Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 57

What Can Educators do to End White Supremacy in the Classroom?

Interesting article Titled,

What Can Educators do to End White Supremacy in the Classroom?

You can find it here,

http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2014/04/White-Privilege-Conf-Teacher/

Here are some choice quotes from one Kim Radersma who has written one article on a different subject for at least one denominational magazine. Radersma was quoted as saying,

“Teaching is a political act, and you can’t choose to be neutral. You are either a pawn used to perpetuate a system of oppression or you are fighting against it,” Radersma said during the session. “And if you think you are neutral, you are a pawn.”

She said educators need to challenge the system, otherwise they are giving in to white supremacy. Radersma also argued the first step is realizing that all white people are carrying the signs of oppression.

“Being a white person who does anti-racist work is like being an alcoholic. I will never be recovered by my alcoholism, to use the metaphor,” Radersma said. “I have to everyday wake up and acknowledge that I am so deeply imbedded with racist thoughts and notions and actions in my body that I have to choose everyday to do anti-racist work and think in an anti-racist way.”

She argued that until white people admit they have a problem, they will not be able to fight against white privilege.

“We’ve been raised to be good. ‘I’m a good white person,’ and yet to realize I carry within me these dark, horrible thoughts and perceptions is hard to admit. And yet like the alcoholic, what’s the first step? Admitting you have a problem,” she told the session attendees.

Multiple educators attended the breakout session of about 50 people and seemed very interested in how to bring the ideals of social justice and white privilege into the classroom. One attendee, a teacher and the diversity director at his school, spoke about the activities he is implementing and said it is important for teachers and administrators to discuss social justice with their students. Radersma echoed his sentiment.

“If you don’t want to work for equity, get the fuck out of education,” Radersma said. “If you are not serious about being an agent of change that helps stifle the oppressive systems, go find another job. Because you are a political figure.”

Elsewhere the always demur Ms. Radersma offered,

“Who’s at fault? My white body is at fault. My racial identity, as a white person who believes that I am somehow better or more deserving, is the problem. The white supremacy, the structure is the problem.”

Another topic of discussion was how white people’s actions, like donating to charity or helping a family in need, are inherently racist. Here the gentle and soft-spoken Radersma offered,

“It’s that savior mentality, like ‘save them, because they are not like us,’ and that normalization of whiteness. Whiteness is best and those poor others aren’t as good as us,” she said. “So, we need to think of them and give them our sympathy and our charity and our generosity, which is so demeaning to the people on the receiving end. It’s so demoralizing and disempowering to be receiving it.”

1.) On the first quote I would prefer to say that Teaching is a Theological act though certainly all teaching has political implications. She really is on the right track here. There is no neutrality in teaching.

2.) On Radersma comment that “all White people are carrying the signs of oppression,” as combined with how being White is like being alcoholic is perfect. If white people don’t admit they have a problem as oppressor then it proves they have a problem. Meanwhile, if white people do admit they have a problem as oppressor it proves they have a problem. How convenient.

3.) I love it when a lady teacher swears. It is so feminine.

4.) Not only is being white itself racist but being white and helping people is even more racist. So, if you don’t help people, I’m pretty sure that is racist. However, if you do help people, that proves you’re racist also.

5.) Obviously Ms. Radersma has fallen prey to the self hatred and false guilt mongering that is so typical among whites who have fallen victim to Cultural Marxism.

6.) Keep in mind that 50 teachers attended Ms. Radersma session. How many of them will drink the kool-aid and take this poison back to their classrooms?

Apologetics Into The Void

What practical dilemmas do you encounter related to homosexuality or same-sex marriage? (for example, situations at church, in your family, at work, or at school).

The chief practical dilemma I face is having to choose between compromising on the truth or speaking the truth and living with the consequences. Of course, it would be easier to compromise and be toasted and haled by all and that is what the part of me wants which would think only of self. So, I frequently get in situations at Church, family, or in meetings where it is increasingly being assumed that sodomy is just another life-style choice, and I am faced with the dilemma of not speaking and so being accepted as opposed to speaking out and living with the contempt of the zeitgeist. In St. Paul’s words the dilemma is whether to be conformed to the world or to be transformed by the renewing of my mind.

So, to put it another way I have the dilemma of submitting to the clear teaching of Scripture or choosing to be a coward instead so I can be accepted by elite opinion makers.

The survey had this to say about language.

