Category: Uncategorized

Dr. Schlebusch Contra Social Contract Theory II

3. The Enlightenment and its Impact on social ontology

Enlightenment social contract theorists presupposed the sovereignty and independence of the individual as being in their natural state free from all social and political structures, but who, in order to make human society at all possible, unconsciously enter into a what they called the social contract by which, as Locke describes it:

men, when they enter into society, give up the equality, liberty and executive power they had in the state of nature, into the hands of the society, to be far disposed of by the Legislative as the good of the Society shall require; yet it being only with an intention in everyone the better to preserve himself, his Liberty and Property (Locke, 1690:93).

Rousseau himself argued that the state of nature, the only state in which
humans are truly free, uncorrupted and sovereign, is the very foundation for the “equality of rights and the idea of justice which such equality creates [and which] originate in the preference each man gives to himself, and accordingly in the very nature of man” (Rousseau, 1762:69).3 To him individual liberty and sovereignty, therefore, entailed egocentric self-servitude free from all external constraints.

The ontological implications of the social contract theory are profound: society is accordingly viewed as fundamentally made up of naturally sovereign individuals. Each individual as a basic constitutive unit of human society share a natural equality with all others, with civil society or the state then being the result of an implicit contract signed by free and equal individuals who sacrifice some of that natural autonomy for the sake of establishing a functional human society (Spahn, 2018:2). This individualist ontological framework has remained the prevailing philosophical foundation underlying the notion of universal human rights throughout the post-World War II world as it is understood and promoted by the United Nations today (Spahn, 2018:2-3).

In Western Christendom prior to the Age of Enlightenment, family and
lineage were understood to have played a central role in shaping society as
well as in determining the individual’s place within and relationship to society. The influential thirteenth-century philosopher-theologian, Thomas Aquinas (2006:4), for example, wrote that

God holds the first place, for He is supremely excellent, and is for us the first principle of being and government. In the second place, the principles of our being and government are our parents and our country, that have given us birth and nourishment. Consequently, man is debtor chiefly to his parents and his country, after God. Wherefore just as it belongs to religion to give worship to God, so does it belong to piety, in the second place, to give worship to one’s parents and one’s people. The worship due to our parents includes the worship given to all our kindred since our kinfolk are those who descend from the same parents.4

Even right up until the dawn of the Enlightenment, this medieval family and kinship-centered notion of society remained prevalent, as evidenced in
the work of one of the most prominent political philosophers of the early
seventeenth century, Johannes Althusius (1610:715), who, in his magnum
opus, Politica Methodice Digesta, Atque Exemplis Sacris et Profanis Illustrata, emphasized the decisive role of the family—both nuclear and extended—as the constitutive unit of human society:

It cannot be denied that provinces are constituted from villages and cities, and commonwealths and realms from provinces. Therefore, just as the cause by its nature precedes the effect and is more perceptible, and just as the simple or primary precedes in order what has been composed or derived from it, so also villages, cities and provinces precede realms and are prior to them. For this is the order and progression of nature, that the conjugal relationship, or the domestic association of man and wife, is called the beginning and foundation of human society. From it are then produced the associations of various blood relations and in-laws. From them, in turn, come the sodalities and assemblies, out of the union of which arises the composite body that we call a village, town or city … It is necessary, therefore, that the doctrine of the symbiotic life of families, kinship associations, assemblies, cities, and provinces precede the doctrine of the realm or universal symbiotic association that arises from the former associations and is composed of them.5

This understanding of social ontology fundamentally relates the individual to the family and to broader blood or ancestral relationships in which he finds his social place and identity. This, of course, stands in stark contrast to the atomizing tendencies of the social ontology that would later characterize the thought of Enlightenment social contract theorists. The influential eighteenth-century French Philosophe, Jacques-Pierre Brissot (1783:157-158), for example, advocated embracing the ideal of cosmopolitan multiculturalism as an alternative to what he considered the prejudice based on familial relations, nationhood, religion and race that had characterized European society until that time.

When the Counter-Enlightenment, a movement that sought to establish
a viable antithesis then emerged as conservative reaction to the Enlightenment’s revolutionary notions of the nature of society based in the
social contract (McMahon 2001:8-9), it proceeded to counter what it regarded to be as an inversion of true social ontology with a more traditionalist social ontology.

3 “Ce qui prouve que l’egalite de droit et la notion de justice qu’elle produit derive de la preferance que chacin se donne et par consequent de la nature de l’homme.”

