Category: Culture

““Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

Sir Winston Churchill

At the heart of Marxism has always existed the drive for “equality.” Now, this equality, as it worked itself out beyond theory, ended up being redefined as “sameness,” as equality became redefined to mean “the destruction of economic distinctions.” The Marxist theory has always been that with the final dissolution of all economic classes and distinctions there would result the Utopian highlands where all men are both perfectly equal in abundant wealth and perfectly happy. The Marxist economic reality instead has always been that with the increasing dissolution of bourgeois class and economic distinctions the result has been a Dystopian nightmare where all men are perfectly the same in poverty and perfectly miserable. So, we see that in economic Marxism, whenever it has been pursued, the results, as Churchill put it, has been “the equal sharing of misery.” Marxism has, without fail, destroyed economic distinctions and delivered “equality” to the population but it has always been the equality of the damned.

However, this Marxist drive for economic equality that leads to the same economic misery for everyone wherever it is implemented has set up franchises in other disciplines. With the rise of Antonia Gramsci and then later the Frankfort school, Marxism has taken its equality show on the road. Gramsci insisted that the Utopia that all Marxist were reaching for would not be gained merely by the means of economic leveling. Gramsci insisted on, and the Frankfort school later implemented, a leveling effort that was to take place not only in the economic realm but in the broader culture as well.

And just as wherever economic Marxism has been pursued with vigor has resulted in the loss of economic distinctions and the reality of economic leveling so it has been the case that wherever cultural Marxism has been pursued there has been a loss in preexisting distinctions and a discovery of a leveling that leads to a miserable sameness.

Take the application of Gramscian Marxism as it has been brought to the realm of education. What we currently have in our government schools is basically the working out of economic Marxism as it applies to education. Just as with economic Marxism where there is the insistence that all distinctions of wealth must be eliminated so that people can be economically “equal” so there is, in our educational Marxism, the insistence that all intelligence distinctions are not fair and the demand is that everyone must be equally “smart.” And just as it is the case wherever economic Marxism is implemented the result is that everyone is equally poor so it is the case wherever educational Marxism is pursued, as it is in our government schools, the result is that everyone becomes equally dumb. The inherent virtue of Marxism, whether in economics or education, is the equal sharing of misery.

Now extend the example from the effects of methodological Marxism on economics and education to Western culture in general and you begin to understand why Western Culture is deteriorating so rapidly. Just as with economic and educational Marxism, which are subsets of cultural Marxism, cultural Marxism as a whole seeks to destroy distinctions, characterizing those distinctions as an “unequal sharing of blessings.” Cultural Marxism then markets fairness with unexamined 60 second sound bites and convinces a dumb people (see previous paragraph) that cultural distinctions are not fair. The result is the destruction of all distinctions which yields the happy highlands of a equal sharing of misery.

However we need to push and see the consequences of cultural Marxism as they work themselves out with an terrorizing consistency.

Remember, that what Cultural Marxism does is that it eliminates all distinctions in pursuit of its promise of Utopia. Also keep in mind that culture is defined as what a people believe as that belief is poured over their ethnicity. So, if Cultural Marxism must eliminate all distinctions in pursuit of its promise of Utopia distinctions that cultural Marxism must eliminate not only distinctions that one finds in economic status or intelligence strata but also Cultural Marxism must seek to eliminate the created order distinctions that exist between different faith systems, different ethnicity and even different sexuality. If economic Marxism ends up working to make everyone share in a equal and miserable impoverishment, and if educational Marxism ends up working to make everyone share in a equal and miserable stupidity, then Cultural Marxism, taken in it’s macro effect, seeks to make everyone share in a equal and miserable belief system (faith), works to make everyone share in a equal and miserable ethnicity, and works to make everyone share a equal and miserable sexuality. In order for cultural Marxism to be successful it must destroy distinctions in every aspect of mankind’s existence.

Given that this is the context that the Church of Jesus Christ now exists, her battle as the Church militant, is to stand against the cultural Marxist attempt to eliminate the God ordained distinctions and hierarchy. For those who need an explicit tie in to the Gospel we must keep before us that this drive to eliminate distinctions is at the same time a drive to take from the Lord Jesus Christ His distinction as the reigning sovereign of the Universe. For those who need an explicit tie in to the Gospel we must keep before us that this drive to eliminate distinctions is at the same time a drive to take from the Lord Jesus Christ his sui generis reality as the alone mediator between God and man. In the reality that cultural Marxism is trying to create all Messiahs, as well as all religions are equal because all Messiah and all religions are the same.

