From Classical Marxism to Cultural Marxism — One Doctrinal Transmutation

 
 
    In one of his works, “The German Ideology,” Marx expands on what life will be like in the “free” communist paradise where division of labor as found in Capitalism, is finally abolished:
 
    “For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”
   
Now with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 many Marxists have given up on Marx’s promise of each and every man being a renaissance man that is an accomplished cattle rancher one day, a first class huntsmen the next day, a concerto violinists the following day and a Olympic member of the Soviet hockey team the next. However, this doctrine has not gone away as it has been inherited by the Cultural Marxists. Indeed, this doctrine has merely been transmuted. While the cultural Marxist may not embrace the polymath myth of his classical Marxist forbear he does embrace a similar myth of pansexualism.  Cultural Marxism holds out the promise that a being can one day be a man, and the next day be a woman, and the next day be a transgender male that is a Lesbian and the next day can be a newt. Just as classical Marxism held out the promise to all men that they each could be Renaissance men so the cultural Marxist holds out the promise to all men that they can be accomplished in any and all perversions they desire. The elimination of distribution of set labor so that each could do all as found in the classical Marxist model has been transmuted in the elimination of distribution of set sexuality so that each can sexually be all.
 
    The implicit existentialism found in the nonsense that all men, in a Communist Marxist model, could be masters of everything according to their whim is now the implicit existentialism as found in the nonsense that men, in a Cultural Marxist model , can be masters of gender according to their revolving whim of desires.

Hillary’s Confession

 

“Look, I don’t believe you change hearts, I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You’re not going to change every heart. You’re not.”

Hillary Rodham-Clinton

1.) This is as clear of a confessional statement in regards to social engineering as you will ever find. Hillary is admitting here that change does not come via persuasion but rather by brute Governmental force.  The Government is the Potter and the citizenry is the clay and those who handles the pulleys and levers of the Government change people by changing their environment via legislative, executive and judicial diktat.  People then change not because they are persuaded but because they are forced.

2.) This heavy emphasis has a theological origin. Theologically people are seen, in this theology, not as free moral agents but rather as those who are behaviorally conditioned and who are responding to a top down stimuli. In this worldview Hillary and the Government is the mad scientist and the citizenry is the Pavlovian dog made to salivate upon being conditioned by Governmental decree.

3.) This attitude also conveys the attitude of legal positivism. Law is not discovered. Law does not belong to some objective transcendent order that exists to be discovered and bowed to. Law, instead, is created by humans as a tool to shape other humans. Law is subjective to the ever shifting need of the zeitgeist.

4.) This is the mindset of most of our politicians and it is the mindset of tyranny. Seize the reins of power.  Rule in a top down fashion. View the citizenry as clay to be  molded at the magistrates command. Change the way systems operate so that those in those systems are forced to comply. Resistance is futile. The citizenry will be assimilated.

A Short Brief on the Consequences of Sex without Borders

A social order trajectory that begins with unconstrained libidinous passion will end in social order horror that consumes individuals, families, and nations. For example the French intelligentsia philosophes, emodied and led by the Marquis de Sade, embarked on the trajectory of emancipating the sexual impulse from the moral order and the end result was the tender strokes of Madame la’ Guillotine. What began as a loosening of sexual mores ended with the loosening of heads off of shoulders.

Consider also, as example, the Weimar Republic of the 1920’s. What began as the Sexual cabaret of Europe in the 1920’s where every kind of fetish and deviance possible could be had for the right price ended with unnamed tyranny and finally, rampant death for the “fatherland.”

Consider also the Bolshevik Revolution. Alexandera Kollentai led the way in sexual freedom for women. Women, under communist rule, were considered as belonging to no man but as belonging to the state for purchase. Kollontai, with Lenin’s approval, sought to destroy the concept of marriage and families. The results of this sexual freedom was so disastrous that even the Communist realized that they had to reverse course lest they wipe themselves out by sexual freedom.

Consider America and its “sexual revolution” ginned up by the huge tax free foundations supporting the completely fallacious “science” of Alfred Kinsey, and then promulgated by pervert carnival barker pamphleteers like Hugh Hefner. Since the American “sexual revolution” blood has flowed to the tune of scores of millions of lives of the living but not yet and never would be born.

There is a nexus between the liberation of sex from God ordained expression and the consequent social order blood in the streets that naturally follows. We are witnessing that again in the West as we seek to eliminate any boundaries for sex. It almost seems that there is a principle at work here — a truism that demonstrates that unfettered sex outside God’s boundaries of marriage, guarantees unlimited death.

Not only is it the case though that sex without borders ends in rivers of blood, but it is also the case that sex without borders makes for Governments without restrictions. When a people become perverted by sex there no longer is any impulse to hold Government officials accountable in their never ending work of enlarging the scope of the State. A perverted and guilty people are in no position to hold accountable perverted and guilty Politicians and bureaucrats. In point of fact, the state recognizes this, and realizes it is in their best interest to pervert the citizenry since such a course of action guarantees, for them, their ability to not be held accountable for their perversion of power and corruption.

