Ancient Egypt & Communist Russia — A Unifying Thread

Yesterday I was doing some reading on the religions and philosophies of the Ancient world. I came across an explanation of the Egyptian Ma’at religious / philosophical systems.

“The concept of the State was a necessary corollary in the total cosmic ideal of ancient Egyptian culture and religion. And central to the idea of the state was the divinity of the King. ‘The State was not a man made alternative to other forms of political organization. It was god-given …. it continued to form part of the universal order. In the person of the Pharaoh a super human being had taken charge of the affairs of men….’ In consequence the service of Pharaoh was a religious, not a purely secular function, and sense of duty was strengthened by faith. The ancient Egyptian’s culture was a slave culture, one of absolute servitude to the power and authority of the King…. The fiat word of Pharaoh could brook no opposition. The life of the Egyptian was in the hand of his king as in the hand of his god…. It is not strange, then, that his conception of Ma’at (right order) should be viewed more in terms of what it is not, than of what it is; that he should be more concerned with what threatened to destroy it than what justifies its nature and existence. Ma’at has been established. That is axiomatic. The wise man will live so as to not upset the rule of the right order. He will bow in submission to Ma’at. He will submit unreservedly to his god-king….

Simply put, Ma’at was an order that could not be violated with impunity.

Michael Kelly
The Burden of God — pg. 34-36

This social order philosophy was known as Ma’at. The Ma’at system, as the quote above indicates was a slave system. In the pecking order in Ancient Egypt all were the slaves of someone above them in the pecking order and Pharaoh was the Slave-master of all. (Though one might argue that Pharaoh himself was slave to a religious / philosophical social order he knew was not true.) The Pyramid thus becomes the perfect symbol of Ma’at because in the Pyramid you have the pinpoint apex of the triangle representing Pharaoh as at the top of the religious / philosophical social order and everything under the apex of the Pyramid triangle serves and supports the Pharaoh apex.

As I was reading the above quoted description suddenly my reading on the Communist show trials of the 1930’s came to mind. Here were many of the Old Bolshevists who created the Soviet Ma’at system revealing their loyalty to the religious / philosophical order confessing their guilt even though they were clearly innocent f the charges preferred against them. All they had was the Ma’at State. That was their reality. They could no more deny the Communist State then they could deny themselves. If the State said they were guilty then they must be guilty.

And though the Bolsheviks insisted they were Atheists it is clear that they viewed the State and the Party as god walking on the earth. As such, if their god, as apotheosized in Stalin, said they were to be shot for false crimes committed against the party then they would go to their execution singing songs of praises.

Nikolai Bukharin (1888-1938) was one such example of this. Even though Bukharin wrote a series of very emotional letters to Stalin protesting his innocence and professing his love for Stalin, in his final plea the Old Bolshevik who worked with Lenin to establish the Soviet Ma’at State could explain,

“For three months I refused to say anything. Then I began to testify. Why? Because while in prison I made a revaluation of my entire past. For when you ask yourself: ”If you must die, what are you dying for?” – an absolutely black vacuity suddenly rises before you with startling vividness. There was nothing to die for, if one wanted to die un-repented. And, on the contrary, everything positive that glistens in the Soviet Union acquires new dimensions in a man’s mind. This in the end disarmed me completely and led me to bend my knees before the Party and the country.”

This is nothing but Ma’at speak. All in the Party / State. Nothing outside the Party / State.

Stalin had become the new Pharaoh (God-King) and all below him would serve him as slave, even if that meant bowing to the Pharaoh’s desire for Bukharin to lie in order to support the god-king’s false accusation.

But shed no tears for Bukharin. The man sowed the wind and he merely reaped the whirlwind.

Public Opinion Polls, Historicism and Psychological Warriors

“Bernard Berelson was trained as a librarian but by the late 40’s was considered an expert in public relations and the manipulation of public opinion. One year after the publication of Blanshard’s book on Catholic power, Berelson co-edited ‘Public Opinion and Communication’ with Morris Jankowitz, one of the seminal works of communications theory, and a good indication of how the psychological warfare techniques refined during World War II were now going to be turned on the American public as a way of controlling them through the manipulation of the new media, i.e., radio and TV. Berelson establishes the book’s major premise in his introduction:

‘Growing secularization has meant that more and more areas of life are open to opinion rather than to divine law and to communication rather than to revelation. Growing industrialization has not only extended literacy; in addition, it has provided the technical facilities for mass communication.’

