Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 57

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.

Thornwell on the Virginia Federal Court Overturning State Sodomite Marriage Ban

“They who join the unhallowed crusade against the institutions of the South will have reason to repent, that they have set an engine in motion which cannot be arrested until it has crushed and ground to powder the safeguards of life and property among themselves.”

Dr. James H. Thornwell, 1862

I quote this here because 154 years after Thornwall’s quote above we are still reaping the fruit of that baleful Yankee “French” Revolution as seen in the recent decision in Virginia to overturn a ban against same sex blasphemy.

The crushing and grinding to powder by the latter day abolitionists and Jacobins continues unabated.

One can hold, at one and the same time, that slavery was not a good idea and that the war of Northern aggression was a conflict where the troops of Revolutionary Chaos overthrew the last bastion of Christendom.

The safeguards of life and property that are being torn down in this Virginia decision is the life of those who pursue sodomy as a lifestyle (all statistics report that the average lifespan for these image bearers is considerably shorter that the overall average) and the property that is being crushed and ground to powder is our heritage and lineage. Those who choose this lifestyle steal the Heritage property of the trustee family that went before and of the trustee family that otherwise might have been.

Regarding that Federal Decision from Judge Arenda Wright Allen it is apparent that the intellectual capital of the ruling class has fallen a great deal since the time when Thornwell was a member of that class.

Judge Arenda Wright Allen, the Federal Judge who wrote the opinion in the Virginia case that struck down the Virginia ban on sodomite marriage, claimed the Constitution declares that, “all men are created equal,” which is, instead, the first line of the Declaration of Independence. Well, Federal Judges who make law from the bench can’t all be perfect.

Allen wrote, on the first page of her opinion, “Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal. Surely this means all of us.” Who can argue with such blinding brilliance from the Bench?

For Pete’s sake, we have people serving on the Federal Bench who can’t tell the ruddy difference between the ruddy Declaration of Independence and the ruddy Constitution. WORSE YET, her clerks, who are responsible to review Allen’s legal opinion and provide supporting material for the decision apparently LIKEWISE don’t know the difference.

Next, this bimbo apparently thought that when the Declaration of Independence said “all men are created equal,” that it originally meant ONLY men were created equal with other men. She didn’t realize that “men” here was the plural noun used in 1776 to refer to all mankind.

This asinine stupidity drunk on Malt liquor and high on crack cocaine is stupefying coming from a Federal Judge.

This is the quality of your leadership America. This is the consequence of affirmative action.

1953 Jenner Report

This piece suggests that the Federal Government currently in place is a criminal organization. It is populated by people who embrace a anti-Christ worldview. Forget in this 1953 report the language of “Soviet” and other language that points to official Communist organizations. The fact of the matter is that the FEDS have been run for a very long time by those with a worldview at warfare with Biblical Christianity. Certainly no one believes that since 1953 there has been any kind of worldview purge in the Federal Government so that we are no longer dealing with people who are beholden to one form or another of a Marxism-Corporatism worldview.

We are being ruled (Republican and Democrat alike) by those who are governing against the will of the American people and it is not going to stop until the grass roots stops it. (Which means it is unlikely going to stop since there is little will left in grass roots America.) To think that by electing just the right party in to overturn the previous shenanigans of the previous party is the thinking of a child. They control the whole political process. Thinking that voting will change the situation is like thinking that getting a second job at McDonalds will help you pay off your $250,000.00 credit card debt. It is not going to happen.

The fall of official Communism in Russia and Eastern Europe is irrelevant. You didn’t really think International Communism went away did you? You don’t really believe that organizations like the Council of Foreign Relations or the Bilderberger group or any other of these International controlling organizations went away did you? Come on people, quit drinking the Kool-aide and take the red pill.

Please tell me you don’t think any of what you find below has changed since 1953 in terms of how our Federal Government has become the resident lodge of an International Marxism-Corporatism criminal class?

On July 30, 1953, the famous Jenner Report came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee entitled: “Interlocking Subversion In Government Departments.” This was right at the time the Establishment was trying to hush up or discredit the McCarthy hearings so the Jenner Report was given an extremely cool treatment by the liberal press.

Here are the twelve conclusions of the Jenner Report which carried with them tragic implications in view of what has happened during all the years since:

“1. The Soviet international organization has carried on a successful and important penetration of the United States Government and this penetration has not been fully exposed.

