Category: Quotes & Commentary

The Nature Of Marxism In All It’s Incarnations

Bolshevism, as Ouspenski boasted, had to destroy. It set out to destroy everything formerly in existence. This meant destroying people because people are indissolubly connected with things. It would mean, it was carried through to the end, destroying everyone, since people’s lives have their roots in the past, and in institutions, and customs and beliefs that have grown out of the past; and if the past is to be destroyed they have to be destroyed as well. The past and the people stand or fall together.

Even in Russia, however, the destructive force innate in Bolshevism cannot be carried through to the end. It gains impetus; proceeds more and more frantically and hysterically, but must at last spend itself. It cannot be carried through to the end because it depends on hate, or of class war. Certain individuals; sadists and some Jews and cripples; frustrated intellectuals, can hate all their lives; base their lives on hate; and a whole society can be propagandized into hating for the duration, say, of a war or a general election; but not whole society can hate indefinitely. There comes a limit. No whole society can hate long enough to destroy itself; and self destruction is the only conceivable end of Bolshevism and of the class war. Thus Bolshevism must, by the nature of things and by its own nature, be an uncompleted process.

Malcolm Muggeridge
Winter In Moscow — pg. 105

1.) Cultural Marxism has become our version of Russian Marxist Bolshevism. Like Bolshevism, it thrives on hate, and like Bolshevism in order to thrive it has to create a oppressor class upon which the locus of hate can focus. For the Bolsheviks it was the Bourgeois. For the cultural Marxist today it is the White European Christian.

2.) Cultural Marxism is likewise committed to destruction just as Bolshevism was. Bolshevism destroyed the Kulaks, destroyed the Church, and destroyed those who did not fervently enough support the party. Cultural Marxism has destroyed the unborn, destroyed the Church, and destroyed the whole notion of distinction or hierarchy. For the Bolshevist the goal of all the destruction was the creation of the “New Soviet man,” which is exactly the same project of the Cultural Marxist in the West.

3.) Marxism, in whatever its incarnation, must destroy the past for the past, with its customs, traditions, and stability, is that which is inimical to the agenda of the Marxist. Marxism desires Utopia and Utopia is only arrived at by sloughing off the dead hand of the past.

4.) I do believe however that Cultural Marxism, unlike Muggeridge’s description of Bolshevism, can be carried through to the end. Cultural Marxism has advanced by the whole ideal of perpetual revolution as it keeps right on marching through the cultural institutions. I see no spending of the vigor of cultural Marxism. We have gone from serial adultery, to no-fault divorce, to homosexuality and there is no indication that in this one area that any end is in sight for the normalizing of perversion. Because of that I do believe that as a culture we will destroy ourselves.

5.) The ultimate impetus behind Marxism is the host of the underworld with its Prince at its head. Jesus said that Satan came to kill, steal and destroy and Marxism is that social order by which Satan implements his agenda.

T. S. Elliot On Christianity & Culture


‎”If Christianity goes the whole of our culture goes. Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready made. You must wait for the grass to grow to feed the sheep to give the wool out of which your new coat will be made. You must pass through many centuries of barbarism. We should not live to see the new culture, nor would our great-great-great grandchildren; and if we did, not one of us would be happy in it.”

T. S. Elliot
Christianity and Culture; The Idea of a Christian Society and Notes Toward the Definition of Culture — pg. 200

Culture is the outward manifestation of a set people’s belief. Christianity is the belief cult that has created the culture of Western man for over one thousand years. It has been mercilessly attacked with success by various forms of Marxism in this country for 80 years. Eliot reminds us that once Christianity is snuffed out in the West then what made the West the West is snuffed out as well, and I would contend that means that not only is Christianity snuffed out but also those who were made by Christianity are snuffed out. The decline of Christianity also means the decline of Western culture and the decline of the European since on a civilizational scale they each imply one another.

Further Eliot reminds us that true Christian culture is not instant. Once Christianity on a Civilizational scale goes into final eclipse then it does not normatively come back in one generation. Christianity, on a Civilizational scale, is a tender plant that requires and creates its own eco-system. Destroy the eco-system that Christianity creates in a civilization and you cut back the tender plant of Christianity as a civilization creating plant. Eliot understood this and it is important for us to grasp again when living in a time when many in the Church today believe that the plant can thrive apart from the Civilizational eco-system that it requires and creates.

Our enemies understand this as well. Instead of seeking to directly choke off the Christian faith, they have wisely decided to attack indirectly by attacking the cultural eco-system that Christianity requires and creates. Our enemies realize that mouthing certain confessions means very little if those confessions can be quarantined from having any effect on the public square.

