Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 32

Calvin on Social Hierarchy and Inequality as Christian Doctrines II

“Regarding our eternal salvation it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regard policy however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin — Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3

Every one who goes beyond the limits of his calling provokes the wrath of God against himself by his rashness. Let every one therefore be satisfied with his lot, and learn not to aim at anything higher, but, on the contrary, to remain in his own rank in which God has placed him. If God stretch out his hand, and lift us up higher, we ought to go forward; but no one ought to take it on himself, or to strive for it from his own choice. And even those who are raised to a higher rank of honor ought to conduct themselves humbly and submissively, not with any pretended modesty, but with minds so thoroughly depressed that nothing can lift them up.”

John Calvin
In comments on Isaiah 14.13

It is the Lord’s peculiar work to divide people into their respective ranks, distinguishing one from another, as seemeth good to him, all men being on a level by nature.

John Calvin
On Psalm 87

Now we know for what end God would have rank and dignity to exist among men, and that is, that there might be something like a bridle to restrain the waywardness of the multitude.

John Calvin
Lecture 26 on Hosea

Since Isaiah reckons this confusion among the curses of God, and declares that, when the distinction of ranks is laid aside, it is a terrible display of the vengeance of God, we ought to conclude, on the other hand, how much God is pleased with regular government and the good order of society, and also how great a privilege it is to have it preserved among us; for when it is taken away, the life of man differs little from the sustenance of cattle and of beasts of prey.

John Calvin
On Isaiah 24:2

Meanwhile, the political distinction of ranks is not to be repudiated, for natural reason itself dictates this in order to take away confusion.

John Calvin
On Numbers 3:5

Immigration and its Social Order Consequence

“Immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighborhoods residents of all races tend to `hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.”

Robert Putnam
E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century
The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture

By saying that “immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital,” what Putnam is getting at here is that ethnic harmony produces stability. This obvious truth is controversial and the articulation of it threatens careers in a time where there is a mania about denying the obvious.

The obviousness that ethnic harmony produces stability while ethnic diversity reduces social solidarity and social capital is even seen in the historic definition of the word nation, which stems from the Latin “nasci.” Webster’s 1828 dictionary gives us the definition of “nation,”

“nation as its etymology imports, originally denoted a family or race of men descended from a common progenitor, like tribe.”

Of course, this flies in the face of the modern insistence that America particularly is a “propositional nation.” The idea contained in that phrase is that America was never intended to be a nation of common blood and ancestry, but instead, America has always been a place that found its union in the idea that a governed people find their unity in a shared commitment to a shared set of ideological truisms.

That this is historical revisionism is seen by just a few quotes, In The Federalist Papers, John Jay emphasized ethnic unity and religious unity as the source of American strength, saying that,

“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs….”

A lesser-known Founding Father John Dickinson in his “Observations on the Constitution Proposed by the Federal Convention” likewise wrote,

“Where was there ever a confederacy of republics united as these states are…or, in which the people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners, and customs?”

One can find other sentiments like the above throughout US History. John Calvin Coolidge, when Vice President echoing Robert Putnam above, wrote,

“There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend…. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.”

Dr. Joel McDurmon captured some of this sentiment when he wrote in his, “Preventing the Warfare State: the biblical laws for kings,”

“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.”

All of this to say that the strength of a nation is found in ancestral roots which form a common ethnic bond. These roots provide the organic, interwoven connections among kith and kin who have lived cheek by jowl for generations in shared communities. What immigration does as it comes from nations that share no blood, religion, manners, history, and language with the White Anglo Saxon Christian origins of this nation is that it destroys the organic community roots by snapping off the shared plausibility structures, destroying the shared common way of life, and poisoning the well where the waters of common culture are drawn. Where harmony of interests existed what is interjected by way of alien immigration is an instant conflict of interest driven by placing contradictory religions, ideologies, and theologies in the same proximate space. Where shared interests and values once existed as the glue that holds cultures together now room must be made for polygamy, clitorectomy, jihads and who knows what other foreign interest and value. Where community had been the coin of the realm, now balkanization is hegemonic.

