Category: Marxism/Cultural Marxism

The New Normal …. The New Abnormal

“Wouldn’t it it be great to just be normal, to blend into society?” She wonders aloud. “Put it this way — I’m the new normal.”

Brutlyn Jenner

A member of the perverted 0.4 % of the population which is transgender is telling us that he is the “new normal.” The new normal? How can 0.4% of the population be the new normal? Even if you add the 1.8% of the population that is sodomite or lesbian and the 0.7% who self identify as bi-sexual one is still left with less than 3% of the population insisting that they are the “new normal.” How can 2.9% of the population end up with enough leverage to tell the other 97.1% that they are the “new normal”?

The answer to that is found in the reality that the percentage of those who are driving this agenda are merely using the sexually ill as a conduit to promulgate their anti-Christian agenda. The LGBTQ crowd is merely a weapon being used by the Cultural Marxists in order to over throw the last remaining residual desiderata of Christianity as a social order force. As such, the muscle for the advance of normalcy of the LGBTQ crowd, numerically minuscule as they are, is lodged not in their numbers but in the elite gatekeeper crowd who desire the complete extinguishing of the objective transcendent standards which Christianity brings. However, in the end we do not really give up on objective transcendent standards but rather we merely change out one set of objective transcendent standards for a different set of objective standards. The Marquis de Sade was going after something like this when he posited that the notion of right and wrong was a ignis fatuus. Modern made, entrenched in his Sadeian existence, reasons that the very fact he has a desire is a sign that that said desire exists in nature. Now, the fact that the desire exists means that nature wills the desire and as such it would be wrong (sin) not to act on a desire which nature has implanted within modern man. You pick your god, whether of the supernatural extra mundane variety or of the prometheus ubermensch variety, you dance to His or its tune.

What I really wanted to get to in this post is to tease out a implication in Brutlyn’s statement. This is a  point I have been hammering for a very long time. When Brutlyn insists “I am the new normal,” by necessity he is tacitly affirming that people not like herm are now the new “abnormal.” If Brutlyn is the new normal, then everyone not like Brutlyn or who understand the perversion in Brutlyn’s behavior are now the new “abnormal.” This underscores, in a distinct way, the point I’ve insisted upon repeatedly and that is once the pervert is allowed out of the closet this requires the Biblical Christian to be stuffed in the closet in order to replace the pervert. Brutlyn is now the new normal and now people who share Biblical convictions are the new “abnormal” and as the new “abnormal” Christians are at the same time the new perverts.

This “new normalcy” that Brutlyn speaks of is represented as a legislative bill that just passed the New York state legislature which makes discrimination against transsexuals a crime. The results of this “new normalcy” will be the public stopping of the mouths of Christians in the work place. Transexuals out of the closet. Christians into the closet.

Knowing folks in New York, I know Christians already have it bad when they have to turn down invitations at the office for donating to buy surprise gifts to congratulate sodomites on being married and having successful adoptions. (I know personally friends who have had to stay away from signing congratulations cards and showing up at surprise parties. Their absence at the parties are loudly missed as well as their lack of signature on any card).

With the passage of this legislation in New York, the next abomination will be congratulation parties for the successful transitioning of transsexuals in addition to transsexuals being allowed to use diverse restrooms.

Lastly this bill will apply to all Christian establishments with over 10 employees and woe to the Christian who owns a restaurant.

I hope all y’all are ready for the “new normal.”

