Matthew Henry, Humanist Manifesto & Constitution of the USSR On Babel

While reading Matthew Henry I came across something from Henry that really flies in the face of much of what we see in our the mad pursuit of multiculturalism, or in suppositions supporting the idea that nations are social constructs that can be held together merely on the basis of propositions. On Genesis 11 (Babel) Matthew Henry can write,

1. Their language was confounded. God, who, when he made man, taught him to speak, and put words into his mouth fit to express the conceptions of his mind by, now caused these builders to forget their former language, and to speak and understand a new one, which yet was common to those of the same tribe or family, but not to others: those of one colony could converse together, but not with those of another.

Understand the implications of Henry’s statement.

When God dispersed the tongues the variation and number of tongues was equal to the variation and numbers of preexisting tribes. The fact that God dispersed them by language implies that he dispersed them by tribal identity. If Henry is correct here (and I think he is) this drives a stake through the often repeated meme of the Christian cultural Marxists that Babel was about languages and not ethnicities. Henry would have us realize that there is a nexus between the confounding of the language and the tribes to whom the languages belonged. When the languages were dispersed, Henry believed, the dispersal was tribe by tribe according to language. Precisely because it was about languages it was about ethncities.

Henry again offers,

(4.) The project of some to frame a universal character, in order to a universal language, how desirable soever it may seem, is yet, I think, but a vain thing to attempt; for it is to strive against a divine sentence, by which the languages of the nations will be divided while the world stands

If, according to Henry’s previous reasoning that the confounded tongues corresponded to the confounded tribes then Henry is telling us that ethnic homogeneity for tribes or nations is the divine standard while the world stands. By Henry’s previous reasoning the attempt to build a universal people at Babel was confounded by dividing the tribes by dividing their languages.

Current Christian Cultural Marxists, according to Herny, strive against the divine sentence when they insist on pursuing a Christianity that ignores God’s dividing of the peoples.

Now, to underscore Henry’s comments we examine how the enemies of Christianity have consistently striven against the divine sentence of dividing people’s and languages of which Henry speaks.

Humanist Manifesto II

ELEVENTH: The principle of moral equality must be furthered through elimination of all discrimination based upon race, religion, sex, age, or national origin. This means equality of opportunity and recognition of talent and merit. Individuals should be encouraged to contribute to their own betterment. If unable, then society should provide means to satisfy their basic economic, health, and cultural needs, including, wherever resources make possible, a minimum guaranteed annual income. We are concerned for the welfare of the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged, and also for the outcasts – the mentally retarded, abandoned, or abused children, the handicapped, prisoners, and addicts – for all who are neglected or ignored by society. Practicing humanists should make it their vocation to humanize personal relations.

We deplore racial, religious, ethnic, or class antagonisms. Although we believe in cultural diversity and encourage racial and ethnic pride, we reject separations which promote alienation and set people and groups against each other; we envision an integrated community where people have a maximum opportunity for free and voluntary association.

TWELFTH: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity. It would not exclude pride in national origins and accomplishments nor the handling of regional problems on a regional basis. Human progress, however, can no longer be achieved by focusing on one section of the world, Western or Eastern, developed or underdeveloped. For the first time in human history, no part of humankind can be isolated from any other. Each person’s future is in some way linked to all. We thus reaffirm a commitment to the building of world community, at the same time recognizing that this commits us to some hard choices.

The 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union

ARTICLE 123. Equality of rights of citizens of the U.S.S.R., irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law. Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law.

We see when we compare and contrast a Father of Historic Christianity (Matthew Henry) with the 20th century Humanists and Communists we see a marked contrasts between the oikophilia (love of one’s household and one’s faith) of Christianity and the Babelphilia (love of Babel and so hatred of ethnic distinctions) of the Marxists. Now, naturally this one point of harmony of Christians and Marxist does not by itself prove that Christians who embrace a globalism that automatically attacks ethnic homogeneity in a knee jerk fashion are Marxists but it at least should cause us to ask questions.

Wandering Thoughts On Obama & His Trayvon Martin Son

1.) We have to understand what Obama was doing with his statement, “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon.”