Finally, sex without borders works to pressure our daughters into women of ill reputation and our sons into the effete. This is the consequence of widespread cultural perversion working to conform all in its  path. Modesty and masculinity are both redefined in a perverted direction. Libidinous sex becomes the defining aspect of such a culture where sex has no border and all are defined and identified in terms of their relation to the sexual zeitgeist.

The Centrality of the Cross

The words “flesh” and “blood” used here in John 6 of course point to the cross, where Jesus’ flesh will be broken and his blood will be spilled, Jesus associates the separation of his flesh and blood in his violent death on the cross as the moment when He will totally give his whole self for the life of the world.

Texts like this remind us that the center of the Christian faith is the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ is our Great High Priest who as our King is a warrior Priest. Our whole existence and being means nothing apart from the death of Christ for sinners such as us.

Apart from the death of Christ the only way to deal with sin is to deny it and the only way to deal with guilt is to pawn it off on every poor unsuspecting soul we come across.

Apart from the death of Christ, right and wrong are, at best, merely agreed upon subjective conventions. However with the death of Christ God’s law is vindicated and so God’s definition of right and wrong are honored and are anchored as the Universal standard of right and wrong for all men.

Apart from the death of Christ good and bad are determined by those who have the most and biggest guns. With the death of Christ good and bad have meaning that transcend men’s ability to have their way by force. With the death of Christ justice, as found in and defined by God’s good, is one day guaranteed, even if that day is the last day.

The death of Christ is the anchor of the universe and were it to ever go into eclipse — a certain impossibility — men would become the psychotic animals too many of them already are due to their defiance against God and His Christ. It is only the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ that provides for the flowering of a human flourishing that is resolved on finding joy and meaning in bringing glory to God.

The death and resurrection of Christ is and always shall remain the truth that vindicates God and insures the manishness of man.

Critiquing Rev. Dr. Leithart’s “The Nation, The Church, and the Immigrants” (Part I)

Critiquing this piece,

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/07/the-nation-the-church-and-the-immigrants

Dr Peter Leithart,

No one denies that US immigration policy is a mess. One poll found that 63 percent of Republicans want to deport the estimated 11 million illegals in the United States. Sniffing a popular cause, Congress has jumped aboard with legislation focused on identifying, arresting, and punishing violent criminals among illegal aliens.

Bret replies,

First, lets contend over Dr. Leithart’s 11 million illegals figure. That number is hotly contested with a respected Bear Sterns report offering the number of illegal immigrants at closer to 20 million.

Click to access BearStearnsStudy.pdf

Ann Coulter’s recent book, “Adios Amigo,” puts the number at 30 million.

Second. one reason that the US immigration policy is a mess is because we have combined the promise of the welfare state with a defacto open borders policy. In providing Government money and benefits what our hostile Government is doing is providing both incentive and subsidies to become illegal aliens. Dr. Leithart’s, essentially alienist reasoning, does nothing to address either aspect of this equation. It is safe to say that as long as our hostile Government continues to combine a defacto open borders policy with a Welfare state the consequence will be increased illegal immigration.

Third, Dr. Leithart points out proposed legislation that would identify, arrest, and punish violent criminal as if such legislation is a bad idea. Does Dr. Leithart really think it is a bad idea to enter into a process that removes the most violent illegal aliens?

Dr. Peter Leithart offers,

Considered strictly as a policy issue, there is much to commend open borders. Like Prohibition, recent efforts to control immigration haven’t done much to control immigration, but instead have pushed immigrants into back alleys and speakeasies that do a brisk business in forgery, illegal and dangerous transport, and other skullduggeries. Opening the border would undercut these criminal networks, as legalizing booze put the bootleggers out of business.

Bret responds,

One wonders what there is to commend open borders as a policy issue?

Is it black teen unemployment rate that Dr. Leithart finds so commendable in a open borders policy?

According to African-American spokesman, Kenneth Blackwell, as given in a critique of the Obama administration’s illegal immigration policy,

“Teen unemployment in the black community is especially shocking. In the past two years, the number has hovered around 40 percent. In Mr. Obama’s adopted hometown of Chicago, the Urban League just reported that black teen unemployment is a breathtaking 91 percent.”

Is the problematic crime rate of illegal immigrants something that Dr. Leithart find commendable in open borders?

*Judicial Watch reported last year:

Of the 61,529 criminal cases initiated by federal prosecutors last fiscal year, more than 40%—or 24,746—were filed in court districts neighboring the Mexican border….Nearly 22% (13,383) were drug related, 19.7% (12,123) were violent crimes and 10.2% (6,300) involved white-collar offenses that include a full range of frauds committed by business and government professionals.

Is it the low wages that the US Chamber of Commerce loves that Dr. Leithart finds so commendable in open borders?

We must come to terms with the fact that immigration, both legal and illegal, is a program for redistribution of wealth from the working class to the elite financial and political classes and it has little or nothing to do with concern for the well-being of the poor in other countries. It’s not an honest call to the “tired, poor, huddled masses.” It’s a call for the elimination of the middle class and a turn to a have vs. have not social order.

