Whenever I Hear The Phrase, “Social Justice,” I Reach For My Revolver

Socialists are forever carping about “social justice.” What I contend though is that this whole idea of “social justice” is not really the goal or driving force for these Marxists, though the mindless useful idiots drink it up like water, but rather Social justice as an aspirational appeal is only a means to achieve the real goal of the Marxist, to wit, total control.

This is easily seen in countries where the Marxists have taken control. Where did they ever relieve the social injustices they carped about before they came into power? No, in point of fact the Marxists, who whined the loudest about the needs of social justice, when finally coming to power created a social environment that was characterized by the social injustice they moaned about prior to seizing power growing to gargantuan proportions.

And you can take it to the bank that with the passing of Obama care, propelled in America for the past century by cries of “social justice,” will give us a health care system that will breed illness, injury, and death in measures that we have never seen in this country. But, as total control is achieved by the Marxists, all this social injustice will be quite insignificant.

Look at the former Rhodesia and the current South Africa. The issue of social justice was the order of the day when these countries functioned as civilized societies. The Marxists had their way in those countries and now the inadequacies of the past are envisioned, if they could but exist again, as a social order Oasis. These peoples, who fell for the siren song of social justice, have gone from the frying pan to the fire of Marxist social order.

The Marxists are experts at using issues of justice only as issues of agitation among people. They care no more for justice then Lady Gaga cares for purity. The only thing the Marxist wants out of social justice is the ability to agitate and to cause division, with a view of conquering so that they can control and enslave.

The fact that those Marxist who are epistemologically self conscious (vis-a-vis the useful idiots) don’t really care about the travails of people is seen in their own writings. Marxist Chernyshevsky explained his antipathy to the Russian land reform in 1861 by asserting that a certain improvement in the peasents’ lot might turn them from the revolutionary path. Somewhat later Nechayev writes,

“The government itself might at any moment come upon the idea of reducing taxes or instituting similar benefits. That would be a real misfortune, because even under the present terrible conditions the folk are slow to rise. But give them a little more pocket change, set things up even one cow better, and everything will be delayed ten years. And all our work will be lost. On the contrary, you should use any opportunity to oppress the people, the way the contractors do, for example.”

Bakuin could write of the French,

“They should have suffered greater misery and disturbances. Circumstances are coming together in such a way that there will be no shortage of that. Perhaps the Devil will awaken them.”

At at time when “bourgeois philanthropists” such as Charles Dickens and Thomas Carlyle were fighting against child labor, the Geneva Congress of the First International adopted a resolution composed by Marx:

“The Congress regards the tendency of contemporary industry to draw on the labor of children and juveniles of both sexes in the great task of social production as a progressive, sound, and lawful tendency, though under capitalism it turns into a terrible evil. In a rationally organized society, each child from the age of nine ought to be a productive worker.”

In a letter from Marx to Engels, Marx comments about a improved market and then says, “may this be damned.” Elsewhere Marx writes to Engels, “Here, only two or three very bad years could help…”

It is only the useful idiots (very often church leadership and rank and file who have been infected with sentimental pietism) who really believe that the wringing of their hands over social justice will accomplish anything. The Marxist / Socialist leadership knows that such phraseology is merely a means at a power grab, and indeed desires social injustice only so they can agitate.

Whenever, I hear the phrase, “social justice” I reach for my revolver because I know someone is really trying to kill me.

Shafarevich On The Myth of Scientific Marxism

Proof that Marxism has ALWAYS been about eliminating peoples,

This from Igor Shafareivich’s “Socialist Phenomenon”

“But with almost perverse consistency, most of the projections of Marxism have been proven incorrect. A better percentage of correct predictions could probably have by making random guesses…. we limit ourselves to three (examples) in order to underscore the typical and in most cases fundamental nature of the errors: the truth proved to be not merely different but in fact the opposite to that which had been predicted.

a.) The national question: ‘National differences and antagonistic interests among various peoples are already vanishing more and more and more thanks to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the corresponding conditions of life. The supremacy of the proletariat will accelerate the disappearances of differences.’

(BLMc commentary — So, we see the Marxists have always believed that due to their scientific Marxism Nationalities would be eclipsed. Marxist theory anticipates the end of ethnic and racial distinctions. As the worker (proletariat) comes to the fore National differences disappear. It is difficult to comprehend that in the Marxist believing of this, they would not have done all they could to bring this consequence about.)

b.) In particular, the Jewish question, which was to disappear as soon as financial operations and petty trade became impossible. ‘The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of a merchant, in general of a man who deals with money.’ ‘An organized society which could remove the preconditions of petty trade, and therefore the possibility of petty trade, would make Jewry impossible.

(BLMc commentary — Note that the Jew nationality here is directly connected with money. The thesis is … “no money dealing, no Jew.” Can you say “Bankster class?”)

c.) The role of the state: ‘The first act in which the state truly comes forward as a representative of the whole society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. Interference of the state in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the process of production. That is not ‘abolished;’ it withers away.’