4 “Deus summum obtinet locum, qui et excellentissimus est, et est nobis essendi et gubernationis primum principium. Secundario vero nostri esse et gubernationis principium sunt parentes et patria, a quibus et in qua et nati et nutriti sumus. Et ideo post Deum, maxime est homo debitor parentibus et patriae. Unde sicut ad religionem pertinet cultum Deo exhibere, ita secundo gradu ad pietatem pertinet exhibere cultum parentibus et patriae. In cultu autem parentum includitur cultus omnium consanguineorum, quia etiam
consanguinei ex hoc dicuntur quod ex eisdem parentibus processerunt”.

5 “Nam negari non petest ex pagis et urbibus, provincias, ex bisce vicro Respublicae et rega constituta. Sicut igitur cansa sua natura praecedit effectum, eoque, notior est et simplex, seu primum id quod compositum seu ortum a primo est, antecedit ordinare, ita quoque, pagi, civitates et provincia, regna antecedunt et prius quam ea suerunt. Hic enim naturae
ordo et processus, ut conjungium, seu consocatio domestica viriet uxoris fundamentum et principium humane societatis dicatur, et ex hac Porro producantur consociationes consanguineorum et adsinium diversorum, ex bis vero sodalitates, collegia, ex quorum conjunctiove corpus compositum, quod pagum, oppidum, vel civitatem dicimus … Necessario igitur doctrina de vita symbiotica coniugum prpinquorum, collegiorum, ci vit atum et provincae antecedit eam, qua est de regno, vel universali consociatone symboitica priore orta est et exea composita.

The Quackzine & The Mark of the Beast

Revelation 13:12 It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed… 15 And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain.

“Makes the earth and its inhabitants WORSHIP the first beast…”

In Romans 12 St. Paul defines spiritual worship as a presentation of our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God. Worship thus is an offering of one’s body. It’s kind of hard to read this and not think of the 100’s of millions of people who have offered their bodies in order to get the vaccine (hereinafter referred to as “quaxx”). Are these folks worshiping, in Biblical language, a Beast?

I mean without the current mark (quaxx) of the statist beast it is being hinted at from some quarters we will not be able to buy or sell (Rev. 13:17). Could not the quaxx be seen as a sign from heaven (Rev. 13:13) working widespread deception? I think that is quite believable.

Now, I don’t believe we are living in the tribulation. Indeed, being a Partial Preterist, I think the Tribulation the Scripture refers to is passed. However, that does not, therefore, mean that I refuse to see any linkage with that past statist Beast (Nero) and future (to Nero) statist Beasts that would arise. I think we can learn a great deal about the nature of Beastly statism by understanding how it was that Nero was the Beast.

We are living, again, in times where marks (in this case the vaccine) are being required and some of us might see the quaxx as akin to the original mark of the Beast brought in by Nero. The Mark of the Beast was to the end of worshiping that which was contrary to worshiping God. In the book of Revelation, I identify the beast as the tyrant state, embodied in Nero and as in league with anti-Christ religion. The Mark of the beast served as a way to make people bow to the Roman State. Elsewhere in scripture, we find God marking His people (Ezekiel 9, Revelation 9) as belonging to him. So, yes, I see the reception of the quaxx as a receiving of a mark of our current Statist tyrant beast — a mark that may well circumspect those who refuse the quaxx in their commerce.

Now, this is NOT to say that Pastor Bret believes if you got the quaxx or get the quaxx you have the mark of the beast and so are going to hell. I don’t necessarily believe that is always the case. What it does mean is that Pastor Bret does think if you’ve gotten the quaxx you may not have thought this thing out as well as you might have. I do think that in getting the quaxx you are bearing the mark of our current beast and that getting the quaxx is an act of worship and communicates that the recipients of the quaxx are acolytes (whether epistemologically self-conscious or not) of the God-state beast.

Though certainly people who are frothing at the mouth that everyone must get the quaxx are definitely mighty high on my list as being marked by the Statist beast and are hell-bound.

A Flurry of Offerings on Cultural Marxism

“One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution since the protest is aimed at the whole cultural establishment, including the morality of existing society. What we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system.”

