Category: Marxism/Cultural Marxism

Part of what it means to be a high-profile person in the Christian Ministry is to be libeled and slandered. Usually one sloughs it off as just the price that a nationally recognized Minister like myself has to pay for being in the ministry. However, every once in a while matters have to be set straight for the record and that is what I intend to do in the next few posts. Life would go on as normal if I just ignored this insignificant libel. In the grander scheme of things I have been libeled far worse and by worthier enemies but I thought, all the same, it would be good if people could see just how twisted Denominational outlets, media outlets, and hate group outlets can get things.

One thing that does disappoint me is that my little platform at Iron Ink is not going to be as far-reaching as an area Newspaper or a statewide radio station or a public broadcasting network. I will not be able to reach as many eyes and ears as the advocacy/legacy media. However, since unlike them I have the God of the Bible undertaking for me, I can live with the reach deficit.

Before getting into the rebuttal, people want to know why I put Iron Ink under maintenance mode during the season of libel and slander. The reason is simple. Given that the intent by the advocacy media was to libel and slander it made no sense to give them carte blanch to my blog history so that they could continue to wrench material out of context. It simply is the case that if you want to get out your view, you don’t invite the enemy to be your mouthpiece. Giving access to the history of Iron Ink to advocacy muckrakers would be like Alexander Solzhenitsyn asking the Soviet News Agency, TASS, to report on his grievance with the KGB and Politburo. Everyone knows Solzhenitsyn would be a fool to do such a thing and it would have been equally foolish to allow the muckrakers to access the articles of Iron Ink.

Now the very first correction I would like to make is this quote below from one Rev. R. Smith from the Christian Reformed Church. Rev. R. Smith holds some kind of position in the bowels of the denominational HQ. Rev. R. Smith offered,

McAtee’s sermon was like “any other traditional church until the prayer time came,” Smith said, and a woman in the crowd of about 20 asked for prayers for the white people living in South Africa.

“There was this supposedly false rumor that white people were being killed by Black people in South Africa, which was totally untrue,” Smith said.

Smith said McAtee “embraced” her sentiment.

Note the following,

1.) The thing that has riled me the most about all that has gone on in seeking to blacken my name is this statement by Rev. R. Smith. The reason it has riled me so is that it is perhaps the blackest lie at all.  Countless numbers of Boer farmers have been murdered by ANC terrorists and yet here Smith tells us that it all is a “false rumor,” that is “totally untrue.”

Of course, this lie serves the ends of the Marxist ANC and the cultural Marxists stateside. However, it is discredited by the truth. There is no need to take the word of a famous clergyman like myself. Instead, take the word of news reports;

https://unpo.org/article/11177?fbclid=IwAR0daizs2UVW1d4EAVPjHSdZs05XEBx7QP0Qa7Vkq6OqIooRp0hobPuzHac

And again,

https://d0dbb2cb-698c-4513-aa47-eba3a335e06f.filesusr.com/ugd/e5b74f_624b7676f2e8450c90433acc4c536604.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0rjOgTj5oDlR9RREh51k8wQavKt6NEdNzmENZasmz9NG2nmot-SdkqBrM

And again,

https://www.genocidewatch.com/south-africa

And again,

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-asks-mike-pompeo-south-africa-land-white-killing-apartheid–8

So, it is the case that Rev. R. Smith is the one who is trading in myths that are just not true. Denying the danger of the Boer farmers vis-a-vis the miscreant marauders of the ANC is, in Rev. R. Smith’s words, “just not true.”

2.) Rev. R. Smith said that “McAtee (that is me, your humble worldwide known Clergy member) embraced the sentiment of the danger of the Boer Farmers in S. Africa.

Damn straight I did, and after I read this news report chronicling Rev. R. Smith’s account we prayed once again in the long prayer last Lord’s Day for the safety of our Boer farmer friends in S. Africa. As a famous and well-known clergy member with global standing, I typically do embrace the sentiment of matters that are true.

But this is only the first expose of the repeated dissimulation that has put forth since I moved from a humble nowheresville member of the Clergy to a famous Clergyman with such worldwide status that everyone had to know about me.

“The vast majority of those of us firmly combating cultural homosexualization hold no personal animosity whatsoever toward individual homosexuals. In many cases, they are acquaintances and even friends and colleagues. We treat them with the greatest respect and dignity, as fellow humans created in God’s image.”

Andrew Sandlin
Excerpt; Facebook post

Sandlin styles himself a cultural warrior reconstructionist. He views himself as someone seeking reformation along Biblical lines but here we see the lie given to that self understanding as he seeks to treat the wound lightly. Sandlin here is being nicer than God.

A few observations,

1.) Sandlin’s niceties towards individual sodomites goes a long way towards proving that Sandlin and our larger culture has already accepted sodomy as a way of life. I challenge anyone to replace the word “homosexuals” above with the word “necrophiliacs,” or “bestialics.” Would Andrew really have necrophiliac and bestialics over for tea and crumpets? Would Andrew really share with them a beer and a brat while taking in a ball-game? Would he really own those who make love to the dead and to farm animals as friends and colleagues? If not then why does Sandlin desire to own men who bed other men as friends and colleagues? Do you see Sandlin’s gross incongruity?