A Note on Language:

A variety of terms are currently used to describe sexual orientation and gender identity. Many of these terms carry different overtones for different people, making it hard to find any neutral yet respectful language. In this survey we will use the following terms, which are intended to be understood in a neutral way, as outlined below:

gay – attracted to the same sex, usually referring to males, though it may also be an umbrella term for same-sex attracted people. Here the word is intended to refer to orientation only; it does not say anything about a person’s sexual behavior
lesbian – attracted to the same sex, referring to females
bisexual – attracted to both male and female persons
same-sex attracted – attracted to the same sex
homosexual – attracted to the same sex
straight/heterosexual – attracted to the opposite sex
sexual minority – persons who do not identify as heterosexual*
queer – a formerly derogatory term that has been reclaimed as a a self-affirming umbrella term by sexual and gender minority persons

* Though the term sexual minority may include aspects of gender identity, this survey is mainly focused on matters relating to sexual orientation

1.) When Jesus called out the Pharisees as a brood of vipers and other strong language was he using sinful language that was not neutral or respectful? I have no problem with seeking to be sensitive to people’s feelings unless they are seeking to sell themselves as poor victims who’s abnormal behavior needs to be accepted by all in Society.

2.) There is no such thing as neutral language. One way the sodomite community has advanced its agenda is by stealing the language. “Sodomy,” as a word was seen as a descriptor that could never lead to the behavior being accepted was changed to “homosexual” and then to “gay,” and with each change the goal was to make the behavior seem more benign in keeping with the word used. Those in the Queer community understood that language is never neutral and so they advanced new words that served their cause of getting sodomy accepted.

3.) The idea of finding neutral words of course presupposes that the Queer issue is an open question as to its moral probity. This stance of neutrality already advances an agenda to remove the current language that explicitly speaks of it as wrong in its behavioral expression.

4.) If this survey is mainly focused on matters relating to sexual orientation then why does so much of it deal with attending Queer commitment or “wedding” ceremonies? Usually, commitment and ritual ceremonies called weddings implies consummation and so behavior and not merely orientation.

Please answer the following questions

Yes No

Do you personally know anyone in your family or friend circle who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual?

Please answer the following questions Do you personally know anyone in your family or friend circle who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual?

Do you personally know anyone in your family or friend circle who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual?

Do you have regular interactions with sexual minority persons in your workplace or non-Church community?

Have you ever been invited to a same-sex commitment ceremony or wedding?

Have you ever been invited to a same-sex commitment ceremony or wedding?

Have you ever attended a same-sex commitment ceremony or wedding?

If invited, would you attend a same-sex commitment ceremony or wedding (assuming you were able to go)?

With respect to same-sex commitment/marriage ceremonies, it is my opinion that:

Church members/attenders should be free to attend them
Church elders and deacons should be free to attend them
Pastors should be free to attend them
Pastors should be free to officiate at them

It is possible, though I can’t know for sure, that someone might read the result of this type of survey and conclude that the people who don’t know Queers aren’t really qualified to have opinions on the whole issue. Also, the survey could be easily used to show that people who do know Queers are much more accepting of Queer behavior and that the answer to rejecting Queer behavior is just getting to know a few more Queers.

Asking the questions about attending Ceremonies, once again, presupposes that the behavior of people is more important then the text of Scripture. Does it really matter how many respondents attended Ceremonies if the Scripture speak clearly against Queer Nation? Do we now come to truth by counting noses?

If we are going to have a conversation on sodomy and Queer marriage why doesn’t someone put forth the pro Queer argument from Scripture? How and where does Scripture teach God’s positive approval on Queer Nation? Where does Scripture give positive approbation to Queer marriage? Perhaps someone can show how the Church has been wrong for 2000 years in its interpretation of sodomy as being sin?

And just for the sake of clarity, I do understand there is a distinction between orientation and behavior. I quite agree that the Church should work with people with besetting sins as long as there is no disposition to claim that the problem of besetting sins is solved by no longer considering besetting sins as sins.

From The Lifting Of Taboo To The Compulsory Requirement That Previous Taboos Be Embraced

The social – sexual revolution of the 60’s promised liberation but has, instead, delivered chaos. The 60’s sexual revolution that taught us, through song, that “if you can’t be with the one you love, honey love the one your with” yielded sexual chaos.

In the multitude of Rock -n- Roll songs, we were promised the liberated Life
(Which started by loving our neighbor and ended by bedding his wife)

Over the course of time sexual chaos begat family chaos as all that free sex led to mass confusion for families. Family chaos in turn begat social chaos as nobody was quite sure just what address they were supposed to be sleeping at every night. Social chaos begat economic chaos as incomes were halved as the income providing for one home was now required to support two homes thanks to divorce and support payments. Economic chaos in turn begat political chaos, and the result of all this chaos has been dysfunctional families, murdered and bereft children, and a soaring STD rate. Wasn’t the Sexual Revolution Grand?