B. Hussein Obama was playing racial politics. If there ever was a “dog whistle” for racial identification that statement was it. Obama can’t be explicit and say “I’m down with you on the race struggle,” for that would be too blatant and would cost votes, but he can shore up his base by saying “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon,” because by doing so he implies, by identifying directly with the most integral building block of race (the family) that he is down with them in the struggle against Whitey.

Obama, by that statement, is playing racial politics. Further, by that statement Obama is saying, “I hate whites,” “I hate the current social order,” and “I am working to overthrow all of whiteys privilege.” Remember all of the Martin case is driven by the cultural Marxist narrative that insists that Black people are oppressed by evil White people and unwarranted white privilege. Obama, with his seemingly strange statement about Trayvon and being a son, is supporting that narrative. This is the same narrative that Obama supported when he embraced Derrick Bell and required the reading of his works. This is the same narrative so eloquently and repeatedly preached by James Cone disciple, Jeremiah Wright, under which Obama sat for twenty years. This is the same narrative Obama learned and taught while he was a community organizer in the Saul Alinsky school of thought.

Obama has revealed himself on this score already as President. He supported this cultural Marxist narrative when he fired, way to early, both barrels in the Cambridge cop routine. He reveals it in his Presidency as his administration refuses to prosecute the New Black Panthers for their clear violation of civil rights laws when they intimidated white people at the voting booth.

Obama is a Cultural Marxists and he is down for the struggle. All of his actions reveal this at every step of the way. This is what animates this man.

2.) Remember the Obama Democratic establishment has given up on the Reagan Democrats (White working class) as part of the coalition they want to put together for victory.

Obama’s statement “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon,” thus serves to galvanize the coalition that he is trying to build in opposition to those voters he has written off as being his opposition. (After all, they realize that if they are to write off those voters therefore those voters will vote for someone else, and so be his opposition.) Obama’s identifying with the black community with his statement thus is about 2012 election politics as it much as it is about anything else. Obama gains the black vote for obvious reasons with such a statement and he also curries the White educated vote because educated people are stupid, having been propagandized against their own self interest by the Cultural Marxist ruling elite in the Universities.

The only question in this gambit by Obama is whether or not he will offend another minority community that he needs in his coalition — the Hispanic vote. Remember, George Zimmerman, is not white but is Hispanic. There is a long antipathy between the black special interest constituents in the Democratic Party and the Hispanic special interest constituents. Obama risks losing the Hispanic vote if the Hispanic community ever begins to identify with George Zimmerman in this circus.

3.) Another angle that is possible in this Presidential attempt to whip up racial frenzy is the desire to foment such racial conflict that a declaration of Martial law would be required. Obama knows that this nation is sitting on a racial tinderbox. Obama, also knows, being a Marxist, that the creation of intense conflict of interest always serves the end of the State. If enough strife was whipped up by the policy of divide and conquer then Obama could be seen as legitimately declaring Martial law and so would be able to be even better situated to manipulate the results of the 2012 election (should an election occur) and quite possibly collect weaponry from the citizenry.

Dostoevsky & McAtee On Christianity & Collectivism

The radical declares,

“Everyone belongs to all, and all belongs to everyone. All are slaves and equal in their slavery… Slaves are bound to be equal. Without despotism there has never been either freedom or equality, but in the herd there is bound to be equality…. The moment you have family ties or love you get the desire for property. We will destroy that desire; we’ll make use of drunkenness, slander, spying; we’ll make use of incredible corruption; we’ll stifle every genius in its infancy. We’ll reduce all to a common denominator! Complete equality!”

The Possessed
Fydor Dostoevsky

Dostoevsky was a 19th century Russian writer who explored the human psyche, particularly as that psyche was conditioned by ideology and religion. In the quote above we find that Dostoevsky understood the nascent proto-Marxist type ideology which he believed were Demon like ideas from Western Europe that was possessing Russia.

It is interesting that even in 1873 Russia, Dostoevsky could identify the heart of collectivism that remains with us yet today. Dostoevsky understood that the end of equality, absolutized, is slavery.