The goal of secularization was the reduction of all of life’s imperatives to ‘opinions,’ which is to say not the expression of moral absolutes or divine law. Once this ‘secularization’ occurred, the people who controlled ‘opinions’ controlled the country. Berelson is equally frank about where the new science of public opinion originated:

‘Research in the field was accelerated during WW II by demands for studies on the effect of communications upon military personnel, adjustment to army life and attitudes toward military leaders, enemy propaganda, and civilian morale. After the war this growing interest led to the establishment of additional university centers for the study of public opinion and communication by the methods of social science. Together with the continuing activities of industry and government, they now represent a large scale research enterprise.’

…. Berleson wrote also in 1950 that,

‘ there is a virtual pro-religious monopoly on communication available to large audiences in America today.”

Religious belief meant ipso facto the opposite of opinion, and therefore ideas not subject to the manipulation of the people who controlled the communications media. What needed to be done then was to move large areas of thought from the realm of religion to the realm of opinion if any significant breakthroughs in political control through manipulation of the media were to take place. Sexual morality was the most important area of religious thinking that needed to be moved into the realm of ‘opinion’ where it would be then under the control of psychological warriors like Berelson and those who paid his salary, namely, the Rockefellers.

And this is precisely what happened…

E. Michael Jones
Libido Dominadi

Notice that there was a designed and concerted effort, funded by the huge tax free Foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.) to drag public thinking away from the residual remains of Christianity in the public square to a thinking that was called “secular.” The problem, of course, is that this was not a case where the public square was being unclothed of religious presuppositions, (secularization) but rather it was a case where the public square was being stripped of what remained of Christian presuppositions in favor of presuppositions consistent with Religious Leftist humanism.

This is seen in Berelson’s drive to get rid of religious absolutes in favor of “opinion.” However, clearly the problem here is that directed and manipulated opinion would now be the new absolute. The new absolute exchanged for the idea of Christian absolutes was the absolute of no absolutes. Any humanist absolute (masquerading as “opinion”) would be accepted in the secularized public square over and above a religious absolute.

Note also in the quote above the ascendancy of public opinion. Public opinion is to moral guidance what Historicism is to Historiography. In both cases, the absolute being evacuated, the only place a transcendent constant can be found is in the immanent subjective realm of space and time. If there is no transcendent constant then in order to shape public policy is to create public opinion through putative scientific public opinion polls and then to reify those subjective numbers into objective transcendent constants so that direction can be given to public policy. This is the same thing that happens in Historicism. As Historicism allows for no fixed transcendent constant by which history can be known and evaluated, therefore History itself must become its own fixed transcendent constant. Public opinion polls serve as absolutes for the immediate just as Historicism serves as absolute in interpreting the past as a guide for the future.

However, in both cases of Public Opinion polls and Historicism the results they yield are only as good as the manipulator the psychological warriors operating them.

Without the God of the Bible, who alone can give us a fixed transcendent constant as well as the certainty that the transcendent has become immanent, (thus assuring that the transcendent isn’t so transcendent that it loses touch with our sitz-im-leben), we only have a word and world of flux where man is a being manipulated and controlled by the Psychological warriors named Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie.


R2K plays right into this agenda quoted from Jones. R2K allows the public square to be cleansed of what Berelson called religious belief in favor of the manipulations coming from the cultural elites.

Leddihn & McAtee On The Conservative Disposition

“Conservatism on the Continent was based on disciplined thought from the start. Chronologically it falls into the period of late Romanticism and opposes ideas and ideologies emanating from the sentimental disorders of early Romanticism. Its opponent is the French Revolution (including the Napoleonic aftermath) with its egalitarianism, nationalism and laicism. But, as it so often happen in the battle of ideas, the good old principle fas est ab hoste doceri (it is right to learn even from an enemy) is applied a great deal to liberally, with the result that early 19th century conservatism has a rigidity and harshness reminding us of the hard school through which these early conservatives had to go: the school of French Revolution and the interminable sanguinary wars caused by the Napoleonic aftermath. Their school, as we said, was tough and therefore an element of severity and repression characterizes early conservatism, a certain belief in force if not in brutality, an unwillingness to enter any sort of dialogue or to conduct gentle and shrewd reeducation of its opponents. One does not discuss with assassins from whom one never expected humaneness, leniency, or tolerance. They must be mastered, fought, jailed, and, if worst comes to worst, locked up or exiled. In view of the horrors of the French Revolution and Napoleon’s trail of blood all over Europe from the gates of Lisbon to the heart of Moscow, this attitude is not surprising.”

Leftism; From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn — pg 387

Conservatives practice tough love born of a love for God and people. This tough love that comes across, in Leddihnn’ words, “as rigid and harsh” and “severe and repressive,” is born of both a knowledge of where matters are going if Leftism and its practitioners are not stopped and of a love for God and people.

