Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 28

John Stossel Covers the SPLC

Recently, the gloriously euphemistic Southern Poverty Law Center placed the Church I serve on their “extremist hate” list because we were in their estimation a “White Nationalist” group.

Stossel, above, demonstrates that the SPLC is a Cultural Marxist joke and is itself the country’s largest and most well-financed extremist hate group in America. Because this is so, it is a badge of honor to be assigned the label of “extremist hate” group by the SPLC. If a hate group accuses you of being “hateful” according to their upside-down standards then it is likely the case that just the opposite is what is true and that you are instead the very essence of compassion, kindness and love. Let me just say here that if ever there was a Church that is filled with compassion, kindness, and love it is Charlotte Christ the King Reformed Church. Yes indeed, we are extremists in that regard.

It should also be noted that this report by Stossel came out not long before the SPLC itself was caught in a net of hate. Top executives at the Southern Poverty Law Center departed the organization amidst reports of sexual misconduct and racial discrimination within the Southern Poverty Law Center. It seems that both current and former SPLC employees stepped forward and complained that the Southern Poverty Law Center was a cacophony of intolerance, sexual harassment, and lack of diversity. Physician heal thyself indeed.

Now, the question naturally arises as to why the Nationally known Southern Poverty Law Center would go out of their way to target a small Mid-Michigan church as an “extremist hate group.” One can only speculate. Several possibilities present themselves.

1.) Rev. Bret L. McAtee is such a spellbinding speaker and powerful writer and had become such an influential presence among the country’s opinion-makers that the SPLC knew that it had to make an effort to besmirch this titan among America’s thought leaders before his Christian convictions covered the globe.

Edit — #1 is, in the words of Foghorn Leghorn; “I say I say I say, that’s a joke son.”

If you really thought I believed #1 I have a bridge to sell to you.

2.) The denomination that the congregation once dated for 50 years pulled some strings among known confederates because they were angered that the local congregation pulled out of and left the denomination. A denomination that is now discussing accepting sodomy in some form or fashion as an acceptable Christian lifestyle.

3.) National Public Radio was butt hurt by a series of Iron Ink articles that rebutted their six-part hatchet job radio series on a particular group of activists that they did not like. As such NPR pulled some strings for this small Mid-Michigan church to be put on the SPLC hit list.

It is remotely possible that 2 & 3 worked conjointly. I note this because once the small, subscription-starved regional newspaper picked up the story there sure seemed synchronicity in the way that some of the articles as sourced by the denomination all fell into place once the story hit.

Of course, all this is speculation. I suppose it is also possible that President Biden saw what a threat I was and put out his own hit orders. Personally, I think #1 the most likely explanation.

Is Diversity Tyranny Against White Christian Westerners? Mr. Damon Young Answers

Whiteness is a public health crisis. It shortens life expectancies, it pollutes air, it constricts equilibrium, it devastates forests, it melts ice caps, it sparks (and funds) wars, it flattens dialects, it infests consciousnesses, and it kills people…

White supremacy is a virus that, like other viruses, will not die until there are no bodies left for it to infect. Which means the only way to stop it is to locate it, isolate it, extract it, and kill it. I guess a vaccine could work, too. But we’ve had 400 years to develop one, so I won’t hold my breath.

Damon Young
The Root

Online Magazine

Yahoo Online

This article garnered a great deal of attention with several of the legacy media outlets picking up the story to comment on it in one way or another. Note that Mr. Young segues from “Whiteness” to “White Supremacy” without establishing that there is a difference between the two.

I find all this quite interesting because recently a small and subscription starving regional Newspaper ran a front-page headline noting that I had written that “Diversity is tyranny as exercised against White Christian Westerners.” Given the quote above from Mr. Young — a quote representative of many of those who are pushing the diversity agenda — I’m not sure how my quote is in the least controversial. With ringing clarity, Mr. Young substantiates why I wrote what the small, struggling regional Newspaper ran in their story, “This multicultural, multi-faith, multi-racial, pluralist diverse social order garbage soup is the death of the West and the God who made the West the West in favor of a sulfur social order where Lucifer is god.”

What Mr. Young’s quote reinforces is that what is happening with “The Diversity” agenda is the ongoing and incrementally increasing attempt to villainize white people for the crime of being Christian and white. Let’s be perspicacious here. If the truth be known what people like Mr. Young most object to about white people is the Christianity that has birthed in white people their belief system. If white people were all Cultural Marxists such as those who are pushing the diversity agenda then there wouldn’t be this unremitting vitriolic attack on white people — an attack that was picked up and amplified by this small subscription regional Newspaper.

If this diversity agenda is not stopped this villainization of Christian white people will eventually lead to the attempted genocide of Christian white people. Given the quote above if you are white and don’t oppose “diversity” and “multiculturalism,” you are brain dead. Further, if you aren’t routinely labeled “racist” you don’t love your Christian white children and grandchildren.

