Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 54

Diversity Will Balkanize Us … Regardless of Polytheistic Sentimentalistic Coke Commercials

The NFL rejected this add and the advertising money that accompanied it.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/11/27/nfl-bans-super-bowl-gun-commercial/

This commercial above promotes what might be called conservative values, those of self defense and an esteeming of the 2nd amendment. This was a “Daniel Defense” ad focusing on personal protection and fundamental rights. It was originally created by Daniel Defense to run on any TV Network at any time. The rejected Commercial did not mention firearms, ammunition or weaponry.

But the NFL had no problem running this piece of propaganda as a add. In a quick rotating series of sentimental feel good images Coke sells, not so much its carbonated sugar water, but rather a vision of multicultural America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e13j2CDFyM

Accompanying the images is the first verse of “America the Beautiful” in several different languages.

First a word about the images. The images start out classic Americana Western cowboy and much of the commercial (about 17 seconds) gives us images of pastoral settings.

The commercial was 60 seconds long. In the longest segment of the commercial (almost 5 seconds) we are treated to a inter-racial sodomite “couple” rollerskating with their “daughter,” giving us the impression of one big well adjusted American “family.” This was the first Super Bowl ad to feature a gay “family,” according to GLAAD, a lesbian gay, bisexual and transgender media advocacy organization. Of course, as that is interspersed with all the classic Americana and pastoral settings, what is being communicated is that sodomy is just as American and just as pastoral as any other of the family images shown. Coke is selling sodomy.

Now a word about the song. The lyrics of the first verse that are sung in the commercial in different languages are below,

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

The different languages in the song are underscored by the different ethnicities in the commercial. The idea clearly is presented is that America is an idea — a propositional nation — and not a nation in the classic sense of a shared lineage, heritage, and culture. One can be Jewish, Muslim, Sodomite, Hispanic, or Polynesian and still be “American.”

But the problem with that is when we get to the words in “America the Beautiful.” that say, “God shed His grace on thee.”

First, we might ask, “Which God shed his grace on America?” Was it Allah? Was it the pagan god of Judaism? Was it the god of the Sodomites? Just which God are we praising here for shedding his grace?

Second, we would observe that only in a Christian worldview does “God shedding His Grace” make any sense. No other religion has a god who sheds grace (unmerited favor).

Third, who is the “Thee” upon whom God has shed his grace? Is the “thee” merely a geographic entity where a bunch of different peoples, religions, and moralities clash? Or is the “thee” those whom the Founders wrote of when they wrote,

” … and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …”

Again, what Coke is selling is the multicultural vision of America as the first International Nation State — a State without borders, definition, creed, ethnicity or unifying cult, culture, morality, language or custom. Coke is selling Marx’s vision of America as the first International State without distinctions and where every value of every people is equally valued. (Except the values of those who don’t value, every value as having equal value.)

One wonders if Coke would air a similar ad in Israel or is it just America and all of Europe that is supposed to be “blessed” by being a polyglot, multi-faith, multi-morality and multi-ethnic nation?

Of course the result of all this glorious “Diversity” is and will continue to be the Balkanization of America. You can not throw together people with contradictory worldviews into one social order and not expect severe social unrest.

If I can avoid it, I’ll never drink another Coke in my life.

Sanitation Prayer For Plantation Mayor

In light of this,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtE7MvsH7Zw

Wherein this is part of what is publicly prayed,

“Free us from the shackles of partisan politics, political correctness and personal egos and agendas. Let the plantation called New York City be the city of God, a city set upon the hill, a light shining in darkness.”

The prevailing view of this prayer is that slavery is still a condition that exists in New York city. Words like “Plantation,” “Reconstruction Era,” “Auction Block,” “Shackles,” “Emancipation Proclamation,” “Bondage,” “Master,” “Civil Wars,” and “Chain,” characterize the Prayer. Clearly the minister praying has a kind of Liberation Theology and believes that oppression is widespread.

I thought I would offer some counter views by two other Black men and one white man.

http://manningjohnson.org/speech/transcript.html

This one is excellent and was Manning Johnson’s final speech before his death. Given what Manning says here it is not a wonder that he has been dropped down the memory hole. Manning Johnson was a black man who was a Communist at one point in his life but who eventually awakened to the fact that the Communists were only interested in using the black man and that the end result would be even more misery for his people.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362030/early-skirmishes-race-war-thomas-sowell // This one by T. Sowell

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/fred-reed/the-pursuit-of-forced-amity/ // This one by Fred Reed

The Modern Magnificat

“And Mary said,

“My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
52 he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.”

Luke 1:46-53

Mary’s song emphasizes how God keeps His promises to His people and by way of implication it emphasizes the humiliation of the Lord Christ who was born in such a lowly situation. However, the left in the Church instead emphasizes Marxist themes. In a recent Tim Keller facebook status we see this. Tim wrote,

“Jesus wasn’t born among heads of state but among those who were at the bottom of the social ladder.”

Tim has flirted with this soft Marxism before. In his book “Generous Justice” he basically advocates a soft Marxist “social justice” approach and re-labels it as “Generous.”

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 in the Scripture is not between Rich vs. Poor but between the Seed of the Serpent vs. The seed of the woman.

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 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 that 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 story were written today, given how much the Wealthy are hated by the Communist 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, we don’t see in the nativity narrative of the 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 less saints in the New and Better covenant because they were wealthy? Is the New and Better covenant characterized now by God hating all rich and loving all poor regardless of their faith or lack of faith in Christ? Has lack of wealth 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 Dicken’s Artful Dodger.