“2. This penetration has extended from the lower ranks to top level policy and operating positions in our Government.

“3. The agents of this penetration have operated in accordance with a distinct design fashioned by their Soviet superiors.”

4. Members of this conspiracy helped to get each other into Government, helped each other to rise in Government and protected each other from exposure.”

5. The general pattern of this penetration was first into agencies concerned with economic recovery, then to war-making agencies, then to agencies concerned with foreign policy and postwar planning, but always moving to the focal point of national concern.”

6. In general, the Communists who infiltrated our Government worked behind the scenes– guiding research and preparing memorandum on which basic American policies were set, writing speeches for Cabinet officers, influencing congressional investigations, drafting laws, manipulating administrative reorganizations — always serving the interest of their Soviet superiors.”

7. Thousands of diplomatic, political, military, scientific, and economic secrets of the United States have been stolen by Soviet agents in our Government and other persons closely connected with the Communists.”

8. Despite the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other security agencies had reported extensive information about this Communist penetration, little was done by the executive branch to interrupt the Soviet operatives in their ascent in Government until congressional committees brought forth to public light the facts of the conspiracy.”

9. Powerful groups and individuals within the executive branch were at work obstructing and weakening the effort to eliminate Soviet agents from positions in Government.”

10. Members of this conspiracy repeatedly swore to oaths denying Communist Party membership when seeking appointments, transfers, and promotions and these falsifications have, in virtually every case, gone unpunished.”

11. The control that the American Communications Association, a Communist-directed union, maintains over communication lines vital to the national defense poses a threat to the security of this country.”

12. Policies and programs laid down by members of this Soviet conspiracy are still in effect within our Government and constitute a continuing hazard to our national security.”

This reviewer talked with Senator Jenner on one occasion following these hearings. He said: “We were accused of seeing Communists under every bed, but that isn’t true. What we saw were Communists IN the bed of nearly every Bureau in Washington.”

Dougherty’s Friendly Words Strains Kindness

http://theweek.com/article/index/256163/in-defense-of-creationists

In the article above you will find about as nice an article that a Theistic Evolutionist can write about those who old to Young Earth theories. And yet for all the politeness and reasonableness that Michael Brendan Dougherty can muster one can still see in his article his presuppositional problems. Really, the article has its strengths and has some useful information but in the end its weaknesses does it in.

Dougherty writes,

My own view is that a literal one-week creation should be ruled out because, combined with the best knowledge we have of science, it would make God into a devil, a trickster. “Haha, mortals, I only buried these dinosaur bones and set the galaxies in explosive motion so the unbelievers would damn themselves to Hell,” doesn’t sound like a great or loving God. It seems to me that the very idea of good, eternal, law-giving God endowing man with rational abilities was the historical prerequisite for scientific exploration.

1.) Note how Dougherty here begins with “science,” as if science has some kind of pride of place over theology. It doesn’t. As authors like Kuhn, Poythress, C. Van Til, G. H. Clark, and even M. Polanyi have all taught us Science is theology dependent. In other words Science isn’t Science unless it is first theology. There is a great deal of leaning on “science” in Dougherty’s piece. I would suggest that everyone give Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolution” a drive or failing that, they might want to test drive Godron H. Clark’s “The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God,” or Vern Poythress’s “Science and Hermeneutics,” or Michael Polanyi’s “Personal Knowledge.” All of these works challenge Dougherty’s putative “best knowledge we have of science” It may likely be that the best knowledge we have of science is not very good since the Theology it descends from is rather faulty as well.

It will do us no good to talk about “evidence” and “science” if we don’t agree on what “evidence,” and “science” is. There is no use talking about fact as if our philosophy of fact is not involved as well. Thom Notaro’s “Van Til, And The Use of Evidence” would come in handy here.

The issue that sets us at odds here with Dougherty and people like him, is not the Science or the evidence but the prism (Weltanschauung) through which we read the science, the evidence, Genesis 1, and the rest of Scripture. The issue is how we know what we know (epistemology) before it is what we know. The best knowledge we have of science is tainted because that knowledge presuppose a Worldview grid that is just not so.