Religion as an Inescapable Concept … Thank You Atlantic Monthly

“The notion that all deeply felt conviction is sublimated religion is not new. Abraham Kuyper, a theologian who served as the prime minister of the Netherlands at the dawn of the 20th century, when the nation was in the early throes of secularization, argued that all strongly held ideologies were effectively faith-based and that no human being could survive long without some ultimate loyalty. If that loyalty didn’t derive from traditional religion, it would find expression through secular commitments, such as nationalism, socialism, or liberalism. The political theorist Samuel Goldman calls this “the law of the conservation of religion”: In any given society, there is a relatively constant and finite supply of religious conviction. What varies is how and where it is expressed.”

Atlantic Monthly Article

I would only take exception at the notion of “religion finding expression through secular commitments.” Once those putatively “secular commitments” become the person’s or people’s ultimate loyalty the commitment is no longer secular but religious. Overtly religious commitments surrendered are always surrendered for new religious commitments even if those commitments are now sold subverted as “secular commitments.” Kuyper understood this as we see in the quote above. The author of the Atlantic Monthly piece should have stuck with these “new” secular commitments being properly characterized as “sublimated religions.” Kuyper properly noting that these new commitments were all “faith-based” proves that religion as religion never goes away.

This demonstrates that religion is an inescapable concept. When you throw in the observation above concerning “ultimate loyalty” and understand that wherever a people’s “ultimate loyalty” lies there you have identified their God or god concept we learn that God likewise is an inescapable concept for all peoples. The first step in understanding a culture or social order is identifying their God (ultimate loyalty) and their religion (ultimate faith-based commitments). A people’s religion will be consistent with whatever their ultimate loyalty is and their ultimate loyalty will be consistent with their religion.

This means that no person or peoples are “more religious” or “less religious” than other persons or peoples. All people are uniformly religious. It is just a matter of identifying where their God and religion lie. This also means that all persons and peoples have the same religious furniture in their thinking. Universally all people have categories of origin, sin, redemption, destination, nature of man, etc. etc. etc. Now, most people will not be epistemologically self-conscious about what they believe but that does not mean that they are not acting in terms of these un-articulated to themselves categories.

So, for example, the Communist god is the Communist party. Their religion based on their god concept finds them believing that man is basically good (Communist anthropology). Their religion teaches them an origin story that is based on materialistic time + chance + circumstance. Their sin concept is in rebelling against the diktats of the Communist party. Their redemption category is found in the payment of their own sin of rebelling against the party by confessing their guilt and gladly receiving the bullet to the nape of the neck. Their religious belief regarding their telos is a yet unattained Utopia. The most ardent Communist is every bit as religious as your most committed Medieval Monk.

Some Thoughts on How the Cultural Marxists Weaseled Their Way Into The Church Leadership

After the lesson on Critical Race theory last night a young mother asked me what connection the contemporary church is using as a segue to connect Christianity with Cultural Marxism so as to read Christianity through a cultural Marxist grid (template, prism).

I believe we get pointed in the right direction in what follows;

1.) Cultural Marxist sells itself as being the champion for the oppressed. The Cultural Marxist comes to the clergy and says…”See, you say God is for the oppressed and now you know that we are for the oppressed, therefore, Cultural Marxism is a good fit for Christianity.

I believe in part the answer to this is as follows;

a.) God is not universally for the oppressed. God is only for His people who are oppressed. Those who are oppressed and are also rebelling against God, God is judging them via their oppressions.

b.) The oppressed that God is for are the righteous. The oppressed that the Cultural Marxists are for are the sodomite, the feminist, the disaffected minority, and the member of anti-Christ religions. Therefore, we see this meme of “oppression” is not common ground between Cultural Marxism and Christianity but the clergy are too stupid to get it.

2.) The Fatherhood of God over all men and the brotherhood of all men. The Cultural Marxist plays on the emotions of stupid clergy by talking about the necessity to “love” all men. And the Christian agrees that we must love all men but insists that loving the wicked means proclaiming their sin and resisting their attempts to subjugate Christians by taking control of the social order. The Christian insists that love to all men means treating them consistent with God’s revealed law and God’s revealed law calls for some pretty stiff sentences for many that the Cultural Marxists are telling us we must love by accepting. However, overwhelmed by this mantra of “the Fatherhood of God over all people, and the brotherhood of all men” the Cultural Marxist dupes the stupid clergy into thinking that when they are not resisting the Cultural Marxist proletariat they are at that point showing love.

3.) The Cultural Marxist plays on the alleged guilt of Christianity of yesterday. The Cultural Marxist finds Christianity guilty of any number of sins in the past and tells the stupid clergy that they can make it all up by reinterpreting Christianity through their anti-Christ grid. Of course, much of what the Cultural Marxist comes up with as against Christianity is just so much false guilt but again … the clergy being stupid doesn’t know history and is too lazy to do the work that is required in order to expose the false guilt heaped on them by the Cultural Marxist.