2.) Treating these people as those who share with us the “Imago Dei” is not to ignore their own desire to rip off the Imago Dei by exchanging natural affections for un-natural affections. Indeed, to treat them as Sandlin suggests is to show them hatred of the greatest intensity. These people need to be told, for the sake of their own souls, to repent. If that can be done over tea and crumpets then fine but tea and crumpets without a pressing for repentance is to treat them with hatred and not as friends.

3.) In my estimation part of the problem here is that we tend to view the sodomites in the same way that Jesus viewed the “sinners and publicans.” People like Sandlin fail to recognize that “sinners and publicans” that Jesus ate with were generally characterized as understanding their sin with a concomitant humility due to that sin. The “sinners and publicans” of Jesus day understood they were social outcasts. The “sinners and publicans” of our day are seeking to make Jesus and His people the social outcasts. The 21st century “sinners and publicans,” are the 1st century Pharisees. These sodomites are proud of their sin. They do not see themselves as the 1st century sinners and publicans saw themselves. Can you imagine any of our modern “sodomite sinners and publicans” crying out “God have mercy on me a sinner?” Can you imagine any our our modern flamers washing Jesus feet with their tears and drying his feet with their tears? No… the roles have been switched so that our modern Pharisees are at the same time an in your face defiant version of the 1st century “sinners and publicans.” Our modern sodomite “sinners and publicans” have absolutely zero sense of being “burdened and heavy laden,” and have no sense of the need for and so no desire to be forgiven. As such, treating them with respect and dignity does nothing but to feed their psychosis. Sandlin is compounding the problem and not helping his sodomite colleagues and friends.

4.) Of course Sandlin is in contradiction here. Sandlin wants to insist that he is a culture warrior fighting the general problem “cultural homosexualization” while at the same time embracing the particular people who are individuals of that very “cultural homosexualization” that he says he is fighting. This is a bit like saying that one is fighting forest fires while treating individual trees that are on fire with dignity and respect.

5.) Sandlin is caught up in the “hate the sin but love the sinner” wash cycle. We find him here divorcing the action of the actor from the actor themselves. This abstraction of the sin from the sinner has been taken way too far. Given the way we use this trope today one would expect God someday to throw only sin into hell while the sinner goes to heaven. The act of sin and the actor of that sin cannot be divorced from one another. We cannot find the sin disgusting and worthy of capital punishment and at the same time hold those involved in the sin to be friends and colleagues. Can we not see the incongruity.

Now, let’s be clear here. Should any sinner repent they should be seen as being part of the family of God but one simply cannot fight the “homosexualization of the culture” while at the same time feting individual sodomites as “friends and colleagues.”

In the end the question should be asked of Andrew … “Why do you own no personal animosity whatsoever toward individual homosexuals? After all, these are people who are in defiance of God and His commands and His order. These are people who are seeking to destroy your children, grandchildren and your neighbor’s children. These are people who would turn the whole world into a sodomite pride parade and a Queer library reading hour. Mr. Sandlin, do you think that somehow you get points because you don’t loathe them personally?”

Now, I quite get being as civil as is necessary in a given situation but having no personal animus? What’s wrong with you people? Such a lack of personal animus reveals that you are infected with the same kind of sickness as the sodomite in question.

In Classical Marxism the enemy is the Bourgeoisie because owning the means of production they are the oppressor class to the oppressed proletariat. As such the workers of the world must unite to throw off the economically forged chains of the bourgeoisie. Said action, if successful, brings in Utopia where all are economically equal.

In Gramscian Marxism (Cultural Marxism) the enemy is not only the bourgeoisie but is also inclusive of those who are cultural creators or gatekeepers as together they own not only the means of production but also they have the hegemonic power to create and sustain the narrative that keeps the oppressed, oppressed. In Gramscian Marxism the proletariat is comprised of all those who, not only are deprived the means of production, but also of all those who are in rebellion to the narrative that the oppressors use to oppress them in their defiance. We might style this new proletariat as “the grievance class.” These are those who have comprised the counter-cultural flotsam and jetsam who have lived in defiance of the culture created by the largely (though not exhaustively) Christian, White, Patriarchal, and morally traditional, cultural creators and gatekeepers.

Classical Marxism and Gramscian Marxism both attacked the foundation of Christianity as the cornerstone problem they believed they needed to rid themselves of. Classical Marxism focused on economic Christianity as its enemy. Gramscian Marxism’s assault was and is much broader, much more inclusive compared to the much narrower proletariat in Classical Marxism, and much more comprehensive in terms of all it stands opposed.

This give explanatory power then to who comprises the new proletariat. The new proletariat is comprised of minorities who have been convinced that the white man, uniquely, oppressed them in their origins, the pervert who has been convinced that sexuality is not a matter of the structure of the Cosmos, the female who has been convinced likewise that gender is not a matter of the structure of the Cosmos, together with the remaining Classical Marxist economic proletariat. Throw in the guilt ridden white man and woman conditioned by the cultural zeitgeist, Academia which seems to believe that there is forgiveness to be found for a largely misinterpreted past in fanning the flames of envy, the contemporary church which is reinterpreting Christianity in light of Gramscian Marxism, and now Corporate America which sees dollar weight shifting in favor of the triumph of Gramscian Marxism and one discovers that the new proletariat is both the voting base of the Democratic party and the roll call for the modern clergy