2.) Dougherty complains about God “the Trickster,” and faults him as not being loving all because God didn’t preform according to his expectations. Believers for centuries have had little problem looking at the evidence and seeing the handiwork of God. All because someone contends that things aren’t plain enough for them to figure it out, given their Evolutionary presuppositions doesn’t mean that it is hard to figure out for those who do not share in their faulty beginning points.

3.) Also on the same score, God is not beholden to fallen man to sew a “Made by God” tag on every aspect of creation, complete with a full explanation of each wonder in order to help chaps like Dougherty along. It is curious that Dougherty would fault God for not being clear when we know that in the recreation that happened in Christ, God in Christ, spoke in parables “because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” The point is that God in Creation is not a Trickster. The point is that people who find God to be a Trickster are blind.

4.) Unbelievers don’t “damn themselves to hell. God damns unbelievers to hell.”

5.) Dougherty puts God in the dock and judges God by his standards. Dougherty fails to understand that after the Fall God does not owe man anything. God is not obliged to meet any of Dougherty’s “Historical prerequisites.”

6.) Dougherty speaks of man’s rational abilities as if these rational abilities were not affected by the fall so that God can be labeled a unfair “Trickster” by one of the “rational ones.”

Elsewhere Dougherty adds,

“Further, even though they’re wrong on the science, they are right about the things that really matter to the human heart and to human civilization.”

Throughout this article Dougherty is seeking to straddle the middle between the meaning that Creationism maintains and the “science” that evolution putatively demands. The problem is that Dougherty, and the swelling West with him, can not have it both ways. They can not cherish how creationists maintain “the things that really matter to the human heart and to human civilization,” while at the same time insisting that they are wrong on the science. If creationists are wrong in supporting a natural reading of Genesis 1-11, then the things that really matter is just a figment of an autonomous imagination desperately looking for a concrete point of reference.

Dougherty is trying to have the ethics of Biblical Christianity while peeling those ethics away from the Theology of Biblical Christianity. Such a move may work for a generation, but eventually given that ideas have consequences, changed theology means changed ethics.

Again Dougherty chips in with,

“So I do not think that Ken Ham–style creationists should get to rewrite biology textbooks according to their very peculiar reading of Scripture.”

1.) Reading the Bible as if God means what he says is hardly a very peculiar reading of Scripture. Indeed, it is the reading of Scripture that insists that Genesis 1-3 isn’t an account of how creation of this physical earth transpired that is the novel and very peculiar reading.

2.) If you want very peculiar biology text books go with the text books that have printed the peppered moth lie for generations. That’s where they glued moths on to trees in order to take photos to prove their peculiar theories. One could also go with the text books that have printed the multi generational lie known as the Recapitulation theory. This was brought to us by Ernest Haeckel and concerns his drawing of embryos in relation to comparison of species. These drawings are now understood as lies to support a peculiar theory.

For our purposes Dougherty finishes up with,

“In protecting that big truth of creation — that we are all made in God’s image and all endowed with supreme dignity — fundamentalists zealously guard things that follow logically from that.”

1.) I want to examine the word “fundamentalist” here. The word “fundamentalist” has become for the Christian world what the word “racist” is for the pagan world. It is a slur that has little or no meaning and is introduced with the purpose of ending the conversation due to the fear that being labeled with it invokes.

Really, what does “fundamentalist” mean, and why is it the case that only some Christians can be “fundamentalists?”

Why isn’t it possible for Theistic Evolutionists to be left wing fundamentalists? After all they are defending the fundamentals of their peculiar religion and are every bit as rabid as young earth creationists in insisting that all must bow to their agenda.

All to often it seems that the “Christian” leftists calling Christians “fundamentalists” is akin to a criminal yelling in a crowded place that the plain clothes cops chasing him are terrorists. What better way to divert attention from their crime by distracting people’s attention from the reality of the situation than by the criminals pointing fingers at the pursuing Cops and shouting that the Cops are criminal-terrorists? It confuses everyone and gives time to the criminals to get away with their crime. In the same way Theistic evolution is a crime against the plain meaning of the text and the cat-call of “fundamentalists” by the enemies of the plain meaning of the text is a good way to confuse matters and end conversations.

As an aside here, we quite agree that Genesis 1 may very well be describing God’s Cosmos Temple Sanctuary. However agreeing that that may be part of what is going on in Genesis 1 does not necessitate giving up on Genesis 1 as God’s explanation of how the material world was created.

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.