Cultural Marxism Is The Worldview That Has Replaced Christianity In The West

“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” “wokery,” “Cultural Marxism,” “political correctness” are deceptive nomenclatures employed for concealing the facts about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.

The Frankfurt School, disproportionality staffed by Jews, adapted Karl Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was twofold. First their goal was to reshape the subconscious of Western (white) men and women and thus create a new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds, even to the point of supporting positions that would eventuate in the destruction of the Christian faith and the Christian White man. This brings us to the second goal of the Cultural Marxist which was, in the words of Cultural Marxist, Willi Munzenberg;

“We must organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat”

They achieved this via their long march through the Institutions. Cultural Marxism, via the messaging of Government schools and Universities, Media outlets of all varieties, and the “Christian” church championing a false Christianity using false guilt in order to re-orient the hoi polloi concerning right and wrong and good and bad. Together they created the new Western Soviet man by instilling in Western man a false consciousness that might be rightly called, “A Will For Death.”

Cultural Marxists (the rank and file of the Frankfurt School) encourage Zionism, abortion, birth control, divorce, LGBTQ, “carrier women,” with its attendant feminism, drugs,  miscegenation, the destruction of the traditional family via sexual promiscuity and perversion, and unrestricted immigration of racial foreigners into white countries. All of this is derivative of and reflective of what the Cultural Marxist’s preach:

1.) White reproduction is evil, and that which prevents white reproduction is good.

2.) Christian White culture is oppressive and bad and that which breaks up and destroys Christian white culture is good.

Cultural Marxism is the driving ideology that explains the death of the West. If Biblical Christianity is that cultural faith that was turned away from, the Frankfurt School, with its Cultural Marxism, is the cultural faith that was turned to and embraced. Most of your conservative Christian clergy that you will meet today have reinterpreted their Christianity through a Cultural Marxist grid. People like Doug Wilson, James White, Kevin DeYoung, Jeff Durbin, Andrew Sandlin, R. Scott Clark, Mike Horton, J. V. Fesko, David Van Drunen, T. David Gordon, and many many more, to one degree or another, given their opposition either to a decidedly Christian Nationalism or their support for Zionism, or their support and/or encouragement of prolific miscegenation, are all drinking  from the well of Cultural Marxism. If this continues the continued steep decline of these united States will continue apace. If this continues the Christian faith and the Christian Church will be found only in remote and tucked away places.

The Devil Went Down To Moscow — With Apologies To Charlie Daniels

The Devil went down to Moscow
He was lookin’ for a soul to steal
He was in a bind ’cause he was way behind
And he was willin’ to make a deal
When he came across this old man
Writin’ a piece and workin’ it hot
And the Devil jumped upon a Palouse stump

And said, “Doug, let me tell you what”

“I guess you didn’t know it, but I’m a blog writer, too
And if you’d care to take a dare, I’ll make a bet with you
Now you write pretty good, old boy, but give the Devil his due
I’ll bet a book of gold against your soul

‘Cause I think I’m better than you”

The codger said, “My name’s Dougie, and it might be a sin
But I’ll take your bet, and you’re gonna regret

‘Cause I am the best that’s ever has been

Dougie, get your pencils out and and scribble fast and hard
‘Cause Hell’s broke loose in Moscow and the Devil deals the cards
And if you win, you get this shiny book made of gold

But if you lose, the devil gets your soul

The Devil cracked his knuckles, and he said, “I’ll start this show”
The fire flew from his fingertips as the words began to flow
And he swept his fingers across the keys, and they made an evil hiss
And by the time the piece was done, it read something like this

But when the Devil finished, Dougie said, “You know you’re pretty good old son
But you just look over my shoulder right now, And I’ll show you how my bloggin’s done”

Fire on the Palouse, run, boys, run
The Devil’s in the house of the Pale Ale Son
Chickens in the Cross-Politic, making lots of dough
Dougie, is your dog Jew? No, child, no

Well, that old  Devil bowed his head cuz he knew that he’d been beat
And he laid that golden book down on the ground at Dougie’s feet
Dougie said, “Devil, come on back if you ever want to try again
I done told you once, you son of a gun, I’m the best there’s ever been

Doug wrote, “Fire in the Palouse, run, boys run
Devil’s in the house of the Pale Ale Son
Chickens in the Cross-Politic, making lots of dough”
Dougie is your dog Jew? No, child no

Open Theism As The “Solution” To The Arminian Problem?

I grew up Arminian (Wesleyan). I know their theology well as I studied it in Undergrad earning one of my Bachelors in an associated field (Religion-Philosophy). I still have the blue test books from those Theology classes in my file cabinets. In those test books I received top score for my ability to slice and dice Calvinism, along with praise from the Professors.