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. 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. It is all very strange.

Colorado Obama-care Advertisements — Wickedness on Parade

A new add that the Obama administration is running in order to encourage young adults to sign up for Obama-care.

http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5538569

A few points of analysis,

1.)A tyrannical government is always interested in involving the citizenry in true moral guilt for a citizenry that is burdened by its own true moral guilt will never be free to enter into righteous protest and if necessary rebellion against Governmental anti-Christ rebellion and against the Tyrant State for its own guilty actions against God and against the citizenry. People who have their own true moral guilt are helpless to hold accountable a State with a long record of its own true moral guilt. That is one reason why this poster makes sense. An immoral people will never overturn an immoral Government. As such it is in the interest of immoral governments to involve the citizenry in immorality.

2.) Notice that the female in the Obama poster is the aggressor and the pursuer. It is wicked enough to live in a culture where men do not honor women enough to not practice their natural male aggression to sexually triumph over women but it is doubly wicked when the State is contributing to the turning of the unwed female into the aggressor in pursuit of giving up her virtue with every “Nate hot to trot” they meet. Clearly Obama desires to turn our daughters into whores.

3.) It is not unimportant that the couple in the poster are white. In order for a Cultural Marxist social order to finally exercise total cultural hegemony more white people have to be compromised into that mindset. White people still are the majority representation in this country (for now) and everything possible must be done in order to strip them away from their Biblical Christian heritage. As such, the poster is pointed to young white people in order to turn them into Cultural Marxist voters thus assuring the death of Christianity in this country.

4.) Note the connection between enrolling in Obama-care and getting to have sex without consequences. The young lady has Obama care and so can get free birth control pills so she can go on the hunt for unsuspecting male prey. This is the continued work of separating sex from both marriage and children. Of course that in turn continues the divorce culture as the ability for young people who have slept find it difficult to create a marital bond that can last. Having been sexually bonded and unbonded so many times with so many different mates when marriage is finally entered into it can easily be dissolved since sexual coupling and decoupling has been repeatedly practiced prior to entering into marriage.

5.) Note the fine print at the bottom. The add insists that condoms protect from STD’s but that is a well documented lie. The microbes that carry STD’s are not always stopped by condoms. A person using condoms can still contract STD’s. Using condoms to stop STD is like playing Russian Roulette. Every once in a while your going to pull the trigger with a bullet in the chamber. The small print is a HUGE lie.

Clearly the Obama administration is at war with traditional Christian America. As such all Biblical Christians should be at war with the Obama administration lest they be found negligent in championing the cause of their great High King.

Egalitarianism & The Atonement

Evangelicals, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics alike all hold to a universal atonement wherein God does not discriminate in His intent concerning the Atonement. The thinking of such denominations is that the death of Christ is the same, potentially, for everybody. We might call this doctrine soteriological egalitarianism.

Of course, in our own culture egalitarianism is the idea both that there should be equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. As such, our cultural egalitarianism is really not about equality but about sameness. In the end everyone must be the same. Discrimination is seen as inherently evil and everybody must be treated the same.

In Evangelical, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic doctrines of hypothetical universalism we find a similar type of egalitarianism. We are told by these folks that Christ died for everybody and therefore everybody has the same equality of opportunity. For these folks it is sin to say that God discriminates in terms of opportunity though it is perfectly acceptable to say that it is man who discriminates in terms of God’s offer. Some men discriminate to accept the equal opportunity and some men don’t. Man can discriminate against God but God is not allowed to discriminate in terms of man. God must provide an atonement that is egalitarian in opportunity or He is not fair.

One wonders if the egalitarianism we see in our culture didn’t first begin with this kind of nonsensical egalitarianism in the Church as the Church turned away from the doctrine of Limited Damnation. If Theology remains the queen of the Sciences one must wonder if soteriological egalitarianism became the gateway through which egalitarianism in economics, politics, gender relations, and sociology came to the fore.

Obviously, in the Atonement God does discriminate. For reasons, known only to Him, God discriminated between the elect and the reprobate. Jacob God loved, but Esau God hated. God did not and does not treat all people the same.

And neither should we. Not all people are equally qualified for different tasks and there is nothing evil in discriminating against people who do not have giftedness or talents in certain areas.

There is nothing unbiblical in insisting that egalitarianism is wrong while discrimination for biblical reasons is right. God discriminated in the intent of the atonement and that discrimination was righteous. When we discriminate based on righteous reasons we are being God like in our actions.

So, insisting that Christ’s death applies equally to everyone may very well be the root of all other egalitarianisms that we are now plagued with. The atonement of Christ is not egalitarian. Everyone is not equal in Christ death. God discriminated for reasons known only to Himself, to have Christ die only for the Elect.

Can it be that Hypothetical Universalism is the mother load from where all other egalitarianism stems? Can it be that it is not a form of theological Marxism to make everyone equal and the same in the intent of the Atonement?

Ideas have consequences and I’m wondering if the teaching of evangelicals in terms of their soteriological egalitarianism wherein God is not allowed to discriminate is the mother spring from which our current egalitarianism water flows. Theology gets into everything. If we are going to be egalitarian in our doctrine of the atonement you can look for that egalitarianism to show in our social order.

Ideas have consequences.