Ask The Pastor — Do Genes Affect Culture?

Dear Pastor Bret,

Genes affect culture, Bret? Are you serious?

Bojidar Marinov

My Dear friend Bojidar,

Yes, genes affect culture. The great Rushdoony taught this idea himself.

“Ah, yes … uh, true, God has created the diversity of mankind and therefore each of the Christian cultures will begin with the sovereignty of God and the authority of His Word but there are areas where their particular talents and diversities will be expressed, so that, even as I, for example, have aptitudes in certain areas while a very dear friend of mine has aptitude in another area and is every bit as zealous for the Sovereignty of God as I am but when he talks in the area of sciences he loses me in about the second or third sentence. But he is applying the word of God in the context of his situation. Now that’s a little more extreme than cultures or nations, but there is no question that different peoples have different aptitudes and abilities. We tend today, just as I.Q. tests are today artificially constructed so that they will eliminate sexual differences (women will come out ahead in most fields except the two I mentioned) and racial differences because their are variations. People of one ethnic background will have marked abilities in one area and not as marked in other areas, but they don”t want to believe that there are these differences you see, therefore they try to eliminate them. Well, in a Godly culture we will consider those as blessings of God to be developed.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Lecture — The New Absolutism — 44:00 minute mark

Note, here Bojidar that the great RJR recognized that people of different ethnic backgrounds have different strengths and based on those differing strengths that are accounted for, in part, by their genetic inheritance, it is fairly obvious that genes affect culture. I am surprised that you would be surprised over such a simple idea Bojidar.

To suggest that individuals and peoples are only different because of the propositions they think is to deny our human-ness and the concrete families, places, and times that God has ordained for us. When Christ called me and set me apart He called me and set me apart as a “McAtee.” My Christian faith has not obliterated my “McAteeness.” I am, to be sure, a new man in Christ, but the new man that I am remains me. My memories are not erased. My genetics are not altered. The nurture and nature of my existence is what is redeemed.

I am my Father’s and my Grandfather’s son. Now, they were not Christian and I am Christian but I still retain, often-times most unfortunately, their strengths, their weaknesses, their predilections, and dispositions. That is part of what it means to be human. No matter how much I put off the old man and put on the new man created in the image of God at the end of that sanctification process it is still a McAtee who has been sanctified. It is not good anthropology to suggest that who God has created us to be by nature and nurture is obliterated by belief(s). It is my conviction that when we seek to obliterate our concrete human-ness with Christianity we become gnostic by the affirmation that the propositions that a person thinks in their head is alone what makes them what they are. I am not just the propositions I think, though I am never less then that. I am also part of a family, and part of a people. Now, to be sure the propositions I think (my beliefs) will completely re-arrange the way I lean into life (I sure hope that people would see a difference between me and my Father and Grandfather) but that leaning will still be done as a McAtee, as a descendant of white Scot-Irish Europeans, and as a son of the West. Good Christian, non-gnostic anthropology requires me to think this way.

So yes, seriously Bojidar, genes affect culture. Anyone who denies this is flirting with gnosticism.

Ask The Pastor — Where Do You Get The Idea That Marxists Believe That Distinctions Need To Be Erased?

Dear Pastor,

I ask you, where exactly in Marxism do you see any notion of “all distinctions need to be erased”? Seriously, are you so hopelessly self-blinded to not see that Marxism never ever ever advocated any “erasing of differences”?

Bojidar Marinov

My Dear Friend Bojidar,

Allow me to let Fredrich Engels answer your question.

‎”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

Or we might consult one Nikita Khrushchev on the matter Bojidar.

“Full-scale Communist construction constitutes a new stage in the development of national relations in the U.S.S.R., in which the nations will draw still closer together until complete unity is achieved…. However, the obliteration of national distinctions and especially of language distinctions is a considerably longer process than the obliteration of class distinctions.”

Nikita Khrushchev

Or perhaps Marx himself,

“Even the natural differences within species, like racial
differences…, can and must be done away with historically.”
K. Marx’s Collected Works V:103,
As cited in S.F. Bloom’s The World of Nations: A
Study of the National Implications in the Work of Karl Marx, Columbia University Press, New York, 1941, pp. 11 & 15-19:


You see Bojidar even if I didn’t have this quote from Engels, and Khrushchev and Marx  in order to refute you I could still appeal to the implications of Marxism with its denial of private property. When one traces out the end result that must occur from the beginning principle, which denies private property, one easily sees that the loss of private property — which is one of the planks of Communism — eventually implies lost of heritage since one’s heritage is the private property of one’s self.

Clearly we see with this quote of Engels that it has always been the agenda of Communists to create a Babel reality where all cultures as well as all ethnicities are lost in the miasma that is the consequence of “integrating into the void.” Now, other literature informs us that there will be an uber-elite that will be concerned about distinction and even segregation from the miasma melange that their policies have created, but for the herd ethnic and cultural distinctions will be wiped out by way of policy.

