Category: Culture

Man is not satisfied with how God has created Him and so man will recreate himself according to his own divine fiat word to be cast in a physical image that is consistent with his autonomous vision. The act of unnecessary cosmetic surgery, piercing, tattooing, and now the new piercing rage called corsetting are acts of defiance against being defined by God in our very physical appearance. It is a form of alienism in as much as the pursuit of body modifications indicates a alienation that exists between the person and their own physical appearance.

What modern man is doing to himself in his desire to remake himself physically is akin what happens when one enters into the military. Upon entry into the military the individual is stripped of all identifying marks: jewelry, individual clothing, distinctive scents, hair- facial & head, while covering visible tattoos in order to ‘reformat the individual hard-drive’. The recruit receives standardized grooming and uniform with distinctive ‘writing’ (patches & ensignia) and ‘action codes’ (UCMJ, General Orders etc.) bearing on all of life, which recreate the individual and identify him/her as a soldier/sailor. Now with that as a backdrop one should evaluate the contemporary ‘reformatting of youth’s hard-drives’ that we are seeing in the tattoo / piercing culture and the subsequent impact of this upon our youth’s behavior. Tattoos and piercings (as well as dress) have received renewed emphasis, and have historically been religiously derived.

Like the actions of the military the actions of the tattoo / piercing culture has the goal of stripping and remaking the individual according to a proscribed worldview. The individual hard drive is being reformatted with the goal of creating the new Alienist man.

Now further all this that piercing in the Scripture was, for men, a sign of submission. Rushdoony teaches in his lecture on “Dependence” that when piercing showed up in the West again it was initially done by Pirates and communicated that the one pierced was a subordinate in a homosexual relationship. Tattoos in the ancient world (and in biblical culture) were a sign either of slavery or allegiance to a pagan god. Tattooing is condemned in the Pentateuch.

It is my conclusion then that the tattooing – piercing phenomenon that we are finding in our current culture is merely the outward expression of a slave people’s inward beliefs. Because we have become slaves in our thinking, we are marking ourselves as slaves, all the while telling ourselves that this remaking of our physical appearance is the very essence of freedom. Remember, in an upside down world, slavery is freedom and freedom is slavery.

Interestingly enough, as recently as the 1950’s in America ear piercing was not something nice girls did, and girls being tattooed was virtually unheard.

———-

Hat Tip

R. J. Rushdoony
Jim Steed
Maggie Nola
Kevin Johnson

Behold The Psychological Bedrock of Cultural Marxism

‘…the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness.’

Abraham Maslow’s contribution to the agenda of Alienism is seen in the quote above. By aiming at a “post-gender” reality Maslow, in harmony with all theo-psychological Alienism, seeks to place both men and women in the same egalitarian psychic ‘iron-cage,’ that disallows traditional distinctions — whether ethnic, gender, religious or familial — as a matter of course.

Cultural Marxism is characterized by its pursuit of Maslow’s “general humanness.” This “general humanness” is defined within the worldview of and according to the standards of Alienism. This Alienist “general humanness” is a washed out, faded out, lowest common denominator humanness, which produces a new Alienist “man” which is unaffected by the sex organs it is born with and so is hermaphroditic in its thinking, attitude and disposition. This new Alienist “man” is also universalistic in its despising of home, place, and people. The new Alienist “man” loves no home, place and people, because it claims to love all homes, places, and peoples. Finally the new Alienist “man” is Unitarian in its faith. Like Prince Charles’ desire to be the “Defenders of the faiths” the new Alienist “man,” embraces all faiths as equally valid and so ultimately the same.

And so what Maslow gives us, with his theo-psychological leaven, in concert with the movement of all of Cultural Marxism is not only a “post-gender” reality but rather a “post-reality” reality. In this reality there is no distinct gender because all gender has been transcended and so is the same. In this reality there is no distinct home, place and people because all homes, places, and peoples have been transcended and so are the same. In this reality there is no distinct faith because all faiths have been transcended and so are the same.

Who would have thought John Lenon and Abraham Maslow could have so much in common?

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too

The West is still marginally structured by the hegemonic values of Christianity. The work of the Cultural Marxists has been to attack that structure at its foundation in every sector of the West’s Social order. The Alienists understand that in order for the remnants of Christendom to be extinguished what must happen is a continued re-ordering along egalitarian, anti-property, and anti-family lines of thought. As such what is embraced by the shock troops of the cultural Marxists — those battalions of feminists, sexual perverts, and disaffected minorities who have embraced the tenets of Alienism — is continual social revolution committed to the destruction of distinctions, family integrity, and property ownership. Each day, and every day in the West is now “Bastille day.” Each day and every day Alienists — both of the epistemologically self conscious variety and of the “useful idiots” variety — are driven by the cultural Marxist motto of, “We will not be satisfied until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” All remnants of Christian social order must be pulled down and as such all of life, from the marriage bed to the work place, from the playground to the Corporate office, from the Sanctuary to the Labor Union, and from the Courtroom to the Corner Convenient Store is open season for the political gamesmanship of Alienism political correctness. All of life is political.

The struggle is hegemonic — a clash of an ascending Cultural Marxist Worldview that is totalistic against a descending Christian Worldview that once was totalistic. Because the culture war that ensues is totalistic we find concepts like like “Institutional racism,” “the Battle of the Sexes,” “Hiring Quotas,” and “Global Warming.” These are all concepts that are devoted to the elimination of the residual social order values of Hegemonic Christianity.