Now that the chickens are coming home to their roost, and so the consequences are now being seen of the havoc from all these policies over the course of years, the pagan left, which gave us these policies, doesn’t want to be held uniquely responsible for these policies. So, they have gone from the policy of lifting the Taboos to the policy of making the previous Taboos now compulsorily accepted behavior by the citizenry. And so, for example, what started as lifting Taboo laws so that sodomy was approved (Lawrence vs. Texas) we have now gone to implementing laws where the Florist, the Baker, and Photograph taker are being compulsorily required to approve of heretofore deviant behavior upon pain of inflicted legal penalty. Likewise we have gone from Connecticut vs. Griswold (1965) where the pagan left Supreme court lifted the taboos of birth control to the Hobby Lobby case where we are on the cusp of of the pagan left Supreme court compulsorily requiring companies to provide birth control abortifacients upon pain of inflicted legal penalty. The attitude seems to be, “you’re going to be liberated whether you want it or not Damn’it.”

Of course one advantage of this newly required compulsory behavior is that the Left won’t be blamed for any of the abysmal policy that led to chaos but can say instead, “well, that is just the way things are. Everybody wants it.” By making the acceptance of the behavior compulsory the pagan left implicates everyone and everyone is to blame and not just uniquely the left. Isn’t it wonderful to be able to force everyone to share in your guilt?

And so we have come to a place where the new sacred canopy of paganism is one where we are all being forced to take shelter under. Anybody opting out of our new pagan sacred canopy will not be tolerated. Such people will need to go to re-education camps or psychiatry wards in order to get their mind right.

The Conservative Church’s Function In The Declining West

The majority visible “conservative” “Christian” Church in the West really serves the purpose of codifying progressive change as “Holy,” thus soothing the conscience of the member practitioners.

Think about it.

At one time the Church stood against Birth Control. Progressives pushed Birth control and mainstreamed it and the Church finally went along thus sanctifying Birth control for the membership while at the same time soothing the membership conscience in terms of practicing something that had previously been considered “sin.”

At one time the Church almost universally stood against divorce in most circumstances. Progressives pushed the boundaries of divorce even unto the legislating of “no-fault” divorce and the Church finally went along thus sanctifying divorce for the membership while at the same time soothing the membership conscience in terms of securing no-fault divorces that in previous generations would have been considered sin.

At one time the Church almost universally stood against sodomite Marriages in all circumstances. Progressives have pushed this boundary and within 10-15 years couples in sodomite marriage will be accepted as members in many, if not most, “conservative” Churches. The Church thus will sanctify, once again, the success of the Christ hating progressives and will serve as the cultural agent that soothes the conscience of the rank and file membership that the members really are servants of the Lord Christ despite their Birth control, divorces, and acceptance of, and participation in sodomite marriages.

Other examples could be enumerated but we see here that the Church still has a function in the culture. It’s function is to help the rank and file be comfortable with the direction that the Christ haters are pushing the culture. The Church convinces us that we can be comfortable and well adjusted in a culture that is insane.

To be sure, the Church often comes kicking and screaming to it new position but it realizes that if it wants to survive, pay the bills and the Pastor’s salary, and keep the bureaucracy rolling it must eventually give in the success of the cultural Marxists and make declaration that matters which were once considered sin are no longer considered sin and are even positive virtues.

Birth Control and the Advent of Boundary-less Sex

I am not someone who would teach or insist that Birth control is always wrong all the time, though admittedly someday I might be. Still, when looking into the history of the advent of Birth control one can’t help but wonder if the trajectory we are on now, with the creeping legalization in state by state of sodomite marriage, was started with the legalization of birth control.

Of course, as others have noted, what Birth Control accomplished was to divorce sex both from marriage and from procreation. This had the effect of turning sex away from the intimacy sustained in the family that sex itself created. This divorcing sex from marriage and procreation also had the effect of straining stability and fostering personal irresponsibility. Separating sex from marriage and procreation turned sex into a entertainment function and created a casualness that did not previously exist. Birth control sex turned into a entertainment function that could be participated in as a cure to boredom for singles thus opened the door to other kinds of sex that could likewise be pursued as merely entertainment and with casual aplomb. With the 20th century marketing of birth control by Margaret Sanger and others we find the inevitable beginning point of all where we’ve arrived today in our sexually chaotic world. What putatively began as control for family size is now pursued in destruction of the whole idea of Christian family. The acceptance and even popularity of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexuality and any number of other perversions might legitimately be traced back to the advent of marketed birth control.

It is interesting that following the 1930 Lambeth Conference, where the first Christian denomination (Anglicans) made allowance for the usage of Birth Control the Washington Post wrote, when viewed in hindsight, an amazingly prescient and prophetic on what the implications of Birth control would be on a societal level.

“Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report, if carried into effect, would sound the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous.”

The Washington Post, March 22, 1931

What I’ve noted above was seen even by “secular” Journalists when it was first approved.

How far our ability to connect the dots have fallen.