One See’s the Strangest Things on the way to Vanity Fair

 So, we have Vanity Fair seeking to create the impression that Transgenderism (TranJennerism?) is normative. By putting “Brutlyn” Jenner on their cover they are, not so subtly, communicating that being Transgender is as normal as your average bombshell babe gracing the cover of your average run of the mill New York sleaze rag.
Of course the transmogrification of Jenner, former All American Stud and Athlete, into “Brutlyn,” the svelte and hubba hubba cover girl communicates that there is not that much distance between Bronco Nagurski and Marilyn Monroe. All of us, really are the same.And yet, in order to pull this off transmogrification off they have to wrap the 1976 Olympic Decathlon gold medal winner in Christian Euro-centric notions of beauty and femininity that have been with us for a very long time. So, they are desperately trying to change the social order but in order to pervert the social order they have to appeal to standards of the social order in order to pervert it. This is a classic example of Van Til’s “sitting on God’s lap in order to slap Him in the face.”One could easily make the case that the photo-shop, make-up, and lighting, creators of “Brutlyn Jenner” are practitioners of racism, trans-phobia and worst of all are guilty of Euro-centric biases. This is seen by their casting “Brutlyn” with a traditional white feminine mien along with the notion of European beauty. How dare they subtly suggest the WASP standard of beauty is the standard of beauty. 

What’s even worse, is the white that “she” is regaled in, on the cover of Vanity Fair.  This demonstrates “Vanity Fair’s” racism perhaps as well as any other component of the cover photo. In the European mind the color “white” is associated with purity and virtue and here is “Vanity Fair” having the cheek to reinforce that shibboleth by clothing “Brutlyn” all in white.

And what of the long hair of Brutlyn? This exudes patriarchy since women have, for centuries, been told by the misogynist Bible that “Long hair is a woman’s glory.” And “Vanity Fair” is supporting all this Christian Euro-centric hatred and misogyny that the West has been burdened with for centuries by placing that vile hateful picture of a shapely Euro-centric “Brutlyn” dressed in white on their cover complete with long flowing hair and feminine come hither smile.

What should we expect next from “Vanity Fair?”  A photo shoot with “Brutlyn” as a traditional stay at home wife and mother baking cookies for the neighborhood children?

Please do not mistake me here. There is no excuses for the perversion here. There is the point that even when the Cultural despisers go pervert they unconsciously still support Western notions of beauty and femininity. The irony is found in the fact that they cannot destroy Western culture without appealing to Western culture.

Some might insist that “Brutlyn” could have been black or mestizo. I don’t think so. Only in using a European is the first step arrived at in making debauchery palatable to the masses. If you can make Christian Europeans debase themselves, then everyone else will follow. That’s been the modus operandi of the 20th and 21st centuries. Doubtless on subsequent covers you will be sure to see an oriental.

The West is dead and continues to integrate downward into the void but the really funny thing is — the thing that should be screaming at all right thinking people — is that the Christian West, in order to destroy itself and strip itself of every smidgen of Christian residue, must appeal to residual Christian and Western standards in order to do so.



The Fusion of Gnosticism and Cultural Marxism in Reformed Alienism

“Seriously though, this embrace of opposite ideologies is welding a religious Dualism among the Alienists. And that irreconcilable Dualism demands an immediate and absolute Irrationalism, the end of which is Solipsism. These folks are on the road to oblivion.”

Dan Brannan

The amazing things about these Reformed Alienist folks is that while they are Gnostic (all real reality is spiritual reality) in their appeal that spiritual truths negate corporeal truths they end up supporting cultural Marxist (all reality is material reality) positions in terms of their support of the idea that there is no such thing as races but only the human race. The Reformed Alienist position that racial or ethnic distinctions don’t exist or aren’t important once someone becomes a Christian puts them in the Gnostic place of insisting that spiritual reality is all reality and yet, as just noted, this leads them to the same place of the Cultural Marxists who are  forever championing the indiscriminate Brotherhood of all men.  Ironically the Reformed Alienists have joined in a choir with both the Gnostics, and Cultural Marxists and are singing together,

“I believe in the Kingdom Come
When all the colors will bleed into one
Bleed into one.
But yes, I’m still running…. 

But I still haven’t found
What I’m looking for.
But I still haven’t found
What I’m looking for.”