Immigration is better called “recolonization,” and when practiced with passion, “genocide.” What is lost when mindless immigration is practiced is something of greater value than stock dividends and an ever-ballooning Gross Domestic Product. What is lost is a sense of identity, generational history, and belongingness to a particular people in favor of an egalitarian cosmopolitanism that atomizes the individual with the consequence that the only possible identity comes from identifying with the State which becomes both the destroyer and the pretended protector of the original stock.

In the end, the simple truism that “proximity + diversity = war” is indeed accurate. World history testifies to that truthfulness. Whether one looks at the Muslim conquest of the Northern African Littoral, or the Norman conquest of the Anglo-Saxons, or Stalin’s population transfers, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or former Yugoslavia repeatedly it is found that pronounced diversity in one geographic area is a recipe for significant cultural conflict. The vacuous and jejune egalitarian idea that “diversity is our strength” is just stupidity on steroids and no amount of reciting that mantra is going to make it become true. Not even when one sprinkles it with Christian pietistic sparkles. Similarly, the ubiquitous and now tired habit to use the cultural Marxist magic hex word “racism” in order to sublimate the reality that immigration and ethnic diversity is a bad thing sure to create conflict has become tantamount to peeing in a stiff breeze. It may make someone feel better short term but it only results in getting all wet.

The result of all this will either be genocide if the host culture surrenders or if the host culture does not surrender the result will be a Hobbesian war of all against all which will make the Lebanese civil war look like Red Sox vs. Yankees Baseball game.

In the former Christendom (The West) we are now absorbing the largest immigration movement in World history. Much of the visible church mindlessly blather about how God is bringing the world to us in order to be converted. Hearing the visible Church leadership exult in this mass migration is like being present to hear Montezuma and the Aztec leadership rejoice with the arrival of Cortez. Those with eyes to see know that it is not the immigrant world that is being assimilated to Christianity but rather it is Christianity that is being assimilated and redefined in a non-Christian direction. When we rejoice with the entry of the third world into the West we are rejoicing at the death of Christianity and the death of that ethnic group that God has pleased, by His grace alone, to make the primary civilizational carrier of Christianity.

All of this is why Enoch Powell as the canary in the coal mine could lament 50 years ago

“Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.”

Christianity vs. Multiculturalism on Nation, and Culture

According to Dr. Bruce Waltke, in his “An Old Testament Theology,” a Nation, according to Scripture, is defined as:

1.) A common people (Genesis)
2.) Sharing a common history (Exodus)
3.) Having a common law (Deuteronomy)
4.) With a common land (Joshua)
5.) And a Kin King (David’s Kingship)

Our present-day Multicultural empire presents an agenda that is a far cry from a biblical definition of nationhood. Indeed multiculturalism is an attack on the Scripture’s definition of nation in favor of a Babel-like New World Order where we imagine there are no nations and above us only sky.

We agree with the late Sam Francis who defined multiculturalism as “a deliberate device by which the power-hungry can subvert a culture, whose moral codes deny them power, and build an alternative culture, whose different moral codes yield power for themselves.” What Sam failed to mention here is that the alternative culture that the multiculturalists desire is one that is reverse of what Biblical Christianity offers in terms of culture. In point of fact, the culture produced by multiculturalism is anti-culture culture.

However, multiculturalism not only produces an anti-culture culture but in keeping with that it produces an anti-nation nation. Consider that whereas in Classical Liberalism, a key foundational (though untrue) tenet is the separation of Church and state. Multiculturalism extends this by insisting upon the separation of nation and state. For multiculturalists, the state is not identified with a definable nation, nor is the state responsible for any people group that composes the nation. The nation and the state are thus separated.

However, oddly enough the way this works itself out is that the nation and state are not separated because the state ends up being identified with all peoples who will identify with the State’s multiculturalist agenda. All peoples who, regardless of their ethnic origin, will align with a Statist identity are the people who compose the nation whom the State represents.

The multiculturalist separation of nation and state is just a reflection of an alienist agenda. In this arrangement, it is those who refuse to identify ethnically and only will identify ideologically with the State who comprise the nation whom the state represents. Separation of nation and state is a doctrine that kills the nation in favor of the anti-nation nation.

In the end, multiculturalism provides both a culture and a nation but it does so as an anti-nation nation and as an anti-culture culture. Bono and U2 w0uld be pleased,

I believe when the Kingdom comes
Then all the colors will bleed into one
Bleed into one
But yes I’m still running.