The thing I really want to tease out from this quote is Dostoevsky’s connection between collectivism and the destruction of family ties. The collectivist attack on property requires an attack on family love. If various forms of Marxist collectivism is to be successful in its desire to extinguish private property it must, at the same time, extinguish Biblical notions of family. The simple idea that a man and a woman come together and form a new, yet extended social unit that is itself strengthened with the blessed arrival of covenant seed is an idea that arises not from Natural law but from Scripture. So, when the collectivist wars against property, he must do so, if he wishes to be consistent by attacking the family structure, which is itself an attack on Scripture. This reality puts those “Christians” who insist that the Bible has nothing to say about social order issues on the horns of a dilemma. Either they concede that the Scripture does speak a word about the nature of the family or they are left with pulpits that are silent on these issues preaching to atomized individuals that Jesus died to redeem as isolated from any previous, current, or future familial identities. A very odd way of preaching for those who subscribe to covenant theology where “the promise is to you and your household” is a key cornerstone of Reformed Federal theology.

I submit Christians must enter into this great war that has been being waged since the garden. It was in the garden where the first successful salvo against Biblical Christianity was fired against the family as the Serpent attacked family ties, bypassing Adam’s authority to beguile Eve, in a successful attempt to sell the poison of man’s equality with God, which resulted in a collectivism against God. In point of fact the greatest need in the Church today is to realize the threat that egalitarianism is to Biblical Christianity. The drive to fuzz and deny all distinctions, to erase all notions of biblical hierarchies (Husbands w/ headship over wives, Parents w/ headship over children, women the weaker vessel compared to men, Employers w/ headship over employees,) and to flatten out all God ordained differences is the worldview that currently is the greatest threat to Biblical Christianity in the West.

Without Biblical distinctions regarding gender, roles, ethnic groups, and authority structure, we will be amalgamated into the herd reality that Dostoevsky warns about. It will be a herd reality where a few elite are, in essence, the Farmers over the undistinguished and undifferentiated mass herd. Those who advocate complete equality in terms of “equality of identity” are the enemy and they are the enemy because Scripture identifies them as such. They are the enemy who overthrow the 5th commandment where a distinction and hierarchy of parents is required before they can be honored. They are the enemy who overthrow the great commission where a distinction of nations is required before those nations can be baptized, discipled and taught to observe all things taught by Christ. They are the enemy who overthrow Galatians 3:28 where a existing distinction between Jews and Gentiles, Slave and Free, Men and Women, must exist before there can be comfort that all can be justified in Christ. They are the enemy who overthrow the 8th commandment where a distinction must exist between what is my property and what is not my property before any forbidding of theft can make sense. Egalitarianism is the enemy and egalitarians are the enemy precisely because their egalitarianism strikes at the heart of God’s revelation. Keep in mind that the ultimate goal of the Father of egalitarianism is to erase the distinction and hierarchy between the Creator and the creature. They desire to make God and man a common denominator. That is the ultimate distinction that is under attack in all of these penultimate battles.

1965 Immigration Act

In 1965 America, in its debate on the Immigration Act, had a choice. It could either choose to be Switzerland, with a homogeneous, highly educated, somewhat numerically constrained population or it could become Brazil with a heterogeneous population that would become highly balkanized according to class, race, religion, and education. To choose the first path would have meant social order and ethnic stability, with high productivity. To choose the second path has meant the straining of our social order and the eventuality of the warfare of all against all with the consequence being a Mahat to down culture where a handful of elites (Banking interests) rule over the drone class.

Now, if one is Brazillian, I’m sure one likes Brazil. But the people of this country who have more of a Switzerland mindset shouldn’t be decried because they would have preferred and still prefer Switzerland. The Swiss obviously believe Switzerland is better than Brazil. (And can many cogent reasons to that end.)

The choice to choose the second path in 1965 was done with eyes wide open. Oh, doubtless, there were some useful idiots who voted for the 1965 immigration act not realizing the agenda behind it but that there was a self conscious agenda on the part of movers and shakers to simply dissolve the former American historical people and appoint another. This was largely accomplished through the 1965 immigration act.

The path of balkanization serves only the agenda of a people who have both managed to maintain their homogeneity while at the same time accrue wealth and influence.