Along the way, resisting as much as I possibly could, I gave up Arminianism and was born again, again. I became a Christian (sometimes known as Calvinist).

One of the hurdles I could not get over, thus pushing me towards Calvinism was the problem found in all standard Arminianism. Evangelical Arminianism, teaching Hypothetical Universalism (the idea that Christ died for all people without exception) had to likewise hold that all men has libertarian free will. If Christ dies for everybody, but everybody isn’t saved than that factors that divides those who are saved and who are not saved, per Arminianism is the fact that some cooperated with prevenient grace while others did not cooperate with prevenient grace. The reason that some cooperate with prevenient grace (the grace that goes before salvation) while others don’t cooperate is the result of some using their Libertarian free will to choose to be regenerated while others use their Libertarian free will to say no to God’s resistible grace.

The Arminians have this problem though. If man has this kind of Libertarian free will to tell God to “go pound sand,” as the Spirit of God intends to convert them, then Arminians can no longer teach that God is sovereign and so controls all things. Still, Arminians would teach that while God may not be exhaustively sovereign such as their Calvinist foe’s teach God still did foreknow all things that would come to pass even if God didn’t predetermine or predestine the beginning from the end the way the Calvinist insisted.  So, as it pertains to individual salvation, per the Arminian God knows (but does not determine) how each person will use their Libertarian free will in order to either accept or reject the “Gospel Invitation.”

The problem that eventually presented itself to the “smarter than the average bear” Arminian is that they understood that if God foreknows everything that happens or will happen, God thereby renders that thing He foreknows as certain. God in foreknowing all that will happen has in that foreknowing made certain all that will happen. If God foreknew from eternity past that I would mock Arminian theology in 2026, then that mocking had to happen. I would not be free to not mock Arminian theology. This is true even if we, along with the Arminian, reject that God makes everything happen. The relevant point is that God’s foreknowing of an event to occur before it occurs makes it certain that the event will occur even if God is not the causative source of said event happening.  Even if there is some other causality to my mocking Arminian theology, God foreknew that the other causality would lead me to mock Arminian theology and so the mocking of Arminian theology in 2026 by me would by necessity come to pass. Exhaustive divine foreknowledge necessitates determinism, whether or not determinism is the result of divine causality. The nub of the matter is that some Arminians began to understand they were on the horns of a dilemma here. What to do?

Well, there really are only two choices. The Red Pill solution was “become a Calvinist,” and deny Libertarian free will. Forty years ago plus, I took the Red Pill. However, some former Arminians took the Blue Pill and so denied foreknowledge. The Blue Pill allowed the Arminian to become more consistently inconsistent. By taking the Blue Pill the Arminian moved from Arminianism to Open Theism. The Arminians joined the Open Theists (a form of Socinianism) and so rejected the idea of the Arminian doctrine of God’s foreknowledge. For the Open Theist if God was sovereign He was sovereign quite apart from any exhaustive foreknowledge. Of course the idea that God can be sovereign without either Calvinist sovereignty or Arminian foreknowledge is just a surd.  The Arminian by choosing Open Theism became more consistently inconsistent inasmuch as he now has found a way to consistently embrace Libertarian free will. However he has done so at the cost of magnificently gross inconsistency inasmuch as he has embraced a God, who by definition, has been drained of all that makes God, God. As it were the Arminian, when affirming Libertarian free will, was already worshiping a emasculated god. However, in moving to Free Will Theism (Open Theism) he is now worshiping a emasculated man as god said loudly. The Arminian has embraced anthropological consistency at the cost of theological inconsistency.

It seems like, to a certain degree, Open Theism has been beaten back. However, Arminianism remains the major report in terms of numbers as among American Evangelicals. Very few people believe in a muscular doctrine of the sovereignty of God. Most Evangelicals … even most Reformed, in a De facto sense, embrace enough of the shards of Arminianism to bring into doubt their Calvinistic bona fides.

And thus the Church in the West continues to limp along.

Addendum:

Touching Libertarian free will we would note that for every bit of Libertarian free will that you give to man you take that much from the Triune God. Man cannot have Libertarian free will without God not having Libertarian free will.

The Scripture exhaustively teaches that God exhaustively controls all things (Lamentations 3:37-38;  Rom. 8:28, 11:33-36; Eph. 1:11). As that control extends to our free decisions we read in Scripture wherein God controls the free decisions of people. (Joseph’s Brothers – Gen. 45:5-8; Cyrus – Isa. 44:28; Judas – Lk. 22:28, Acts 2:23-24, 4:27-28, 13:27.)