Is it the fact that American workers are being displaced that Dr. Leithart finds so commendable in open borders?

http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-data-july-employment-data-again-suggests-illegal-immigration-surging-when-will-msm-notice

Is it the fact that America is being transformed from a WASP country to a third world country that Dr. Leithart finds so commendable in open borders?

“For more than 20 years, the consensus—the consensus—among labor economists has been that the immense inflow into the United States since immigration was reignited, after a 40-year lull, by Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1965 Immigration Act is of virtually no benefit, in aggregate, to native-born Americans.  Immigration does increase output (GDP) in varying degrees.  (In the case of unskilled immigrants, the increase is often minuscule.)  But essentially all of that is captured by the immigrants themselves, through wages.  In other words, America is being transformed for nothing.”

Next, Dr. Leithart compares our failure in our immigration policy with our failure in enforcing prohibition restrictions.

On this score, first observe, that it is always easiest to eliminate crime rates by decriminalizing crime.

Second, note that if we really wanted to enforce policy against illegal immigrants the fact that we have done so before, during the Eisenhower administration, (Operation Wetback) suggests that we have not been serious concerning enforcing the laws regarding illegal immigration. The problem here is not the impossibility of enforcing the law. The problem is that there has been little will to enforce the law. Clearly, Washington, like Dr. Leithart, wants defacto open borders.

Third, to compare legalizing the elimination of borders to the elimination of restrictions on alcohol consumption is a category mistake of profound consequence. The impact of an open borders policy has profound and far ranging consequences that extend far beyond the consequences eliminating restrictions on alcohol. Some of those consequences are teased out in this article,

I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends — Darrell Dow Refutes Dr. Leithart on Immigration

 Rev. Dr.  Leithart goes on,

Even Pat Buchanan admits that most migrants work hard for their share of America’s prosperity. If border controls were relaxed, Kevin Johnson has argued, honest refugees and migrants could come in safely through legal checkpoints, allowing the INS, Homeland Security, and other agencies to use scarce resources to target known or suspected terrorists, drug-runners, and other criminals.

Bret responds,

1.) Here is Pat Buchanan’s admission that  Rev. Dr. Leithart cites,

” … the sense America’s borders are undefended, that untold millions of lawbreakers are in our country, and more are coming. While most (illegal immigrants) come to work, they are taking American jobs and consuming tax dollars, and too many come to rob, rape, murder and make a living selling drugs.“

Somehow in  Rev. Dr. Leithart’s world becomes,

“Even Pat Buchanan admits that most migrants work hard for their share of America’s prosperity.”

This is, at best, disingenuous on Rev. Dr. Leithart’s part and, at worse, and example of lying by a member of the clergy to advance a weak point.  This was something that only liberal clergy used to do.

2.) Rev. Dr. Leithart’s desire for open borders reminds me of the old Roman Catholic technique of bringing in the pagans en mass, adding some of their tribal rituals so they will feel comfortable with being present (Cinco de mayo anyone?) and in this case, voila … American citizens. In brief, Rev. Dr. Leithart would have us outwardly sprinkle them and pronounce them American and ex opere operato they are Americans.

Rev. Dr. Leithart continues,

With open borders, Johnson says, “rules and regulations governing the entry of noncitizens into the country would approximate those that exist for goods, services, and capital that enter.” We’d benefit from freer, more mobile labor, as we benefit from cheap imports. Many doubt whether the new immigrants can be assimilated, but for all our groping disarray, America is still damned good at turning people from every corner of the globe into devoted Americans: In the image of ourselves make we them. It’s not hard. Most of them are here because they’ve long dreamed of becoming Americans.

That’s hardly a slam-dunk policy argument, but it’s a serious position, worthy of better than the wacky-nut treatment it’s usually given.

But it is a policy argument, and there’s the rub, because immigration cuts deeper than policy can reach.

Bret responds,

1.) This is basically both a Libertarian argument that reduces men to their economic equation and a propositional nation argument that sees a nation as nothing but a hodge podge of people who agree on shared propositions. Both of these are beyond suspect. Rev. Dr. Leithart’s statement does nothing to consider the human or cultural dynamic except to offer that “America is damned good at turning people into devoted Americans.”  Neither is there any consideration on Rev. Dr. Leithart’s part of whether or not it is a Christian desire to see people “turning into devoted Americans.” Some might argue that such a statement, especially in light of matters like the recent Planned Parenthood “baby body parts for sale,” reveals that Rev. Dr. Leithart’s agenda to turn the alien and stranger into a devoted American is contrary to seeing them become devoted Christians.

2.) Honestly, Rev. Dr. Leithart speaks of the wacky-nut treatment his ideas are usually given but I hope we can begin to see why wacky-nut ideas are given wacky nut treatments.

 

The postmillennialism of Federal Vision Alienists like Rev. Dr. Leithart is a Sarumanic postmillennialism. It is an attempt to immanentize the eschaton and as everyone does that to one degree or another; I get that. The problem here is that Rev. Dr. Leithart‘s Eschaton is the Eschaton of Babel. It is the eschaton of Sauraman who believed the only problem with Sauron’s eschaton was that it wasn’t “Christian,” and could be rescued if it was just given that “I love Jesus” touch that could be provided only by a Jesus loving Saruman type policy.

End Part I