With the disappearance of classes the state inevitably disappears. A society which organizes its production in a new fashion based on the free and equal association of producers will send the machine of the state to the place where it belongs: the museum of antiquity next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.

(BLMc commentary — This reveals that Marxism was NEVER a theory of Government, governing or social order. Marxism was only a theory of how Government will come to an end. This explain why Marxists have no clue how to govern. Nothing in their theory offers any insight into governing since governing was to “wither away.”)

Compartmentalized Modern Man

In a return to sanity the home and family would once again become the center around which all other reality would orbit, simply because in a sane world home and family would once again be the reality that matters most. Because of the triumph of modernity, man has counted politics and macro-economics as the things that matter most — the things that are normal. However, in a sane world it would be the home and family that would be the things that matter most. Certainly politics and macro-economics have their place but their current import reveals how abnormal we have become.

And why have Christians fallen into this trap of modernity? Well, one reason is, is that as modernity has used politics and macro-economics to destroy the family as the center of lived out reality, Christians have believed that they are compelled to fight back with politics and macro-economics. Having been defeated by the techniques of collectivist ideology they have had little choice but to defend themselves by means of a similar ideology in the name of home and family. They have had marginal success in the contest.

A healthy culture would return to the family and home as the center serving as the integration point that puts an end to our current compartmentalization that makes home and family largely irrelevant. Modernity has modern man compartmentalizing everything from everything else so that everything stands un-connected to everything else, and this process has started largely because we have compartmentalized what should have been the integration point — home and family — from everything else. Because of feminism women have been compartmentalized from their place and role in the home and family. Because of evolutionary capitalism men have been compartmentalized from their place and role in the home and family. Because of the industrial revolution the craftsmanship found in home economics has been compartmentalized from the home and family. Because of instant entertainment, infotainment, and edutainment that has been compartmentalized in their own bailiwicks away from home and family, home and family no longer are a place to find creativity, or the fellowship that results from such creativity. Even the Church has been compartmentalized away from the home as the denial of covenant theology as found in revivalism and anabaptist “theology” has atomized faith from home and family. The home and family, which used to serve as the integration point for all these functions and roles, is a useless unit and as a result compartmentalized modern man now finds himself a passive and malleable consumer of all that which he used to actively produce or be produced in him in the context of a healthy home and family. Now however, with the success of modernity and the compartmentalization project, home and family has been reduced to a mere bed and breakfast weigh station for a handful of individuals who mindlessly gather there for a snatched meal and a night’s sleep.

However, this compartmentalization project has not stopped with compartmentalizing man away from home and family. Successful in abstracting man away from home and family, the compartmentalization project has successfully turned modern man’s thinking into a morass of compartmentalization so that truth is no longer seen as holistic and integrated but is seen as a undifferentiated cascade of unrelated facts. Modern man is walking and talking unit containing universes of contradictions made possible because of the ascent of the compartmentalized mind. Modern man believes one thing in the realm of history which is contradicted by what he believes in the realm of philosophy which is contradicted by what he believes about current events, which is contradicted by what he believes about his Christianity. But none of these contradictions matter because the mind has been compartmentalized so that nothing that modern man thinks about in one area comes into contact with anything he thinks about in another area.

All this compartmentalization also explains the rise of the “specialist.” Because of the rise of the specialist we know more and more about less and less. This wouldn’t be so bad if we had some generalists among us who could take what the specialists are learning in their tight little compartmentalized worlds and provide a integration point that would help make sense of all this data. This used to be the job of the Theologian but today the Theologian has likewise become a specialist so that much of his “knowledge” is just so much abstract compartmentalized theorizing that comes into very little contact with the rest of our disciplines. Some “Theologians” are even insisting that theology shouldn’t exceed its boundaries of specialization insisting that each specialization should have its own autonomy. Theology seldom provides integration any longer.

So, this compartmentalization, as it has become the prevailing motif in the West has finally changed our University system into a Multiversity system. The whole idea of University originally was to find unity (hence the “Uni”) in the diversity of disciplines. The University proclaimed that there was a integration point. However, today the University has not integration point unless one counts integrating into the void as a integration point. What we have today is Multiversities where students go and learn that all that exists is the compartmentalized. There are particulars galore but no universals to hold the particulars together. (Though how you can know what the particulars are apart from a Universal to define them is anybody’s guess, but that is just another contradiction that we have to live with in our gloriously compartmentalized world.)

The reality of compartmentalization goes on and on. Existentialism compartmentalizes man from man’s nature. Postmodernism compartmentalizes Truth from truth, Radical Two Kingdom theology compartmentalizes the redemptive realm from the creational realm. Very little is integrated and as a result modern mind, being multi-minded, is unstable in all his ways.

Talmudic Judaism, Stalin’s Communism, Ben-Gurion’s Zionism

“Words have no relation to action. Otherwise what kind of diplomacy is it? Words are one thing. Action is another. Words are a mask of concealment for bad deeds. Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than dry water or wooden iron.”