So with the Reformed Alienists you have the (hopefully) unintended collision and combination of Gnosticism and Cultural Marxism where in one movement you have existing two polar opposite worldviews.  Seriously, the only difference I find between the Reformed Alienist worldview and the worldview of the Gnostic or Cultural Marxist is that for the Reformed Alienist the “colors all bleeding into one” will be Christian Utopia  while for the Gnostics and Cultural Marxists the “colors bleeding into one” are humanist postmillennial colors. When trying to reason with these people one quickly senses that one is counseling someone who is bi-polar. When interacting with these Reformed Alienists one wonders wh0 will respond, Mr. Gnostic or Mr. Cultural Marxist or both at the same time?

What we need to understand, in order to attempt to comprehend this phenomena, is that the pure spirituality of Gnosticism and the pure ‘matter,’ of materialism, are correlatives of each other. If all is spirit then matter must be interpreted as spirit and if all is matter then even spirit must be interpreted as matter. Since both the spiritual and the material are necessary for proper distinguishing in God’s reality, the Gnostic and the materialist refute each other, yet they must steal from each other to get their faulty worldview off the ground.  They both can point out that the other needs what he has to make his opponent’s view reasonable; and they each must surreptitiously make use of the other one’s principle in some way in order to make each of their own views have some appearance of being reasonable.  As such even though materialism and Gnosticism are philosophically opposite it really is not surprising to find both of them end up being part of the Reformed Alienist worldview, as contradictory as that seems,  since both Gnosticism and materialism each end up advocating, intentionally or unintentionally, knowingly or unknowingly, that all reality is monist.

Since both unity and diversity are necessary for knowledge, the rationalist and the irrationalist refute each other, and they must steal from each other.  They both can point out that the other needs what he has to make his opponent’s view reasonable; and they each must surreptitiously make use of the other one’s principle in some way in order to make each of their own views have some appearance of being reasonable.

With the Reformed Alienist we are right back to Van Til’s rational and irrational wash-women who are forever taking in each other’s laundry, only in this case it is the Gnostic irrationalist and the Cultural Marxist irrationalist who are taking in each other’s laundry and they each have the name of “Reformed Alienist.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Justifying Sodomite Marriage … McAtee Analyzing Ginsbur

“[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Here we find this the Luciferian Ginsburg (LG), using a mere five sentences to explain, in oral arguments yesterday, her opinion, as to exactly why marriage was long understood to be incompatible with homosexuality.

We should note here,

1.) If we accept her tacit presuppositions the Luciferian Ginsburg (LG) is right. If one posits an egalitarian (vis-a- vis Patriarchal) foundation for Marriage then sodomite “marriage” makes perfect sense. This reminds us that the contest here must be waged at the presuppositional level. This debate is not primarily about sodomite “marriage.” This debate is about what worldview sodomite “marriage” can exist in in order to be seen as rational.

2.) In order to tease #1 above out it is necessary to observe that LG explicitly begins with the premise that marriage is a man made institution dictated by social and political circumstances. She argues that marriage once operated one way but men changed the way it operated and now, because this man controlled institution changed to become egalitarian, it can now change to become non gender specific.

Of course the problem here is that Christians do not agree that marriage is a man made institution. Marriage, because it is God ordained and defined, cannot be changed in its definition, like a wax nose, in order to satisfy the most current wandering lust of modern Luciferians. Unless we challenge sodomite “marriage” thinking at the presuppositional level of “who gets to define ‘marriage’ sodomite “marriage” will become legal.

3.) #1 and #2 together remind us that this decision is all about religion in the public square. It reminds us that it is not possible to separate Church and State. If SCOTUS requires the legality of sodomite “marriage” in all 50 states it will be due to the religious presupposition that man, playing God, can redefine words and create fiat meaning at the bang of a gavel. Such a decision would provide clear linkage proving that Church and State are never segregated. Conversely, if SCOTUS rules that the meaning of marriage is static and unchangeable that also will be due to some a-priori, (even if left un-articulated in the decision) religious presupposition.