Because cultural Marxism is the false belief system that our age has embraced to oppose cultural Marxism involves us in the latest incarnation of the Battle between the seed of the Serpent and the seed of the woman. As such, for any expression of the Church to cast its lot with those who would erase God ordained distinctions (i.e. — Women Elders, Allah & God are the same, denial that people groups differ, etc.) puts them on the wrong side of the battle.

This whole Mosque argument is nothing but a episode out of The Outer Limits.

1.) As I follow this Mosque story it becomes quickly evident that pagans are self righteous whether on the left or on the right, and whether Jewish or Muslim. This self-righteousness is encapsulated in the contest of who is the greater victim or martyr. Who ever can prove they are the greater victim or martyr is the person who gets to be self-righteous.

2.) Many Americans are incensed at the idea of Muslims building a Mosque at the location where Muslims attacked their country but all indications are that most of them are perfectly fine with the same Mosque being built in Albany, Scranton, Toledo or anywhere else in America including elsewhere in New York City. This provides a great example of how Americans are a bunch of sentimental pietistic preacher types. Stopping a Mosque being built at ground zero because of sentimental symbolism while allowing Mosques to spring up all over the country makes as much sense as being on a diet while you’re around the refrigerator while your gorging yourself in the dining room.

Come on people, if the pagan Mosque doesn’t belong at the attack site because it is a sign of victory over the nation and it is disrespectful of the Americans who died on 9-11 then Mosques don’t belong at any site in the country for the same reasons. After all, it was American that died on 9-11, not merely citizens of New York.

3.) I heard a interview today of an American Jew and an American Muslim. The interview quickly descended into shouting and accusations from each of the interviewees whereupon they each accused the other of being “Jew-hater” and “Muslim-Hater” and “Nazi” and “Palestinian Baby killer.” As I listened to this interview I thought to myself, why in the world has America (a largely Christian nation) gotten itself in between the ancient hatreds of Jews and Muslims? Why don’t we develop our own energy resources and tell those people, with their ancient hatreds, to “eat sand.” Isn’t it preferable to throw them both out of this country rather than allow them to drag us into their bloodshed, recriminations, and pagan religions?

4.) Typically the left is siding with the Muslims on building the Mosque, but it is not really because the left likes Muslims. They don’t. The left is siding with the Muslims because the building of the Mosque is currently the nearest stick with which they can beat Christianity over the head. Does anyone really believe that if it was a Church they wanted to build next to ground zero that the Left would be screaming 1st amendment rights? No, the left wants the Mosque at ground zero because it serves to make the country less Christian. The left hates with a vampire hatred of Crosses Christianity and anything that will put a stake through the heart of Christianity in this nation the left will support.

R. C. Sproul, the younger, has written a piece on the building of the Mosques at ground Zero. I do not share his reasoning. First I offer Jr.’s article and then I offer my response.

With Liberty and Justice for All

“It’s never easy to think clearly and dispassionately on issues that we are passionate about. September 11, 2001 is indeed a day that will live in infamy. Nearly a decade later the wounds remain raw, and understandably so. A wise man, however, is one who submits to the Word of God even when his emotions or desires lead in another direction. Let’s take, then, a careful look at our question.

First, what do we mean by “right?” One simple way to answer the question is, “No. It is never right for any group promoting a false religion to build houses of worship anywhere.” Islam is false, a pack of lies, and was so before September 11. Mosques are not centers of worship for the true and living God. They should not exist. It’s not right for Muslims to build mosques anywhere.

But that’s not really the issue here. Many of those opposed to this particular mosque in this particular spot are quite content with mosques being built in other places. They have no interest in forbidding all false houses of worship from being built. The actual question of the day seems to be something more like this- should the state forbid Muslims from building a mosque on this particular site? Suddenly the issue isn’t so easy. I appreciate the pain such a building might cause. I understand the uproar. But I have to ask, which is the greater evil? A mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero, or a state determining which religions can built what buildings on what pieces of land?

In terms of the use of force by the state, they have no business keeping any landowner from putting any building on his or her property. If the Muslims own this piece of land, and wish to build a mosque there, it is not just wrong but wicked for anyone to use the power of the state to stop them. It is in fact a violation ofthe 8th commandment. It is a form of theft to limit by force of law how someone might use his or her own property. It is also a violation of the fourth amendment to the Constitution.