So, we live in a time when all the pieces are moving towards a Babelistic New World Order. The vision of the enemy is a uni-culture and a uni- nation. We will have a common people, a common land, a common history, and a common law but it will be the commonality of the contents found in a blender. Resistance is futile. We will all be assimilated.

The media moguls with their Hollywood films, books, radio, and magazines are cramming down our throats the messages of a Globalism that offers an amalgamated, unisex world union as a promised utopia. Likewise, Corporations and Governments are pushing us incessantly towards this nightmare dystopian New World Order vision. Even the modern contemporary Church in the West, both ‘conservative’ and liberal, having reinterpreted Christianity through a Cultural Marxist grid, is pushing this globalist agenda.

To the contrary, we stand with the Dutch theologian Geerhardus Vos, who could write in his Biblical theology, “Now it is through maintaining the national diversities, as these express themselves in the difference of language, and are in turn upheld by this difference, that God prevents realization of the attempted (Babel) scheme… [In this] was a positive intent that concerned the natural life of humanity. Under the providence of God, each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.”

FDR’s Right to a Good Education … A Rebuttal

“We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.”

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
US President – 1933-1945

So here Roosevelt promised one of the rights of Americans, the right to a good education.

Edwin Viera points out the reality that has come about,

The reality: the biggest and cruelest hoax of all, because it affects the future more than everything else. America’s elementary and secondary schools cannot teach children to read, write, and figure, let alone to think critically—but they can fill their heads with every form of sexual perversion imaginable. Colleges and universities are the last bastions of unadulterated, unreconstructed, unapologetic Marxism, radical feminism (a variety of Marxism in which the gender struggle substitutes for the class struggle), apocalyptic environmentalism, blatant racism, Keynesianism, and every other socially destructive “ism” known to modern man. In any event, even graduates who have mastered some useful discipline cannot find jobs in their areas of specialization but are saddled with tens of thousands of dollars of debt for student loans.

In all actuality, American education since this speech (and even before it) has never been about Education. Instead what American education is about is teaching children about how to be good little cogs for the American Corporatist, and Statist system. The last thing the Amercian educational system desires to produce are students who have the capacity for critical thinking. Those kinds of students would foment counter-revolution overnight.

Instead what American education is, is cultural Marxist social engineering at its finest. It is about teaching 7-year-olds to come home and lecture Mommy and Daddy about not letting the water run lest the Mississippi river run dry. It is about teaching 9-year-olds about their white guilt against non-Caucasians. It is about teaching 4th graders about how to put condoms on cucumbers or bananas. It is about a 3rd grader learning about who Harriet Tubman was before he learns about who George Washington, Thomas Chalmers, or Christopher Columbus was. (These are all true stories of which I have first-hand knowledge.)

American educators use mottos like, “No Child Left Behind,” but what they don’t tell you is that the necessary corollary to that statement is that “No Child Gets Ahead.” The reason that no child is left behind is that those who excel are slowed down and forced to mentor the dim bulbs. What “No Child Left Behind,” did was to yoke thoroughbred racehorses to plow horses. This is socialism in education that results in everyone being equally dumb.

Now, some might appeal to the American University, but in all truth, the American University is to our secondary education what the finishing school is for turning out ladies of etiquette. With precious few exceptions the American University system, as well as the American Seminary system, churn out graduates with an underlying commitment to recoil against anything that smells of historic Christianity. Patriarchy? Revolting! 5th commandment unique love for one’s kith and kin? Racist! Disgust for sodomy? Homophobe! All of this is learned behavior as taught by the best Luciferian social engineers that money can buy.

In the end, if children can be taught at any level without seeing the connection between the God of the Bible and His Christ and what they are “learning” then they are being catechized into a false religion, as headed by a false god, with the consequence that the knowledge they are gaining is false.

Contrary FDR, there is no right to a good education and when the government takes upon itself to guarantee such a false right you can be sure that the result will be what we currently have; to wit, the enstupidification of Americans. If you have your children in public schools, from secondary schools to University and Seminary, you can be sure your children are destined to be dullards apart from a remarkable work of Grace. Do not put God to the test.