4.) Much of the weakness that Cultural Marxism is currently exploiting is due to the Church being unwilling to construct a Biblical doctrine of benevolence. Because the Church and its mission sending agencies, by their financial support, work to the end to overturn God’s connection between obedience and blessing and disobedience and cursing the Cultural Marxist is able to come along and worm their way into the Church and Mission sending agencies because the Cultural Marxist also desires to overturn God’s connection between obedience and blessing and disobedience and cursing. The Church continues to create “rice Christians” by the way it practices benevolence. God’s means of drawing and destroying is bound up with the blessings that come from obeying the Gospel and the cursing that comes from rebelling against Christ. Man-centered churches think that their way is more higher and loving than God. Our supposed help is typically not helping but working against God and distorting a clear view of reality and this distorting a clear view of reality by seeking to be “nicer than God” is right up the Cultural Marxists alley.

5.) The Cultural Marxists showed up in the Church speaking of “Social Justice.” The churchmen said, “sure, we’re for justice” without asking what the Cultural Marxists meant by the term. Now Cultural Marxism defines justice in almost all the churches. This is a worldview issue and reveals a continued unwillingness on the part of the Church to understand that words only mean what they mean as existing in a particular weltanschauung. The Church cannot continue to lend credence to people who show up bleating about “Social Justice” without demanding a worldview examination of what the bleaters mean by “Social Justice.” If that question had been asked and the responding answer closely examined the Cultural Marxists would not have taken over the modern Church in the West.

6.) An unbalanced, distorted understanding of the “Golden Rule” is probably the most common vehicle that Marxists use to subvert Christian thinking. By interpreting Matt 7:12 (Golden Rule) as a mandate for radical egalitarianism rather than a standard for equal treatment under God’s law and Biblical justice, then any situation where one party (e.g., white men) is in a higher position of authority or status or wealth relative to the other party (e.g., people of color), can be caricatured as a violation of Christian ethics.

Because of this wrong reading of the Golden Rule, the Cultural Marxist has been able to come inside the Church by the means of demanding that the Church follow the wrong definition of the Golden rule as provided by the Cultural Marxists. Take patriarchy as an example. The Cultural Marxists in the Church are now railing against patriarchy with the allegation that people who believe in biblical patriarchy are not following the Golden Rule because they are not doing undo women what they would want to be done unto them. Nevermind Scripture teaches male headship, leadership in home, church, and the civil order.

Carol Swain and “The New White Nationalism”

The most impressive study by far on this topic comes from the Princeton scholar Carol Swain and her book “The New White Nationalism in America.” Published in 2002, Swain argued that what she called the new white nationalism is different than the white supremacism of old, which intuited whites as biologically, genetically, and intellectually superior to non-whites. The new white nationalists are instead motivated by something entirely different: they’re making the case that the current project of multiculturalism is unfairly and arbitrarily discriminating against white people and white interests on behalf of non-white constituents whose interests are taking a priority in terms of national policy. In other words, if we are society that is increasingly built upon the leftist notion of identity politics, where blacks have their own political interests and Hispanics have their own political interests and Asians have theirs, then it logically follows that white people must have their own unique political interests as well. And yet, when whites assert such logic, they are scolded for exemplifying bigoted and racist sentiments!

Swain argues that concern over this blatant double-standard goes way beyond white nationalists; it resonates deeply with the wider white population and is causing significant resentment and backlash. A recent study found that more than half of white Americans believe that “whites have replaced blacks as the ‘primary victims of discrimination.’”

Dr. Steve Turley

Excerpts from Newsletter

I would only add here that we have to keep the ideological aspect of all this before us as well as what Turley brings out. At the end of the day, this isn’t only about Identity politics as if people from different races can’t be in opposite racial camps then what the identitarians insist only exist for particular races. For example, there are HUGE numbers of White people who are identifying with minorities in the BLM movement in this country, and that because the minority political movement is ideological as much as racial. Black Lives Matter is a Marxist movement and what it is achieving is it is convincing a large percentage of the black community (93% plus) that to be black or minority is to be Marxist. The resistance to that Black Lives Matter movement is found primarily in the white community, which ideologically speaking, is Anti-Marxist. However, there are plenty of white people (in the Academic, Feminist, Pervert, Journalism, and Ecclesiastical communities) who support BLM and the Marxism it shovels. So the Identity politics does not fall exactly along racial lines. What is really going on underneath reveals itself when people of other races cross Identity politics lines to join people of different races in order to support their majority ideology in those racial movements. In brief, a small percentage of the minority community hates the Marxist movement(s) and a substantial percentage of the white community (via perversion, Academia, Feminists, the Church etc) support the Marxism characterized by BLM and anti-fa.

The unfortunate thing here is that the political fault lines do indeed end up being largely racial in terms of who is and is not in the different Marxist vs. Anti-Marxist camps and when that happens generalities pile up to the point that people in all races just begin assuming on the basis of race alone that the people they are seeing automatically belong to the ideological camp that is most often associated with their race.

And to be honest, while may not be ideal this is understandable. When conflict begins to heat up generalities are a good thing to operate by if one has to make snap decisions upon which the survival of one’s family may depend.