Unless we desire to go through a real dark age of tyranny and cruelty that can only be imagined by those who have read the tyranny and cruelty of the 20th century we would do well to heed Eliot’s words and gird up our loins and fight for the Christian faith and the civilization it creates. To refuse to do so would be a testimony that one loves death.

The Requirements For Effective Political Leadership

“But he had two qualities that disqualified him for political leadership — he saw both sides of every question and he was incapable of hate.”

Claude G. Bowers describing a US Congressman in his book
The Tragic Era — The Revolution After Lincoln

I found this quote interesting because I remembered reading a quote once on Woodrow Wilson that he was such a “good hater,” and in my mind I connected the two sentiments.

There is a certain amount of Machiavellian sense in the idea that in order for a politician to be successful he must be a good hater. It fits right in with Machiavelli’s advice that it is better for a Prince to be feared than loved.

Bertrand Russell & Bret McAtee on Education

‎“The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship….The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.”

Russell concluded with a warning:

“Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

Bertrand Russell
20th Century Cultural Marxist

Our government has been in charge of education for over one hundred years and it simply is the fact that most Americans have the convictions they have because of the propaganda swallowed in government schools. This is true of Christians as well, but with Christians the crime is doubled because Christians then baptize their pagan convictions with a thin coating of “Christianity.”

Government education from pre-schools to University is not about educating people. It is about controlling the populace. Government education is not about learning, it is about creating a citizenry that is shaped to think the way the state desires. Government education is not about disseminating intelligence, it is about creating cogs that will fit in the state determined culture — cogs that are smart enough to be an effective drone work force, but not smart enough to think critically and analytically for themselves. Government education is not about personal growth for the student, it is about Corporate America producing a generation that will be consumers for their products. Sadly, all that I’ve just said about Government education is also largely true of the agenda of even conservative Churches today.

The quote by Russell above could be re-produced repeatedly by people who are in the know. If you’ve been trained in Government Schools, you simply must acknowledge what they have done to you and determine that you are going to begin to think outside your previous thought patterns.

Take the blue pill. You’ll be glad you did.

Warfield On Atomistic Hyper-Individualism

“To Paul, the human race is made up of families, and every several organism — the church included — is composed of families, united together by this or that bond. The relation of the sexes in the family follow it therefore into the church. To the feminist movement the human race is made up of individuals; a woman is just another individual by the side of the man, and it can see no reason for any differences in dealing with the two. And, indeed, if we can ignore the great fundamental natural difference of sex and destroy the great fundamental social unit of the family in the interest of individualism, there does not seem any reason why we should not wipe out the differences established by Paul between the sexes in the church — except, of course, the authority of Paul.”

B. B. Warfield

Piggy backing off this Warfield quote it would be easy to suggest that this hyper-individualism that he locates has created more havoc in what was once Christendom then just the problem of Feminism. This hyper-individualism that is part and parcel of our philosophic egalitarianism has broken down all the formerly understood and embraced hierarchical structures of Biblical Christianity. Not only are the Biblically informed hierarchical structures and roles between women and men decimated but also the Biblically informed hierarchical structures between men and men and women and women have been destroyed. This is proven by the embrace of Sodomy and Lesbianism. If men and women are merely integers that are not Biblically defined in their meaning and hierarchical structures then why shouldn’t men go with men and women with women into the boudoir? Another example of this is the recent push for children’s rights. If humans are merely integers that are not Biblically defined in their meaning and hierarchical structures then why shouldn’t the differences between children and parents be eliminated?

And though we’ve been propagandized since the 1950’s not to probe this application, wouldn’t Warfield’s complaint against the human race being composed only of individuals be a cautionary word pertaining to the wisdom of not honoring historic distinctions between cultures and ethnicities? Is it really the case, as the Alienists and Cultural Marxists would have us believe, that just as women and men are undifferentiated cogs so it is the case that men of different nationalities are likewise merely undifferentiated cogs that can be swapped in and out of the Statist created cultural machine of the New World Order? If God has created men and women to be distinct is it so hard to think that He likewise hath made of one blood all nations of men (note the unity in diversity idea) and did determine the bounds of their habitation (note the idea that nations, and so nationalities are distinct)?

I am convinced that this idea of the human race as being comprised only of atomistic individuals — an idea that owes its origin more to the French Philosophes and their Revolution then it does to Biblical Christianity — is an idea that has effected us more negatively than we think or realize.