Epistemologically self conscious conservatives (and such people are always Christians) are aware of the stakes. They have read Shire, Conquest, and Solzhenitsyn. Epistemologically self conscious conservatives understand the anti-Christ ideology that animates Leftism and because conservatives are familiar with history they know where that ideology leads. Epistemologically self conscious conservatives have read the stories about what happened to those who have tried to resist the plans of the left; the Vendee, the Kulaks, and the Boer. They can recite the cruel accounts against Maria Luisa of Savoy, Hans and Sophie Scholl, and Isaak Babel. Countless are the names of those who have had the cruelty of the left visited upon them. Epistemologically self conscious conservatives are familiar with the cruel tools of the left; Necklacing, Gloving (peeling the skin off the hands,), aborting, and Madam La Guillotine. Epistemologically self conscious conservatives can tell you about the Gulag, the Concentration camp, and the Psychological ward — residences provided by the left for the burgeoning legion of dissenters. Epistemologically self conscious conservatives are mindful of the left’s brainwashing, propaganda, and manipulation machine. You can hardly blame epistemologically self conscious conservatives for not being sunny and cheery when it comes to warning people off of the ideology and practice of the Left. How many of millions of graves must conservatives weep over — graves that need not had been filled if conservative counter-revolutionaries had been listened to — until epistemologically self conscious conservatives will be cut some slack regarding the fact that they are not as nice as they might otherwise be?

It is not Conservatives who are the cold-hearted, rigid, and repressive bastards. Any edginess you see in a epistemologically self conscious conservative is a edginess that is born of compassion for people. We have seen the ugly maw of Leftism and we would walk through bedlam and chaos in order to deliver people from the Christ-less ugly and monochromatic world that the left always try to produce in its mad pursuit of Utopia.

Propositional Nationhood

As long as Republicans support the idea of propositional nationhood you can consider them a Marxist party. Marxist political theory is guided by the putative truism that nations can be held together with the glue of propositions and ideas. Last night Condoleeza Rice gave us, in her speech, that same idea that so many Republicans and Democrats buy into. It is the same propaganda that the American citizenry has had pounded into their head for decades.

This from the speech of Condoleeza Rice last night at the RNC

“After all, when the world looks to America, they look to us because we are the most successful political and economic experiment in human history. That is the true basis of “American Exceptionalism.” The essence of America—that which really unites us—is not ethnicity, or nationality or religion—it is an idea…”

It is not possible for a nation to be a nation unless the citizenry share ethnicity, and religion, as well as sharing a History, literature, music and heroes. Also, the fact that a educated person could say that the essence of America (that which defines us as a nation) is not nationality is mind boggling. How can nationality not define a nation?

Well, one reason I suspect that Republicans and Democrats both thump the idea that nationality can’t define a nation is that nation itself is defined as, “a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.”

That this is true in our own founding is seen in the reality that America was founded by those of the British Isle who had a firm understanding of the Rights of Englishmen, and further who shared, Maryland excepting, a Protestant religion. The essence of America in its founding was most definitely not, contra Dr. Condoleeza Rice, an idea or series of propositions. Now, propositions may have eventually been part of the equation but it was only part of the equation after a shared ethnicity, religion, and culture was already in place. That this is so can be seen by our own US Constitution.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Note that both the Founders and Ratifiers of the US Constitution founded this country upon the premise that it would be for them and their posterity. They did not premise it upon a idea or proposition. I know it is not PC to say it but they and their posterity were all Northern Europeans. They all believed in the Rights of Englishmen. They all believed in English Common law. They did not create a propositional country.

It’s acceptable if Japan is occupied by Japanese. Very few people argue that Japan should be a propositional nation. It’s acceptable if Kenya is occupied by Kenyans. Very few people argue that Kenya should be a propositional nation. It’s acceptable if Saudi Arabia is occupied by Saudi Arabians. Very few people argue that Saudi Arabia should be a propositional nation. But American has become a International nation … a nation without borders and so what has been forced upon us is the silly idea of propositional nationhood.

That such an idea is quickly falling apart can be readily seen by those with eyes to see.

And to be precise … if it is true, Per Condoleeza Rice, that we are united based on that idea (proposition) that Condi gives, that idea thus becomes our religion so that we are indeed united by religion.


Below is the original proposition upon which Marxist nations are united.

