“Eventually, the end came to the hard years of the Soviet Russian Bolshevik Revolution and with the end of the hard years, there came an ethos that seemed to endorse more freedom in sexual matters. The radical intelligentsia of the Revolution had originally viewed women as an exploited group; the family, an extension of Capitalism. In this context, the husband was considered the bourgeois, his wife the enslaved proletarian. Laws had been passed ‘that made divorce easily attainable, removed the formal stigma of illegitimacy, permitted abortion, and mandated equal pay and rights for women.’ A chance remark by Lenin that ‘the act of love should ‘be as simple as drinking a glass of water’ had become the rationale for unlimited promiscuity, causing free sexual relations to become one of the fringe benefits of the Revolution… The Soviet state had even shown a desire to assume unprecedented responsibility for the country’s youth.”

S. J. Taylor

Stalin’s Apologist

1.) Like the Soviets after the Bolshevik Revolution, we have easy divorce laws.

2.) Also, the quote above explains why women are prioritized over men in this culture. (White) Men are seen as the hated Bourgeoisie that must be punished while women in our Marxist template are automatically virtuous because they are the oppressed working class. As such women must be freed from the dreaded patriarchy of Christianity.

3.) Illegitimacy is no longer stigmatized. We no longer speak of “bastardy” or of bastard children.

4.) Abortion is as easily attainable now as it was in the USSR after the Revolution.

5.) More freedom in sexual matters … yep
6.) Unlimited promiscuity … yep
7.) The State taking over the raising of youth … yep
Is there any reason for me to not think that America is Communist?
Seriously, I believe that our social order is communist.

Of Janissaries and Government Schools

In a cruelty that was both useful and cynical, Islamic Sultans would forcefully implement a blood tax on the peoples of Byzantium. This “blood tax” found the Islamic Infidel seizing from the people of Byzantium their finest sons in order to take them back to Islamadom in order to turn these sons into the most elite special forces military units. These “Janissaries” were not allowed to marry and were considered personally owned by the Sultan. They were provided the very best of foods and drink. Eventually, they would be used as the shock troops against their former land from which they were kidnapped — Byzantium.

Today much the same is done by the Marxist conditioning as accomplished in our K-12 government schools and then our Universities all augmented and supported by our Churches. Only instead of having to kidnap the children Christian parents freely turn their children over to the enemy to be brainwashed. Like the Janissaries of old these children eventually turn on their parents and their former Christian lands in order to conquer them for the cause of Cultural Marxism.

Ibrahim X. Kendi’s Antiracist Discrimination Examined

“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

Ibram X. Kendi

1.) Steve Sailer rightly notes here that given this quote by Kendi that, “the essence of CRT is oppression of whites.”

2.) Notice also this quote perfectly encapsulates both Herbert Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance,” and the currently popular idea of equity. Anti-racist discrimination can embrace “tolerance” except for people who practiced discrimination in the past. For those people and their “rights” it is intolerance (Repressive Tolerance) that is to be practiced. Likewise, “equity” is the notion that people who were discriminated against in the past by previous generations need extra help to catch back up to where those who are the descendants of those previous generations now are because of how their forefathers discriminated against them. In pursuance of that, the descendants of those discriminated against in the past receive special advantages and help that the descendants of those who discriminated against them in the past don’t receive.

3.) Of course, all this is posited on the fact that people were uniquely discriminated against in the past. Perhaps there is no doubt that Blacks and others were discriminated against but does that mean that they as a people group have been uniquely discriminated against? A look at the sum of history would demonstrate that at one time or another all people groups have been discriminated against.  Then there is the reality that Black people were discriminated against by their own people when they were captured and used as a form of currency when being sold into slavery. Sure, discrimination has existed but no discrimination is unique to any people group that has ever existed.

4.) It must be said that any White person who embraces this idea has a death wish for both them and their posterity. For a white person to accept this idea is to proclaim that at their heart they are a masochistic and therefore mentally unbalanced person. No people group, in the face of contrived and tenuous reasoning shackles themselves and their progeny to the whims of a weak victim class who can only thrive by creating an environment of false guilt wherein they can flourish. I suppose Whites who will embrace this idea deserve to die out.