This is also perfectly consistent for those who have denied the Creator vs. Creature distinction. If one denies God (as the Marxist does) then one denies the most basic of distinctions and once the most basic of distinctions is denied then all other human distinctions will be denied as well. This dissolving of distinctions, that Engels speaks of, is merely one more consequence of the attack on the most primal distinction of all and that is the distinction between God and Man.

I hope you will see with the Engel’s quote and the rest of my answer that it is not I that is self-blinded.

Talmudic Judaism, Stalin’s Communism, Ben-Gurion’s Zionism

“Words have no relation to action. Otherwise what kind of diplomacy is it? Words are one thing. Action is another. Words are a mask of concealment for bad deeds. Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than dry water or wooden iron.”

Joseph Stalin

Lying permeates the rabbinic mentality. It is part of the culture and heritage of Orthodox Judaism, not just the theology. In the letters section of the London Review of Books, this writer came across the deception technique of David Ben-Gurion and we recognized as 100 proof rabbinic:

“Ben Gurion was a consummate strategist and he understood that it would be unwise for the Zionists to talk openly about the need for brutal compulsion. We quote a memorandum Ben-Gurion wrote prior to the Extraordinary Zionist Conference at the Biltmore Hotel in New York in May 1942. He wrote that ‘it is impossible to imagine a general evacuation of the Arab population of Palestine without compulsion, and brutal compulsion. Dershowitz claims Ben-Gurion’s subsequent statement — ‘we should in no way make it part of our program’ — shows that he opposed the transfer of Arab population and the ‘brutal compulsion’ it would entail. But Ben-Gurion was not rejecting this policy: he was simply noting that the Zionists should not openly proclaim it. Indeed, he said that they should not “discourage other people, British or American, who favor transfer from advocating this course, but we should in no way make it part of our program.”

Michael Hoffman
Judaism’s Strange Gods — pg. 162

Stalin’s quote supports the idea that Bolshevism – Communism was a movement inspired by and supported by a worldview informed by Talmudic Judaism. Stalin and Ben-Gurion both were practicing the deception that Hoffman documents as a identifiable marker of Othodox Judaism. Whether Stalin (Dzhugashvili) was Jewish is debated. That he was married to at least one Jewess is not. That he was surrounded by high profile leadership which was Jewish is also not debatable. Finally, what is not debatable is that the quote from Stalin could have been informed by the Jewish thinking just as Ben-Gurion’s actions were informed by Judaism.

All of this is consistent with what Dr. Fred Schwarz wrote over 40 years ago in his little book, “You Can Trust The Communist To Be Communists.” Schwarz’s labor in that book was to communicate that the Communists, consistent with their Hegelian Dialectic, will practice any deception, and tell any lie, in order to advance their “proletariat morality.” The Hegelian Dialectic is just a 19th incarnation of Talmudic Judaisms long standing Hermeneutic of deception. Zionists like Ben-Gurion, and Communists like Stalin all share the same commitment to Talmudic subterfuge in order to advance their agenda.

Matthew Henry, Humanist Manifesto & Constitution of the USSR On Babel

While reading Matthew Henry I came across something from Henry that really flies in the face of much of what we see in our the mad pursuit of multiculturalism, or in suppositions supporting the idea that nations are social constructs that can be held together merely on the basis of propositions. On Genesis 11 (Babel) Matthew Henry can write,

1. Their language was confounded. God, who, when he made man, taught him to speak, and put words into his mouth fit to express the conceptions of his mind by, now caused these builders to forget their former language, and to speak and understand a new one, which yet was common to those of the same tribe or family, but not to others: those of one colony could converse together, but not with those of another.

Understand the implications of Henry’s statement.

When God dispersed the tongues the variation and number of tongues was equal to the variation and numbers of preexisting tribes. The fact that God dispersed them by language implies that he dispersed them by tribal identity. If Henry is correct here (and I think he is) this drives a stake through the often repeated meme of the Christian cultural Marxists that Babel was about languages and not ethnicities. Henry would have us realize that there is a nexus between the confounding of the language and the tribes to whom the languages belonged. When the languages were dispersed, Henry believed, the dispersal was tribe by tribe according to language. Precisely because it was about languages it was about ethncities.

Henry again offers,

(4.) The project of some to frame a universal character, in order to a universal language, how desirable soever it may seem, is yet, I think, but a vain thing to attempt; for it is to strive against a divine sentence, by which the languages of the nations will be divided while the world stands

If, according to Henry’s previous reasoning that the confounded tongues corresponded to the confounded tribes then Henry is telling us that ethnic homogeneity for tribes or nations is the divine standard while the world stands. By Henry’s previous reasoning the attempt to build a universal people at Babel was confounded by dividing the tribes by dividing their languages.

Current Christian Cultural Marxists, according to Herny, strive against the divine sentence when they insist on pursuing a Christianity that ignores God’s dividing of the peoples.

Now, to underscore Henry’s comments we examine how the enemies of Christianity have consistently striven against the divine sentence of dividing people’s and languages of which Henry speaks.