The fundamental proposition of the Communist Manifesto

In the words of Frederick Engels:

The Manifesto being our joint production, I consider myself bound to state that the fundamental proposition which forms its nucleus, belongs to Marx. That proposition is: That in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes; that the history of these class struggles form a series of evolutions in which, nowadays, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class—the proletariat—cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class—the bourgeoisie—without at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinctions, and class struggles.

From the 1888 Preface of The Manifesto

The Marxist propositional theme that united their Nations, as the Nation became merely an extension of the State, (they eventually wanted to eliminate Nations in their movement towards globalist utopia), was upon the Hegelian proposition of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. That was the idea (proposition when stated) upon which they based the nation they were seeking to eliminate. So they were and remain propositional nations,

The Marxist nation-states were not united by ethnicity. The Marxists consistently try to eliminate that by either amalgamation or outright destruction. The Marxist leaders would insist that the nation-state was not united by religion (though it actually was to a degree — the religion of Marxism). The only thing left to unite a nation at that point, is either a proposition or brute force. Now, brute force is actually what keeps Marxist nation-states together but when they advertised themselves they will never admit that and so the only thing left for them to admit, as to what holds their nation-state together, is a proposition.

Correcting Dr. Bradley On His War Against Christendom Of The Past

Over here

Dr. Anthony Bradley continues with his complaint against Rev. Doug Wilson concerning Rev. Wilson’s lack of historgraphy skills in relation to the antebellum South.

In the piece above Dr. Bradley is offended at the instances where the antebellum South is embraced in an idolatrous fashion. And of course, where ever there exists Christians that have made an idol out of the Old South, all Christians would agree that such idolatry is a wicked evil sin that should be abjured. However, Dr. Bradley goes a step further by saying that this idolatry occurs in “many Reformed circles in America.” Many Reformed circles? Many Reformed circles? This seems to be a rather sweeping indictment against Reformed Christians. How does Dr. Bradley substantiate his charge? Has he taken a poll? Has he gotten on the mailing lists of enough Reformed circles wherein he might be able to make an reasonable guess?

Further Dr. Bradley goes on to say that this Idolatry has existed without much resistance. Really? I can only speak from my own reading but in much of my reading I see a great deal of resistance. For example several years ago the Reformed circle that is the PCA issued an apology for and expression of repentance from the alleged racist past of Presbyterians they see as their direct forbears. If a Reformed circle is offering this kind of apology, I don’t know how it could be said that they were at the same time making an idol out of the antebellum South. In point of fact if people would read all the heat in way of comments that Dr. Bradley’s observations have created they would see all kinds of resistance to this putative confederate idolatry.

None of this is to say that I agree with Dr. Bradley’s contention. It is merely to say that Dr. Bradley has made some sweeping charges here that he can not, in any objective manner, substantiate as being true. It’s just his opinion — an assertion without any grounding.

Dr. Bradley then opines that it would be best to consider the era of the antebellum South a “rubbish” for the sake of gaining Christ (Phil. 3:8) and his Kingdom. Well, sure, this would be true even for the person who could imagine belonging to the most perfect social order that ever existed. Would not that person count that as rubbish in order to gain Christ? Why I can even imagine that Dr. Bradley would count as “rubbish” his association with “Reformed Blacks of America,” for the sake of gaining Christ.

So what point is Dr. Bradley making with his “rubbish” comment? Is he suggesting that in order to have Christ Southerners must give up their Southern heritage? Is Dr. Bradley saying that the antebellum South of R. L. Dabney, James Henley Thornwell, John Lafayette Girardeau, and Benjamin Morgan Palmer was anti-Christ? No one is suggesting that the antebellum South was without fault or that the men just mentioned didn’t have blind spots, but to suggest that it was not a Christian culture worthy of respect and esteem is to damn God’s work among His people. The truth be known, the antebellum South, with all its warts, was the last muscular expression of Christian culture on a civilizational level the world has ever known. And yet even R. L. Dabney said, “A righteous God, for our sins towards Him, has permitted us to be overthrown by our enemies and His.” So, just exactly why should Christians with a Southern heritage count their birthright “rubbish?”

Fortunately, one can at the same time, Dr. Bradley’s opinions notwithstanding, hold on to their God given Southern heritage, without making it an idol, while at the same time gaining Christ.