Herbert Marcuse
Cultural Marxist
Frankfurt School Doyenne 

“We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.”Willi Munzenberg
Cultural Marxist

1.) The Cultural Marxist left’s belief in tolerance is not the pure tolerance that some assume it is. It is, as from the book title, of Herbert Marcuse ‘Repressive Tolerance.’ Repressive tolerance teaches the left to give preference to minority groups using the dialectics of conflict. For example; “The Oppressed vs. Oppressor,” taught the left to restrain the liberty of the right (“Oppressors”) and to continually give preference to marginalized minority groups (“Oppressed”) who then become the righteous oppressors in the fight for mythical, objective, and paradoxical equality and now equity.

Hello Cancel Culture … Hello Political Correctness … Hello Safe Places

2.) Marcuse realized that there would not be an uprising by the working class to overthrow Western civilization and so he turned to the anti-colonial third world as a natural beginning of a new proletariat. Marcuse fashioned the minority world as combined with the pervert class, who likewise along with the anti-colonial third world hated the Wester civilization, into a new Marxist working-class proletariat. This new proletariat comprised of minorities, perverts, and bra-burning feminists — all who viewed themselves as victim groups — would accomplish what the workers of the world never did and that is unite to the end of throwing off Christian Western Christian civilization via a revolution characterized by their “long march through the Institutions.”

3.) Marcuse’s “Eros & Revolution” was a nuclear bomb on the University campus when it was released. It made Wilhelm Reich’s case that sexual liberation was the best counter to the putative psychological ills (by Cultural Marxists standards) of Western man. In that book, Marcuse advocated for ‘polymorphous perversity,’ which was just a scholastic way of saying “sex with whoever, and whatever one desires whenever one desires.” Marcuse, following Reich, contended in “Eros & Revolution” that the West and the White man’s putative violence was due to the White man’s pent up sexual frustration. In this context we begin to see the hippy cry “Make Love, Not War,” and we begin to see “Love In” protest on university campuses.

4.) Once arriving in the US from Germany having been connected to the Frankfurt school Herbert Marcuse was hired by the FDR administration to do work with the Office of War Information in order to develop anti-Nazi propaganda. Marcuse also worked with the OSS which was a precursor to the CIA. In this action, we see the endorsement of the Federal Government of a known agent of Cultural Marxism.

5.) Erich Fromm, one of the Frankfurt school’s main thinkers pushed cultural Marxism through psychology by blaming Western tradition for the rise of Nazism and the rejection of Marxism. Leftists today still call their opponent “Nazis” based on Fromm’s ridiculous offerings.

6.) It was Edward R. Murrow who was responsible for connecting the fleeing German Frankfurt School “academics” with Columbia University via an agency (Assistant Director of Institute of International Education [IIE], 1932-1935) that had been created to help do just this work. Of course, this was before Edward R. Murrow became well known. Murrow, like so many of the newsmen of that era, were, at minimum, understood to be fellow travelers.

7.) Almost all of the Frankfurt school “intellectuals” were Jewish and with the rise of Hitler they were forced to disperse Germany. Many of them ended up in the US at Columbia University where they spread their noxious musings throughout the university system in America. Columbia University became ground zero for Cultural Marxism and from Columbia many of the students of the first generation Cultural Marxists spread like a plague to other universities across the country.

8.) Critical theory is suspicious of the very categories of ‘better,’ ‘useful,’ ‘appropriate,’ ‘productive,’ and ‘valuable,’ as those are understood in the present order.”

Max Horkheimer
Cultural Marxist
Frankfurt School Doyenne

The term “Critical theory,” was first coined by Max Horkheimer in his work w/ the Frankfurt school. Critical Race Theory as developed by Horkheimer was an infinite and unending criticism of the Christian status quo as done via the then-new social sciences of psychology, sociology, economics, political science, etc.

Critical theory demanded a kind of social relativism be embraced for the purpose of forever ridding societies of any kind of Christian ethical foundation. The real goal in all this was to make social orders unworkable by making everything meaningless. If there is no meaning then there is no reason to defend anything. This would allow Revolution which would, in turn, bring in the Marxist Utopian state.

9.) Felix Weil was the chap who funded the Institute of Social Research (later to become known as the “Frankfurt School), using money he inherited from his capitalist Grandfather.

10.) Marx’s materialistic dialecticism, per, György Lukács was not a predictor of the future though it was a tool of destruction. The Marxian thinking was “tear down the existing economic status quo and people will automatically turn to Marxism.” György Lukács and Gramsci disagreed believing that it was Western culture that needed to be torn down.