I believe that Allah is not God, and that Mohammed was a liar. I believe Muslims are dead in their trespasses and sins, and cannot even see the kingdom of heaven. I believe their religion is demonic from top to bottom. And I believe every Muslim bears the image of God. As a Christian that must mean that Muslims are due justice from the state. Their property rights should be protected by the state, and affirmed by all right thinking people.

The greatest thing we can do to slow the building of mosques in this spot, and everywhere is by proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ who is Lord over all. Let them build their mosques, and we will build disciples. Let them build their mosques and we will serve Him as He builds His church. Let us love our enemies and love liberty, and justice, for all.”

I think the overall difference between R. C. Sproul and I on this issue is the role of the State. He obviously thinks that it is more wicked for a State to decide which religious institutions are built than it is for a pagan institution to be built. I, on the other hand, would contend that the State, under the authority of Christ, is duty bound not to let pagan houses of idolatry to flourish where they rule. Freedom is not defined by the State allowing all forms of idolatry to flourish and justice is not defined by the State allowing religions of injustice to gain a foothold where they hold their charge under sovereign God.

Now, R. C., using a Libertarian argument, suggests that if the Muslims own the land then they can do with it what they please and we ought not to expect the State to impinge upon their freedom to do with the land what they please.

However, I do not think R. C.’s premise is correct. It is often the case that the State should not allow people who own land to do immoral things with that land. For example, should a god-fearing State have the right / duty to keep an Abortionist who owns the land from building an abortuary? The answer is clearly yes. Ownership of land does not give the right to perpetuate murder on that private property.

So, the State certainly does have that duty/right to deny owners of land from doing God forbidden things on that land. All because a person owns a piece of land that does not give them the right to do wicked things with that land. A righteous state, in keeping with its responsibilities to the first table would not allow pagans to build houses of worship on the land the pagan owns simply because they own that land.

Now, some will howl that the State doesn’t prevent Muslims from building in other places so why should the State stop them from building here.

That is a fair question.

The fault however is not in the State not allowing Muslims to build their pagan shrine at ground zero. The fault is in the State allowing other pagan shrines to be built elsewhere. All because they get it wrong elsewhere in forbidding idolatry that does not make it wrong for them to get it right here in forbidding idolatry.

In my humble estimation the argument offered here is an example of Libertarianism run amok.

Most people are not aware that it is Muslim belief that when they build a Mosque that Land upon which the Mosque is built is theirs for perpetuity. Thus the building of a Mosque is an act of Dominion by Muslims. The West is committing civilization-cide by allowing Muslims or Jews to build Mosques or Temples. And R. C. suggests that disciples of Christ shouldn’t oppose this?

There is no liberty pursued in embracing any Muslim action. There is no justice in supporting the building of this Mosque. Indeed, quite to the contrary all support for the building of this Mosque is support for slavery and injustice as that is what Islam brings everywhere it spreads.

By all means … make disciples and part of what it means to be a disciple of Christ is to stand against the advance of both Islam and the pagan State.

Roman historian Tacitus dated the beginning of the Roman end of Liberty with the end of free speech. America and the West has come to that same historical pivot point where, through the deadening effect of political correctness on our speech, we are nearing the end of liberty. We no longer have liberty to speak plainly about any number of subjects, and the inability to speak plainly about these subjects serves to further the religious and political ends of those who would disembowel the theological, ideological, and cultural underpinnings of the West.

Because of the corrosive affect of Political correctness upon our speech — and so upon our thought — we are in danger of no longer having the liberty to speak against inferior sexuality, against inferior ideologies, against inferior pagan religions, against inferior cultures, or against inferior political philosophies. The campaign of political correctness against liberty of speech has managed, through the craft of subterfuge, to convince or cow people into thinking that superior thought and speech is that thought and speech that doesn’t see anything as being inferior except the belief that some truths, or cultural arrangement are superior to other truths or cultural arrangements.

We have to restore our language. To restore our language is to, at the same time, restore our ability to think critically. In order to get back our liberty we are going to have to begin again to say what we think irrespective of those who don’t like it and regardless of how people howl at ideas they don’t like. With that beginning we can proceed to speak plainly to the West again and wrench it’s thinking away from the PC cultural Marxist thought police.

A few days ago the NAACP (the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) accused the Tea Parties of being racist. Now, think with me a moment. Here we have an organization, whose very name communicates its reason for existence as the explicit goal of advancing, through affirmative action, law suits, quotas, protests, and contract set-asides unique advantages for blacks over non-blacks — accusing another organization of being motivated by race.

Sometimes it just hurts to think about irony.