Humanist Manifesto II

ELEVENTH: The principle of moral equality must be furthered through elimination of all discrimination based upon race, religion, sex, age, or national origin. This means equality of opportunity and recognition of talent and merit. Individuals should be encouraged to contribute to their own betterment. If unable, then society should provide means to satisfy their basic economic, health, and cultural needs, including, wherever resources make possible, a minimum guaranteed annual income. We are concerned for the welfare of the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged, and also for the outcasts – the mentally retarded, abandoned, or abused children, the handicapped, prisoners, and addicts – for all who are neglected or ignored by society. Practicing humanists should make it their vocation to humanize personal relations.

We deplore racial, religious, ethnic, or class antagonisms. Although we believe in cultural diversity and encourage racial and ethnic pride, we reject separations which promote alienation and set people and groups against each other; we envision an integrated community where people have a maximum opportunity for free and voluntary association.

TWELFTH: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity. It would not exclude pride in national origins and accomplishments nor the handling of regional problems on a regional basis. Human progress, however, can no longer be achieved by focusing on one section of the world, Western or Eastern, developed or underdeveloped. For the first time in human history, no part of humankind can be isolated from any other. Each person’s future is in some way linked to all. We thus reaffirm a commitment to the building of world community, at the same time recognizing that this commits us to some hard choices.

The 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union

ARTICLE 123. Equality of rights of citizens of the U.S.S.R., irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law. Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law.

We see when we compare and contrast a Father of Historic Christianity (Matthew Henry) with the 20th century Humanists and Communists we see a marked contrasts between the oikophilia (love of one’s household and one’s faith) of Christianity and the Babelphilia (love of Babel and so hatred of ethnic distinctions) of the Marxists. Now, naturally this one point of harmony of Christians and Marxist does not by itself prove that Christians who embrace a globalism that automatically attacks ethnic homogeneity in a knee jerk fashion are Marxists but it at least should cause us to ask questions.

Wandering Thoughts On Obama & His Trayvon Martin Son

1.) We have to understand what Obama was doing with his statement, “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon.”

B. Hussein Obama was playing racial politics. If there ever was a “dog whistle” for racial identification that statement was it. Obama can’t be explicit and say “I’m down with you on the race struggle,” for that would be too blatant and would cost votes, but he can shore up his base by saying “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon,” because by doing so he implies, by identifying directly with the most integral building block of race (the family) that he is down with them in the struggle against Whitey.

Obama, by that statement, is playing racial politics. Further, by that statement Obama is saying, “I hate whites,” “I hate the current social order,” and “I am working to overthrow all of whiteys privilege.” Remember all of the Martin case is driven by the cultural Marxist narrative that insists that Black people are oppressed by evil White people and unwarranted white privilege. Obama, with his seemingly strange statement about Trayvon and being a son, is supporting that narrative. This is the same narrative that Obama supported when he embraced Derrick Bell and required the reading of his works. This is the same narrative so eloquently and repeatedly preached by James Cone disciple, Jeremiah Wright, under which Obama sat for twenty years. This is the same narrative Obama learned and taught while he was a community organizer in the Saul Alinsky school of thought.

Obama has revealed himself on this score already as President. He supported this cultural Marxist narrative when he fired, way to early, both barrels in the Cambridge cop routine. He reveals it in his Presidency as his administration refuses to prosecute the New Black Panthers for their clear violation of civil rights laws when they intimidated white people at the voting booth.

Obama is a Cultural Marxists and he is down for the struggle. All of his actions reveal this at every step of the way. This is what animates this man.

2.) Remember the Obama Democratic establishment has given up on the Reagan Democrats (White working class) as part of the coalition they want to put together for victory.

Obama’s statement “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon,” thus serves to galvanize the coalition that he is trying to build in opposition to those voters he has written off as being his opposition. (After all, they realize that if they are to write off those voters therefore those voters will vote for someone else, and so be his opposition.) Obama’s identifying with the black community with his statement thus is about 2012 election politics as it much as it is about anything else. Obama gains the black vote for obvious reasons with such a statement and he also curries the White educated vote because educated people are stupid, having been propagandized against their own self interest by the Cultural Marxist ruling elite in the Universities.

The only question in this gambit by Obama is whether or not he will offend another minority community that he needs in his coalition — the Hispanic vote. Remember, George Zimmerman, is not white but is Hispanic. There is a long antipathy between the black special interest constituents in the Democratic Party and the Hispanic special interest constituents. Obama risks losing the Hispanic vote if the Hispanic community ever begins to identify with George Zimmerman in this circus.

3.) Another angle that is possible in this Presidential attempt to whip up racial frenzy is the desire to foment such racial conflict that a declaration of Martial law would be required. Obama knows that this nation is sitting on a racial tinderbox. Obama, also knows, being a Marxist, that the creation of intense conflict of interest always serves the end of the State. If enough strife was whipped up by the policy of divide and conquer then Obama could be seen as legitimately declaring Martial law and so would be able to be even better situated to manipulate the results of the 2012 election (should an election occur) and quite possibly collect weaponry from the citizenry.