5.) Who gets to determine when the present anti-racist discriminations are now equal to past racist discriminations so that all discrimination can be eliminated and how is that assessed? Excuse me if I have my doubts that the White man will ever be able to pay for all of his past putative discriminations even if the White man decided to play along.

Do Cultural Marxists Have A Plan To Rebuild?

“The family and civil society are preconditions of the state;… [which] emerges from the masses as they exist as members of the family and of civil society;” for “the social structures and the State always arise from the life-process of the individual.”

Karl Marx

Keep in mind that the goal of Marxism is the elimination of the State. If that is so, the State cannot be eliminated until the family is eliminated. This explains why our State is so hostile to the family.

Now, the question arises…. We know that historical Marxism naively believed there would eventually be no need for a State, but what of modern-day cultural Marxism? Does the Frankfurt School still desire the withering away of the State?

The best way to answer that I think is to recognize that the Cultural Marxists are Nihilists and have no plans beyond destroying all that they can. There is an ancient belief that I believe they accept and that is that out of chaos order comes. You see this belief in Evolutionary theory. It is posited that Evolution moves from chaos to order. So I believe the Cultural Marxists will provide the chaos via ongoing destruction of all Western Institutions and then will let order arise on its own. Alternately, once the destruction has descended it could be the case that only then will the Cultural Marxists start thinking about rebuilding.

Mark Chambers is helpful here by observing that;

Destruction is all part of the great reset plan of the oligarchy to “build back better.” But they can build nothing for they are servants of Satan and Satan comes to steal, kill and destroy. The men of the oligarchy are delusional and quite insane. They believe themselves to be gods and intend to enthrone themselves. But their master hates mankind for man is the image of God and he (Satan), knowing his eventual and inevitable destruction, is bent on doing the only thing he can do and that is to attempt to destroy everything that reeks of that divine image including those who serve him as useful idiots. There are really only two principles involved in everything that occurs–light and darkness, i.e. life and death. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

The fruit of apostasy is death and darkness. There is, I fear a great darkness on the horizon. The night of punishment will come before the day dawns. Dear God strengthen those who are in Christ that they may stay well lit when the darkness arrives.

The Religion of Marxism

Marxism Is Theology

Marxism as a theology presupposes

1.) Ontology — There is no Supernatural extra-mundane God. All is time plus chance plus circumstance.

2.) Axiology — The State dictates ultimate societal values.

3.) Teleology v– Man is moving towards a man-made utopia — A Kingdom of man on earth.

4.) Epistemology — There is no such thing as revelation. Man knows by force of reason alone.

5.) Anthropology — Man is merely matter in motion. He has no set nature.

6.) Hamartiology — Sin is defined as that which transgresses the will of the Sovereign God State at any given time. Sin one day might be righteousness the next day depending upon the determination of the State.

7.) Ethics — Ethics are relative to the need of the State. There is no absolute right and wrong, good and bad, etc. Reasoning is not systematic but dialectic.

8.) Aesthetics — Art must serve the end of the State as it seeks to bring to fulfillment the Utopian order. There is no transcendent notions of “good, true, and beautiful.”

9.) Education — Children are owned by the State. The State is responsible to social engineer its children to fit its needs. In the state, we live and move and have our being.

10.) Family — Family is a social construct that can be amended and shaped to fit the needs of the State. Allegiances to the family are secondary to allegiance to the State.

11.) Economics — The earth is the States and the fullness thereof. Private property does not exist because for private property to exist would be to suggest that there is something beyond the State.

** As this is where we started we should note that Socialism as an economic system implies all these other tenants. Also, it should be noted that in classical Marxism Economics in many respects becomes their theology / their guiding fiction / their plausibility structure. This is true because all of reality is read through the prism of economic oppression and relief. Indeed, even their dialectic is largely committed to the Utopian triumph through Economic dialecticism. This overturns Curtis Eggleston’s original assertion that Socialism is not about theology. In point of fact, Socialism is theology. (Indeed any time you have a “ism” suffix ending there you have a theology.)

Editorially speaking, here I must add that for a good man to be teaching young impressionable minds that Socialism is just an economic theory and has no theology is like saying that Godzilla is just a lizard and is no monster.