11.) “Man is above all else mind, consciousness — that is he is a product of history not of nature. There is no other of explaining why socialism has not come into existence already.”

Antonio Gramsci

 

With this quote, one can see why Dr. Gary North might say “Marxism is dead.” Gramsci here definitely turns away from the hard materialism of Marx. However, in my estimation, this is just a turn back to Hegel’s idealistic dialectic as opposed to Marx’s materialistic dialectic with the result that Gramsci, given his other planks, remains a Marxist.

You might be a closet kinist if …

27.) At your family reunions you expect to spend the day with large numbers of people who share your last name.

26.) You find it curious when you see a film on Robin Hood where a Chinaman is cast as Robin Hood.

25.)  You married within your race not thinking twice about it.

24.)  On Father’s Day you call and talk to *your* father.

23.) It makes you happy that your children look like you.

22.)  You believe family is normatively defined by blood relations

21.) People who knew your father often comment; “You look just like your Dad,” and/or, “That’s exactly what your Dad would’ve done.”

20.) You can distinguish between a Pit Bull and a Yorkie, and you recognize that they differ behaviorally as well as physically.

19.) You get together with your extended family at Christmas, even the unsaved members.

18.) You don’t change your last name just because much of your family is not Christian.

17.) You assume that all descendants of Adam are automatically damnable sinners solely because they proceeded out of Adam’s loins.

16.) You believe Scripture when it teaches that people from “every tribe, tongue, and nation,” in their tribes, tongues, and nations will be present in the New Jerusalem

15.) You identify yourself in part by the surname your father gave you.

14.)  You think children naturally belong to their biological parents.

13.) Given the option to save either your mother or some other random unknown woman from certain death, you would save your own mother.

12.) You let the neighborhood kids come over to your house to play, but you
send them back to their own homes at the end of the day.

11.) When you buy groceries, you typically bring them back to your family, not to the neighbor’s family.

10.) You have a secret family recipe that you refuse to share with foreigners.

09.) You think it’s okay for whites to be excluded from benefiting from the United Negro College Fund.

08.) You believe that Africans were still distinguishable from the Japanese, even before Darwinian evolution came on the scene.

07.) You don’t think Shakespeare is racist because he portrays blacks (Aaron, Prince of Morocco, and Othello) as being different from Englishmen

06.) You don’t think Scripture is racist when it refers to the impossibility of Ethiopians changing their skin.

05.) You aren’t outraged thinking that Shakespeare’s Shylock or Dicken’s Fagan are antisemitic.

04.) You reason that if there is such a thing as “inbred,” there must also be such thing as “outbred.”

03.) You think it was important for Jesus Christ to be born into the tribe of Judah.

02.) You believe that Jesus had to be a descendant of David

01.) You don’t fault God for prohibiting foreigners from being made king in Israel.

Are All Genocides Equal?

Before there was Auschwitz there was Bloemfontein. Before there was Dachau there was Norvalspont. Before there was Treblinka there was Elmira NY which was so bad it was dubbed “Hellmira” by its occupants. Have you ever asked yourself why you have heard of Majdanek, Bergen-Belsen, and Sobibor but never of Pt. Lookout Maryland, Johnson Island, or Camp Douglas?

Why do you know about the Jewish suffering and not the Boer suffering during the Boer war when the British built Concentration camps for the Boer women and children in order to inflict mental suffering upon the Boer men fighting against the British?

When I looked over the list of those who died at the British concentration camp by Potchefstroom, South Africa, I saw names like Vander Wal, de Vries, van Wyk, etc. I thought, “I know these people!” (not really, but these are last names in my life experience). Many of the Dutch Reformed in Iowa began voting Democratic at the time of the Great Boer War because Republican President Wm. McKinley supported Great Britain in that war. Much of Europe (including the Irish!) supported the Boers.

Why do you know about Jewish suffering and not Confederate suffering at the hands of Concentration camps dotted all across the Yankee North?

And we haven’t even begun to consider all the names of the camps that formed the Gulag Archipelago in Russia, nor have we mentioned the great slaughter of the Armenians by the Turks that started in 1915 and lasted two years.

Why do we know only about the German camps and only about Jewish suffering? What have we been inundated with films, books, documentaries, museums about Jewish maltreatment but barely a word about Ukrainian Christian maltreatment or Armenian Christian maltreatment, or the maltreatment of the Boers?

This question, by all rights, ought to make one really pause to think. Could there be a reason that we know all about one and very little about the others?