov commenting on a Dr. Joel McDurmon thread. He is addressing a learned and mature Christian with whom he disagrees on the issue of immigration. I place it here in order to demonstrate Mr. Marinov’s dissembling and exaggeration techniques. I place the quote first followed by analysis.

Mr. Marinov wrote,

“Your pathetic attempts at sarcasm show you are out of arguments. Like I said, I don’t care for Sowell, Woods, or Hoppe; their thinking is not Biblical and therefore is schizophrenic and inconsistent where moral issues are involved. And like I said, Woods is not even following von Mises’s methodological individualism in his essay but speaks as a collectivist. And like I said, Rushdoony didn’t mention any immigration restrictions in the Law of God, and what he criticized was not free movement of individuals but forced movement by the state. If you have to say anything on my arguments, do it. If you are just going to babble in desperation, hoping to prove something about yourself, you are only exposing yourself in a not very favorable light. Thomas Jefferson couldn’t give the Barbary pirates work permits because “work permits” didn’t exist then as a policy of the Federal government. Unlike you, these men had at least some Biblical worldview, and they were not so eager to accept tyranny as you are.”

Mr. Marinov has a bad habit of exaggeration, pejorative, and creative dissembling. In this brief quote we see this in the following,

1.) Earlier Marinov complained about certain people that his target was quoting as not being Christians and yet here he seems to see the non-Christian Ludwig Von Mises as an authority to be cited. Note a few of the quotes from the Von Mises that Marinov takes as some kind of authority. I post these quotes here because Christians like Marinov are redefining Christianity in the direction of Misean Christianity with its “von Mises-ian methodological individualism. In point of fact it is my conviction that the whole institutionally organized Theonomy and Reconstruction movement has been co-opted by Misean Libertarianism. Below is some of what Mises thought of Christianity.

Mises says that the gospel of Jesus was

‘utterly negative.’ “He [Jesus] rejects everything that exists without offering anything to replace it. He arrives at dissolving all existing social ties. The disciple shall not merely be indifferent to supporting himself, shall not merely refrain from work and dispossess himself of all goods, but he shall hate ‘father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life’ . . . His zeal in destroying social ties knows no limits. The motive force behind the purity and power of this complete negation is ecstatic inspiration, enthusiastic hope of a new world. Hence his passionate attack upon everything that exists. Everything must be destroyed because God in His omnipotence will rebuild the future order . . . The clearest modern parallel to the attitude of complete negation of primitive Christianity is Bolshevism. The Bolshevists, too, wish to destroy everything that exists because they regard it as hopelessly bad. But they have in mind ideas, indefinite and contradictory though they may be, of the future social order. They demand not only that their followers shall destroy all that is, but also that they pursue a definite line of conduct leading towards the future Kingdom of which they have dreamt. Jesus’ teaching in this respect, on the other hand, is mere negation.”

Theonomic Christians must start asking themselves if they want to rely on sources like institutional Theonomic-Reconstruction organizations given the fact that these organization are increasingly selling out Reconstruction thought to Libertarianism.

As Mises saw it, since Jesus simply repudiated all values of this life. Mises again on Christianity,

“His (Jesus) teachings had no moral applications to life on earth.” In another place he said: “Jesus offers no rules for earthly action and struggle; his Kingdom is not of this world. Such rules of conduct as he gives his followers are valid only for the short interval of time which has still to be lived while waiting for the great things to come.”

Marinov’s Libertarianism, with its “Methodological individualism” is throwing off the heritage of R. J. Rushdoony. Rushdoony, embraced Libertarianism in light of Theonomy but todays putative followers of Rushdoony are embracing theonomy in light of Libertarianism.

2.) Marinov fails to realize that current immigration patterns are indeed being, “forced by the state.”
Mr. Marinov doesn’t seem to realize that our current immigration patterns, and so problems, have been NWO policy for some time.

This book spends a little time telling that story,

http://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Revolution-In-Europe-Immigration/dp/0307276759/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414013297&sr=8-1&keywords=Christopher+Caldwell

The Humanist Governments of the West have, since WW II, been implementing policy that is designed to remake the West into a non Christian reality. Mr. Marinov is just wrong to suggest that our immigration problems are not the cause of Western Christ hating governments.

3.) Mr. Marinov notes that “Jefferson didn’t give work permits because they didn’t exist.” Marinov almost seems to suggest that if work permits had existed circa 1800 Jefferson might well have given the Barbary Pirates work permits instead of canon fire.

4.) Jefferson — the man who excised all of the miraculous accounts from the famous “Jefferson Bible” — is thought by Mr. Marinov to have had more of a Biblical Worldview then the learned and Christian man he is targeting with verbal explosions.

5.) Elsewhere Mr. Marinov, in the same dialog, wrote,

“For all your quoting of Rushdoony, you should have been aware that Rushdoony specifically separates between those two in his commentary on the naturalization laws of Deuteronomy, and specifically adds: “These are NOT immigration laws.” Another testimony that you either can’t read, or you read selectively and dishonestly.”

“Rushdoony was emphatic that the Law of God doesn’t contain immigration restrictions and therefore the civil government is not allowed to impose such restrictions.”

This is a rather bold claim by Mr. Marinov, and as it turns out, consistent with Mr. Marinov’s debating technique is also a patently dishonest claim as can be seen by what Rushdoony wrote on Dt. 23.

“Immigration laws protect a nation by state discrimination, which can be good or bad, whereas these laws established the discrimination on a family level.”

So, we see that as Rushdoony interpreted Deut 23, those specific laws mentioned concerned the family and NOT national immigration policy. Notice also what Rushdoony says, “Immigration laws are for the protection of a nation” and they can be “good or bad.” We see then that Marinov was in error in his report.

6.) More errant commentary by Mr. Marinov on Immigration

Marinov wrote,

“The US Constitution doesn’t allow the Federal government to control immigration.”

Yet the Constitution disagrees with Mr. Marinov’s “wisdom.”

Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power … to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”

Article 1, Section 9: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight.”

The implication clearly here is that Congress *could* prohibit the migration of said persons after 1808, which it of course did.

Also this from Constitutional scholar William Rawle,

“If war should break out between the United States and the country of which the alien resident among us is a citizen or subject, he becomes on general principles an alien enemy, and is liable to be sent out of the country at the pleasure of the general government, or laid under reasonable restraints within it, and in these respects no state can interfere to protect him.”

—William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution,” Chapter 9

Mr. Marinov repeatedly has revealed himself as a person whose declarative statements of “fact,” and whose citation of sources needs to be carefully checked.

American Vision Joel McDurmon Supports Familialism

“The U.S. Constitution returned to the pre-1066 Anglo-Danish standard of “kith and kin.” The word “King” is related to the English “kin” which has an ethnic reference. “Kith and kin” means “same country and family.” Without this quality among a leader, there cannot be any true loyalty to the people. And while this sounds like a side matter, it is not: a ruler who identifies with the people almost as a family will fight to defend them and their liberties. A ruler, however, without that loyalty will more likely be less interested in defense. It’s the difference which Jesus taught between the shepherd and the hireling.”

Joel McDurmon
Famous Alienist

Preventing the Warfare State: the biblical laws for kings

I’m glad to see Joel come around on this issue. I hope he will now repudiate massive illegal immigration which works to undo a people who desire to have leaders according to their kin.