Now, that people do what they want to do while it still being the case that God is in exhaustive control is taught by the doctrine of Compatibilism. Compatibilism teaches that man does what he wants to do and is not coerced in his decision making. Man’s decision are voluntary. Compatibilism further teaches that man’s freedom presuppose his nature. Fallen man is free to choose all kinds of option  but because of his fallen nature, fallen man can never choose not to sin. Compatibilism teaches that whatever it is we voluntarily choose it does not mean we had the freedom to choose otherwise. We were pushed to choose whatever we choose consistent with pre-existing influence, inclination, or disposition. In choosing nobody starts from neutral in choosing what they choose. Considered from the macro understanding though, compatibilism affirms that all wills are in bondage to God’s sovereignty.

 

Ryan Louis Underwood Unearths A Kinist Quote From Prominent Anglican

“Around the Englishman are others, born of the same race, speaking the same language, living under the same laws, fed from the same soil; In fact, satisfying almost all of the conditions under which a family exists together in its home. Sprung from different parents, localized in different neighborhoods, there is yet one common parent of all these, and one unvarying home. Our country is our general Mother, and her bounds our natural home.

Within those limits, we are like brothers and sisters of a family, not strangers, but native: not guests but members.

Whatever is there, is, in place and degree, for us; for the body of which we are parts, and for us, inasmuch as we are bound up with the body …

As regards the rest of the world, the nation is as one: as regards one another, national greatness, national advantages, national success and failure are common to all its citizens. In all these particular does the mind, true to its original training, recognize and embrace as a great home, the common country of the whole race of which the individual forms a part.

A man finds himself bound to his fellow-countrymen by a common language, which has grown up amidst events, and bears trace of changes, whose effects are still acting on the great brotherhood of the nation.
The history of their country is the history of all.”

Henry Alford – 1810-1871
Anglican Dean Of Canterbury Cathedral
The Nation An Extension of Family
Lectures on the 5th Commandment

The Continuing Mystery Surrounding J. C. Ryles Quotes & Contradictory AI Testimony

One of my valued friends from Tennessee has continue to search out information on the J. C. Ryles quote on the issue of race. It seems now that AI is giving us decidedly mixed signals to the point of being in contradiction. Below is my friends report on whether or not those quotes exist in J. C. Ryle.

I’ve continued the search in original scanned archived materials found online from reliable sources (e.g. Library of Congress, etc. ) and the quote is not to be found in Matthew or Luke.

I asked ChatGPT about it. The reply,

“Upon a search of Ryle’s archived volumes on Expository Thoughts, I cannot find this attributed quote,

“Let us beware of giving way to the modern notion that there is no such thing as God’s providential arrangement of the nations, and that the present attempt to amalgamate all nationalities and races, and to denationalise and unchurch people, is wise and politic. God has divided the world into separate nationalities, climates, languages, and churches, and it is the height of mischief to try and break down the divisions.”

Here’s what I was able to verify about that quotation and its attribution to Expository Thoughts on the Gospels by J. C. Ryle:


*1. The quotation you cited does not appear in the standard text of Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels


Authoritative digital editions and searchable versions of Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on Matthew (and the other Gospels) do not include the lines you quoted. Ryle’s commentary on Matthew 24 is available in public-domain editions, and there’s no trace of the specific passage about “amalgamating nationalities and races” in those texts.


2. What Ryle did write about nations and races (19th-century context)


A blog post discussing Ryle (with commentary, not a direct source text) quotes a passage from Ryle’s commentary on Matthew 24 that reflects a 19th-century evangelical observation about the diversity of nations, languages, and races being a providential fact. The blog then extends that into the longer passage you’ve seen circulating online. However:


That extended passage appears to be secondary or interpretive wording, not directly from Ryle’s original published volumes.


The post explicitly acknowledges it is making inferences and its own interpretation of Ryle’s position.


3. Why your search of Expository Thoughts likely didn’t find it;


The version of Ryle’s commentary that’s in the public domain and reproduced on sites like StudyLight and Monergism is a faithful transcription of his published work. Since the exact wording you quoted does not appear in those editions, it’s likely misattributed or paraphrased by later writers.

4. Summary

There is no reliable evidence in the original Expository Thoughts that Ryle wrote the quote exactly as you’ve given it.

The related idea (that God has providentially divided humanity into nations, races, languages) may reflect Ryle’s commentary on Matthew 24, but the extended warning about amalgamation and denationalisation appears in secondary online sources rather than in the original text.

If you’d like, I can help you locate the exact wording Ryle did use in his Matthew 24 commentary (with a direct quotation and link to the public-domain text). Just let me know!”

So, today ChatGPT contradicts what I posted from it yesterday. Another AI hallucination. I’ll keep searching but it appears that the quote is not properly attributable to JC Ryle.

Tennessee Doc

___

Now I would still like to see what Ryle said that found someone concluding that Ryle’s words have the implication that someone saw in them concerning amalgamation.