4.) Note how clever LG is when she uses the language of “a millennium ago.”   She is trying to make it sound as if 1000 years ago marriage was one way but now, being so much smarter, marriage is another way for us moderns. However, the fact of the matter is that all this change has happened not over the course of a millennium ago but over the course of just a few decades. Indeed, when LG was married in 1956 the marriage laws then were far closer to a millennium ago then to what she envisions marriage transforming into.

5.) LG uses the term “egalitarian”, but imports her leftist meaning into it. She was talking about old “coverture” laws that provided no property rights to women. She thinks the very nature of man/woman is one of *improper* subordination. We can argue about whether the change ditching coverture law was good/bad/indifferent, but that change occurred in the context of man/woman as fundamental foundation of the relationship. What we are dealing with today is altogether different. It is one thing to tinker around the fringes of marriage amending coverture laws. It is quite another to allow the fringe element of society to redefine marriage.

6.) Note LG rightly defines what marriage once was which she is seeking to change. She is entirely accurate when she describe that marriage used to be defined as a dominant-subordinate relationship between the husband and wife. This is exactly how God’s word describes marriage (Eph. 5). However has the words “dominant” and “subordinate” have been so vilified even Christians cringe when they think of marriage like God defines it.

7.) Allow me to say again that as long as the Left’s presuppositions hold sway their conclusion (“sodomite marriage”) will be impossible to stop. LG’s beginning point (Man as the definer of what marriage is and means) her argumentation used to prove that beginning point, and her ending point arrived at (sodomites should be allowed to “marry,”) is all bound up together. 

Watching The Cultural Gatekeepers Go Mad

The defenders of homosexual marriage continue to equate it with interracial marriage.

Here is a blurb from an exchange between Justice Scalia and Ted Olson:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I’m curious, when—when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When — when — when did the law become this?

MR. OLSON: When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools.

JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s an easy question, I think, for that one. At — at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That’s absolutely true. But don’t give me a question to my question. When do you think it became unconstitutional? Has it always been unconstitutional? . . .

MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that -­

JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?

MR. OLSON: There’s no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.

1.) Inasmuch as Scalia agrees concerning the evolution of interracial marriage from illegality to legality I’m not sure how Scalia can disagree that social evolution continues so as to include sodomite marriage. I mean, if the 14th amendment made a illegality a legality why can it not be determined that the 14th amendment also allows for the next step forward in the evolutionary cycle?

2.) Note that Olson’s invoking of the “evolutionary cycle” as a grounds for ever changing law reminds us that, it is the case now in the West, that law has no stable meaning. Law is no longer a transcendent category that is to be only recognized but never invented. This admission by Olson is a explicit embrace of the idea that we are ruled by men and not by laws.

3.) In the area of Law men like Christopher Columbus Langdell, Roscoe Pound, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Benjamin Cardozo moved the discipline of law away from its Biblical moorings evinced in Puritan Commonwealth documents like “Abstract of the Laws of New England,” towards standards that evinced a humanistic, evolutionary, naturalistic and Statist paradigm. In the late 1800’s Langdell did yeoman’s work moving law training away from a century of Lawyers in America concentrating on what the Constitution said to Darwinian inspired notions of where the law was perceived to be moving (case law training). By Langdell’s work the Constitution came to be seen to be evolving under the guidance of an imperial judiciary.

4.) With the law ever moving in a “evolutionary cycle” this means that yesterday’s criminals are tomorrow’s innovators in the law. In this worldview criminals are only those who are now where the rest of society will one day be.  Criminals are the moral and legal harbingers of the next evolutionary cycle in the law.

In another exchange we hear Justice Roberts,

“Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

To which we would answer,

Your Honor, it is only sexual discrimination if you think the definition of Marriage as between one man and one woman is itself discriminatory.  But, I would add, your Honor, that should we conclude that Marriage is discriminatory because it allows only for one man and one woman, we have needs likewise conclude that the fact that only a man can impregnate a woman is discriminatory against women and the fact that only women can conceive children is discriminatory against men.