Research it for yourself,

The Cloning of the American Mind — B. K. Eakman
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America — Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt
The Leipzig Connection (Basics in Education) — Paolo Lioni
Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling — John Taylor Gatto

Mary’s Magnificat and the Liberation Theology Narrative

he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.

Luke 1:52f

The position of Mary (or Zechariah, or Simeon, or Anna, etc.) is not important because they were low on the social ladder but because they were saints of God despite their poverty and oppression. Poverty as poverty doesn’t score you any points in the Kingdom of God if one doesn’t belong to Christ and the people of God. The antithesis of the Scripture is not between rich vs. poor but between the Seed of the Serpent vs. The seed of the woman. This is underscored also in Dr. Luke’s parabolic account of the rich man (Dives) and Lazarus. Lazarus is not in Hades because he was rich and Lazarus is not in Abraham’s bosom because he was poor. Dives is an occupant of Hades because he would not listen to Moses and the prophets regarding the Messiah while Dives did listen. God does not hate the rich because they are rich and He does not love the poor because they are poor.

The emphasis in Mary’s Song is that God remembers His people who are being oppressed by the wicked mighty. The whole thrust of Luke’s songs is to demonstrate that God has not forgotten His people despite the fact it might look that way and despite the fact that they are being oppressed by wealthy wickedness in high places (Herod, Augustus Caesar etc.). The fact that the Lord Christ is born among the lowly does not prove that lowliness as lowliness is a virtue. After all, Jesus was born of the line of great King David and God includes the High Born in the nativity story by including visitation from the Kings of the East. In Scripture, God esteems those in Covenant, rich or poor, and destroys those outside of covenant, rich or poor.

The point in Luke’s Songs is not that God favors poor wicked people over righteous rich people. The point is that God has remembered Israel and He has remembered Israel despite her captivity and the low status she has sunken into. This is Redemptive History and what is being accentuated is God remembering His promise to raise up a Messiah. The character of God is what is being put on display, not the status of those whom He is remembering. What is not being accentuated is that God is social class conscious. Believe me, if the nativity story were written today, given how much the Wealthy are hated by our current Cultural Marxist clergy, God would have His Messiah born among the rich and royal to add the factor of “isn’t God amazing that He brought His Messiah among such ignoble filthy rich people.” However, what we don’t see in the nativity narrative of the cultural Marxist clergy is the amazing God who keeps His promises no matter what. No, what we see are the amazing poor people who, “naturally enough” are lifted up. Given their noble poverty they deserve it after all.

Does God bring down all the “Mighty” from their thrones? Did God bring down Job? Abraham? David? Are Zaccheus or Joseph of Arimathea to be counted as inferior saints in the New and Better covenant because they were wealthy? Is the New and Better covenant characterized now by God hating all wealthy people and loving all poor people regardless of their faith or lack of faith in Christ? Has the lack of wealth now become the new standard of inherent righteousness? Is God now for the proletariat and against the Bourgeois? Did God inspire Das Kapital?

This preoccupation of the Church in the West with Marxist categories completely flummoxes me. God loves the righteous in Christ regardless of their socio-economic status and he hates the wicked outside of Christ regardless of their socio-economic status… even if they are as poor and wretched as Dicken’s Fagin.

Why is it that we seem to think that God loves the impoverished more than the wealthy simply on the basis of their impoverishment? God loves His people in Christ. It is a certainty that the wealthy saints have a charge to keep in terms of their brethren of low estate but those of low estate are not superior to those of wealth if they are both looking to Christ and resting in him, just as the wealthy are not superior to those of poverty in terms of status before God just because they are wealthy.

God hates the unrighteous wealthy wicked because they do tend to oppress the poor but he equally hates the unrighteous impoverished wicked because they do tend to envy the rich. It strikes me that we have made the envious unrighteous wicked poor some kind of gold standard to aspire to. This is not what Scripture teaches and it is all very strange.

This then is the verdict – the light has come into the world, but men have hated the light because their deeds were evil. If you walk in the light as he is in the light, then they will hate you too, regardless of your socio-economic status. Oppression is due to the gospel and very often the estimable poor are poor due to their righteousness eliciting persecution and not because the in Christ wealthy are keeping them down.