I had a family member send me this link this morning, asking me to analyze this. The article is longish and I will take this in several bites. The article provides a good example of how someone who is part of the Cultural Marxist academic elite have been taught to “think.”

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

————————————

Q: What is conservatism?

A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Say’s who? Where did this definition come from? Would conservatives recognize this definition of conservatism? I think not.

The definition poisons the well since Americans have always been averse to being dominated by anybody.

Second, the whole intent behind the Constitution was to create a Republic that was one part Monarchy (Executive Branch), one part Democracy, (The House of Representatives) and one part Aristocracy (The US Senate). In that arrangement the Aristocracy, originally was to be a Aristocracy not of the Nation as a whole but of the individual States as the State Houses were responsible to elect Senators. The idea in this arrangement is that no of the people who had their interests in any of the classes (Democratic, Aristocratic, Monarch) would be able to dominate the other since all their interests were represented.

The Constitution was, in its original intent, a conservative document and to suggest our National Document, which emphasized State’s Rights (i.e. 9th & 10th amendments) which clearly opposed any kind of Domination by a ruling class is just ridiculous.

What is hilarious about this article’s definition is that it is a definition of Communism and other forms of tyranny. In Communism and Tyrannical Governments you have Domination by a Aristocracy. You have a small coterie of people who are dominating society. For Pete’s sake this definition is a perfect description of rule under Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hitler, Obama, Bush etc.

Whoever wrote this was a loon. Conservatism has always been against domination by anybody preferring instead to create a society where Harmony of interests are pursued.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?

A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

Praise God it is incompatible w/ Democracy. Democracy is straight from the pits of hell and is merely a synonym for “socialism.” Democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what is for supper. I pray every day that Democracy would be vanquished from the earth. This country was started as a Republic and not a Democracy.

In terms of of it being incompatible with prosperity or civilization in general, I must again ask what Weed this person is smoking? It has always been the Conservative impulse that has built great civilizations, and provided prosperity. Liberalism, to the contrary is a parasite that can only exist off the prosperity that the Conservative impulse provides. If Liberalism ever succeeds in killing the Conservative impulse civilization will go into complete eclipse and prosperity will be forever surrendered. Of course, liberals will insist that when that happens that dark night and old chaos will be the very definition of Civilization and Prosperity.

Second, in the Q. & A. above note that the chief substantial complaint is that Conservatism is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice. Here the author of this twaddle merely reveals that they are a some form of Jacobin, Cultural Marxist who thinks the very apex of civilization is where all the God given distinction (inequality) between men has been erased. The author of this twaddle desires a society and social order where it is required that nobody excel beyond somebody else because that would be “unequal” and to recognize such talent would be “prejudice.” In this person’s view the evil of “Conservatism” is found in the reality that it recognizes God placed distinctions and hierarchy. This kind of thinking will not be pleased until there is no difference between Men and Women, Parents and Children, Human’s and beasts, God and the Devil.

Government schools have decided to go on a anti-bullying campaign to protect GLBT types. Why stop there? I think they should have some anti-bullying signs also to protect people who like to cozy up to farm animals. The persecution people can get from doing that is just terrible. Also, anti-bullying signs that protect people who like to cozy up to dead bodies is probably needed as well. I know I hate it when people are judgmental against people who like to cozy up to dead bodies.

Faulting those who communicate strong disapproval of homosexuals is a classic example of how people measure love in a quite shallow fashion. We are told it is mean and not nice to be strongly disappoving towards the wicked and so we get the state going on what they call “anti-bullying” campaigns.

But is it really true that societal disapproval is unloving?

Is it loving to show acceptance and tolerance for the wicked? To show this kind of tolerance towards the reprobate, I would contend, is an example of the Proverbs where it says that, “The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.”

Is it really loving to the perverts in question to allow them to go on in their sin unchallenged? Would it not be mercy to them if they realized that their perversion couldn’t be practiced and flaunted unrestricted in open due to the social ostracization that they would experience? To deride their perversion, would make the practice of their perversion that much more difficult.

But let’s extend this and ask about the issue of love as it pertains to other people who are part of the societal equation besides the perverts.

Is it loving towards third party observers who might be swept up into the perverts lifestyle if the lifestyle of perverts is not disapproved of in the strongest terms? Are we being loving to those, who might otherwise not have themselves become perverts, if the perverts had met strong disapproval thus being forced back into the closet? I would contend that it is hateful towards those who might otherwise be tempted towards perversion to allow perversion to NOT be rebuked in strong terms.

What about society as a whole. If we do not speak adamantly against the behavior of the wicked we are creating a climate of acceptability of perversion in society. Societal Taboos are normally upheld by members of society, who by their disapproval are not tolerating violation of the accepted tabbos. Societal disapproval of perverse behavior is a healthy functioning of societies auto-immune system as it seeks to suppress societal infection.

Finally, is a lack of pointed disapproval loving towards God? Scripture tells us to “Hate that which is evil.” Is not disapproval, sometimes to the point of derision, a “hating that which is evil?” Did we not see Elijah on Mt. Carmel deride mock the servants of Baal to the glory of God? Was Elijah wrong for his derision? Was Elijah being being and unkind?

The pursuit of forcing mouths to be shut in the current Statist anti-bullying program that would otherwise express revulsion at perversion is merely the ongoing attempt by the Pagan state to seek to normalize perversion and to force the citizenry to accept perverse behavior.