Dr. Bradley seems to think that the fact that the antebellum South is to be seen as “rubbish” because it did not allow all blacks to be fully human. Yet many many of these enslaved blacks were Christian by confession. Now, certainly Dr. Bradley is not suggesting that blacks, ontologically speaking were sub-human. I think what Dr. Bradley is saying here is that blacks were not as human as they otherwise might have been if they had not been enslaved. Since blacks did not have the rights they were supposed to have, I think Dr. Bradley is saying that enslaved blacks in the antebellum South had less opportunity to experience all of what it means to be human than they otherwise would have had. In other words, their opportunity to experience the fullness of humanity was thwarted due to their enslavement. However, I do not believe that all because a person is a slave that means that, existentially speaking, they missed out on experiencing the fullness of being human. In the New Testament Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, gives instruction to both slaves and masters in order to regulate the institution along Christian lines. This inspired New Testament regulation of slaves and slavery proves that slavery is not ipso facto a denial of the rights of “full humanity” to blacks and at this point Dr. Bradley’s criticism against the Old South is really a criticism of the biblical view of slavery. As difficult as it is for moderns to hear, the fact that the Holy Spirit in the New Testament regulated the institution of slavery indicates that there is nothing inherently wrong with the master-slave relation. Thanks to the Gospel witness of many fine Southerners countless enslaved blacks, now part of the Church at rest, knew, while alive, all the fullness of being human. In point of fact, because they were in Christ, they recovered a full humanness that they would not have otherwise known had they never come to know Christ.

Dr. Bradley tells us that he is not accusing Rev. Wilson of racism but rather he is accusing him of insufficient historiography. One wonders though why Dr. Bradley even notices Rev. Wilson’s historiography except for the fact that said historiography gives aid and support to alleged racists. So, Rev. Wilson isn’t racist, but his historiography leads to putative racism? Curious reasoning there on Dr. Bradley’s part. (Note, we are not even pursuing whether there is an agreed meaning of the word “racist.”)

Dr. Bradley then speaks of the links that he provided for his preferred historiography. Dr. Bradley seems to suggest that Rev. Wilson’s historiography is suspect simply because it is controversial. But in the spirit of providing historiography might I recommend that those YRR / new Calvinist types who want to get up to speed also get a hold of a copy of “Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers’ Project, 1936-1938.” In these exit interviews by former slaves you will read many voices giving a different view of slavery then is commonly portrayed. In point of fact you will read many former slaves who, “make a case for such a thing as “virtuous” Southern Confederate values.” I would also recommend, “Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made,” by Eugene D. Genovese, or, “The Tragic Era – The Revolution After Lincoln,” by Claude G. Bowers, or, “North against South; The American Illiad, 1848-1877, by Ludwell Johnson, or, “The Coming of the Civil War, by Avery Craven, or, “Lincoln, The Man,” by Edgar Lee Masters, or, “A youth’s history of the great Civil War in the United States from 1861 to 1865,” by R.G.B. Horton. Look, this era and the history surrounding this era is incredibly complex subject (the destruction of a great civilization usually is) and Dr. Bradley, by throwing out a few book suggestions from assorted Liberals, progressives, and non-Southerners, is being more than a bit simplistic by suggesting that Rev. Wilson’s historiography is simplistic all because Wilson’s reading isn’t the same as Dr. Bradley’s.

Dr. Bradley asks, “Why is there such interest in defending the South?” Perhaps the answer to that is found not in a longing for a return to slavery. Perhaps the answer to that question is found in the South’s insistence on limited government. In our current era, where Centralized government is running roughshod over state duties, family duties, and individual duties why wouldn’t people long for a time when, in principle, decentralized and diffused government is advocated. Perhaps the answer to why there is such interest in defending the South is found in the fact that the South was characterized by respect for families, the presence of chivalry, the last culture of honor, and the presence of a distinctly Christian church that had real influence for good among the population, both black and white. Despite Dr. Bradley’s suggestion that the defense of the South is about regret for loss of power and privilege perhaps it is explained by a longing for 5th commandment proper hierarchies and distinctions.

Dr. Bradley says that such a longing is insulting to blacks. Why? Can Dr. Bradley name one person in Reformed circles who wants to bring back the virtues of the southern social order along with black slavery? If we could find our way to a social order without black slavery and also without all the vices of cultural Marxism that we currently have what would be so terrible about that? What would be so terrible about a social order where civil government power was decentralized and diffuse? What would be so terrible about a social order that took seriously again the 9th and 10th amendment? What would be so terrible about a social order where family is healthy once again? What would be so terrible about a social order that once again found the Christian Church having a vibrant voice in the community? What would be so terrible about a social order that was once again agrarian? What would be so terrible about a social order uninfluenced by Jacobins, cultural Marxists, Corporatists, Fascists and other assorted collectivists? These virtues are hardly “rubbish.” Some might even say these virtues are Christian.

It is true that it is possible to make an idol out of the antebellum South. It is likewise possible to make an idol out of destroying all lingering memory of the antebellum South. Both tendencies should be avoided.