Joseph Stalin

Lying permeates the rabbinic mentality. It is part of the culture and heritage of Orthodox Judaism, not just the theology. In the letters section of the London Review of Books, this writer came across the deception technique of David Ben-Gurion and we recognized as 100 proof rabbinic:

“Ben Gurion was a consummate strategist and he understood that it would be unwise for the Zionists to talk openly about the need for brutal compulsion. We quote a memorandum Ben-Gurion wrote prior to the Extraordinary Zionist Conference at the Biltmore Hotel in New York in May 1942. He wrote that ‘it is impossible to imagine a general evacuation of the Arab population of Palestine without compulsion, and brutal compulsion. Dershowitz claims Ben-Gurion’s subsequent statement — ‘we should in no way make it part of our program’ — shows that he opposed the transfer of Arab population and the ‘brutal compulsion’ it would entail. But Ben-Gurion was not rejecting this policy: he was simply noting that the Zionists should not openly proclaim it. Indeed, he said that they should not “discourage other people, British or American, who favor transfer from advocating this course, but we should in no way make it part of our program.”

Michael Hoffman
Judaism’s Strange Gods — pg. 162

Stalin’s quote supports the idea that Bolshevism – Communism was a movement inspired by and supported by a worldview informed by Talmudic Judaism. Stalin and Ben-Gurion both were practicing the deception that Hoffman documents as a identifiable marker of Othodox Judaism. Whether Stalin (Dzhugashvili) was Jewish is debated. That he was married to at least one Jewess is not. That he was surrounded by high profile leadership which was Jewish is also not debatable. Finally, what is not debatable is that the quote from Stalin could have been informed by the Jewish thinking just as Ben-Gurion’s actions were informed by Judaism.

All of this is consistent with what Dr. Fred Schwarz wrote over 40 years ago in his little book, “You Can Trust The Communist To Be Communists.” Schwarz’s labor in that book was to communicate that the Communists, consistent with their Hegelian Dialectic, will practice any deception, and tell any lie, in order to advance their “proletariat morality.” The Hegelian Dialectic is just a 19th incarnation of Talmudic Judaisms long standing Hermeneutic of deception. Zionists like Ben-Gurion, and Communists like Stalin all share the same commitment to Talmudic subterfuge in order to advance their agenda.

Linkage In The Theologies of Cultural Marxism & R2K?

The cultural Marxists are forever shrilling over the separation of Church and State. This is because they want to make sure that the public square is kept sanitized of any Christian influence. Meanwhile R2K is also forever shrilling about the separation of common realm from the redemptive realm — two realms that are largely analogous to the Church and State of the Cultural Marxists. The reason why R2K wants the common realm to be recognized as compartmentalized from the redemptive realm is the mirror reason of the Cultural Marxists. As noted above, the cultural Marxists want Church and State separate so Christianity can’t effect and so despoil culture. R2K wants common realm and redemptive realm compartmentalized so none of the common realm leaks into the redemptive realm so despoiling the redemptive realm. Both Cultural Marxism and R2K want to make sure that the realms that they are concerned about stay sanitized from unhealthy influence from the other realm. Both R2K and Cultural Marxism clears the common realm / civil realm from any interference from conservative Christianity and so allows so form of collectivism to rule. Both R2K and Cultural Marxism both believe that the other realm they are not primarily concerned about is not where the real action takes place. (Hence R2K refers to the common realm as “Kingdom of God’s left hand” and Cultural Marxists refer to the Church with any number of epitaphs.) Both R2K and Cultural Marxists are led in their respective attempts to compartmentalize their respective realms by their wise men. Both R2k and Cultural Marxist push their compartmentalization as a non-negotiable item of faith. Both R2K and Cultural Marxism work to silence the voice of Biblical Christianity in the public square. R2K wants it silenced in the name of Christian love for neighbor. Cultural Marxists wants it silenced in the name of Cultural Marxist love for neighbor.

The symbiotic relationship of R2K and Cultural Marxism is so convenient that I can easily see Marxist organizations funding R2K Institutions through popular front movements. In point of fact so symbiotic is the relationship between the two that one wonders if R2K, at it hits the street, is in point of fact a baptized version of Cultural Marxism.

Now, of course it must be realized and admitted that there are differences between Cultural Marxism and R2K as well. Cultural Marxism practices philosophical materialism while R2K leans more towards a Gnostic dualism. Cultural Marxism doesn’t really believe that some realm belongs uniquely to the Church though it is willing to posit that irrelevant realm as long as the Church can stay fenced behind it. R2K isn’t atheistic though it has spiritualized Christianity to the point that atheism must look awfully inviting to the serious minded person. Eschatologically speaking both miss the mark, though they miss the mark in different directions. Cultural Marxism is teleologically optimistic and humanistic Utopian while R2K is teleologically pessimistic and Christian Dystopian. However — and this is important — at the very moment when the Cultural Marxists arrive at their Utopian state the R2K Jesus returns in order to crush this present wicked age as successfully built by the Cultural Marxists. What was Utopian to the Cultural Marxists was Dystopian to the R2K and Jesus breaks in to bring all things to an end.

One can see that there are similarities and differences but where these similarities converge there is a great opportunity for each to work alongside the other in order to achieve their parallel goals.