I love and respect Angelo M. Codevilla’s The Rise of Political Correctness, but Marinov’s point that the key problem is corrupt pastors is much closer to the truth than the red herring of “Cultural Marxism.”
Never mind the atheists, never mind the secularists, never mind the Muslims. The real enemy, what is really holding the Kingdom of Christ back, is the hidden (or, nowadays, utterly blatant) corruption of the Christian Church: especially among her leadership, but often backed by the laity, with ears eager for pleasing lies.
(Just a head’s up: both Western materialist atheism and secularism arose as a intense reaction against Christianity, within nominally Christian nations. Islam is, of course, at root an anti-trinitarian and anti-Christ (and therefore lawless & totalitarian) heresy.
(There are consequences for emphasizing the One over the Many!
To get the balance right between unity (and the threat of lawless tyranny) and plurality (and the threat of lawless anarchy), you simply must centre your though on the Trinity. Only there, do you get both liberty and the rule of law – God’s Law, not the laws of powerful and wealthy men.)
Marxism is naturally a Christian heresy as well – more specifically, an anti-Catholic one. (As I’m sure the current Pope understands…) Anti-Protestant pagans prefer democratic capitalism.
See North’s History: European — The Two Wings of the Enlightenment: for more information.
This corruption within the Church must end.
As Marinov pounds on relentlessly and correctly, the pulpits must be purged: and the laity, guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit, must purge it.
(A few thoughts of pity for the Catholics: their chosen head is the Pope, and – like many churches – they follow the classic top-down bureaucratic model preferred by Satan, complete with the innately flawed seminary system.
(As opposed to the God-ordained apprentice system).
So, the possibility that there will be any purge in Catholic pulpits approaches zero.
On the other hand, the likelihood that they will become the last stronghold of both Marxism and Socialism– with appropriate Christian blather when necessary — rises to certainty.
At least among Protestants, some pulpits will be cleaned (and the more, the better!), and so some churches will rise and grow and multiply and inherit the future from the dying humanist New Order.)
From Bojidar Marinov’s The Oxymoron of “Cultural Marxism”
Everywhere I turn to, these days, I am warned about “cultural Marxism.” It seems to sneak into our modern society and politics in a number of devious ways of which Marx himself never even thought about. And always, of what I can see, in a direct violation of everything Marx wrote – but we will see later why I am saying that.
This buzzword has become the fad of the day among so many conservatives and Christians, and everyone seems to be seeing “cultural Marxism” in every corner, and fighting against it.
Now, in principle, there is nothing wrong in uncovering conspiracies and attempts at conspiracies in history, and opposing them. Although, from a Christian, and especially from a postmillennial, optimistic perspective, we shouldn’t be too concerned about conspiracies, for they never have sufficient power to be worth our constant attention.
That is because Christians are not to be Satanists, thinking that Satan has absolute knowledge, infallible plans, and can never be successfully defied.
This is simply not true!
God, not Satan, has absolute knowledge of everything. Satan is merely a finite being, with limits and restrictions and mistakes and oversights.
(And, quite likely, even forgetfulness! But smooth lies can cover gaps in knowledge, if you are not wary…)
God, not Satan, has infallible and unbeatable plans. Satan’s major plans have failed thanks to the Work of Christ and the Power of the Holy Spirit, as Commanded by God the Father. The God-State is dying, Humanism is dying, Islam is dying. All are blind and flaying about, destructive and cruel, but also stuck in their unrepentant pride and increasingly terrified of the future… a future they can dimly see, and a future that clearly has no place for them.
All idols must fall before Christ the King.
Finally, it is God, not Satan, who can never be successfully defied. Satan’s plan work for a while, while their lies are fresh and new, and their violence invokes fear… and then his servants grow old, and sclerotic, and senile, and rigid, and blind. People learn to detect the lies, and deflect the violence (or use it against itself, or defy the power of Mighty Men, or – when the Power Elite has sufficiently ossified – directly break it.)
…Still, having a general awareness of some conspiracies and pointing to them, as a side issue to our work for the Kingdom of Christ may be beneficial, at times.
On occasion, yes.
Some conspiracy theories, however, are blatantly false, and their purpose is nothing more than re-directing our attention from the real issues of the day to imaginary threats which will never materialize – nor have ever been planned to materialize. And this conspiracy theory, of “cultural Marxism,” is one of those fake threats. So our purpose here is to see why “cultural Marxism” is a fake threat, and in itself, the very concept is an oxymoron. And also, that it is, in fact, a smoke screen for a much worse and more imminent threat, one that many Christians have fallen victim to. Just to mention before I get to the point, Gary North and Joel McDurmon both have written their refutations of the conspiracy theory of “cultural Marxism.” I will add to their refutation by giving an in-depth analysis of Marxism, what it is, what it isn’t, and where the real threat lies.
What Lind doesn’t tell you, however, is that there is no such thing as “Cultural Marxism,” because it is an oxymoron. Gary North, again, has written a detailed article on this, so I won’t retread that ground. The term is absolute nonsense to anyone who understands what Marxism is. The bottom line is that by continually harping about “cultural Marxism,” such conservatives only accomplish two things: 1) they announce themselves to the world as ignorant (which serves as confirmation to most of the world, which already thinks they’re ignorant), and 2) they tip their hand that they may be motivated by racial prejudices (which serves as confirmation to most of the world, which already thinks they’re racists).
Don’t be an ignorant Christian.
Ignorance leads to powerlessness and failure… as quite a number of Muslims – and any number of Christian fundamentalists – could tell you, from first hand experience.
Read, learn, and ably use what you learn as tools to expand Christ’s Kingdom.
Be a knowledgeable Christian!
Pray, Lean, Work, Win!
Marxism, thus, is a philosophy of materialistic determinism, that is, that man, his society, and his whole world, are determined and defined by material factors. In this, Marxism doesn’t differ from some modern ideologies of materialistic determinism: like different kinds of geneticism and racism, environmentalism, behaviorism, etc. Marx’s materialism was not as simple as the materialism of those theories, though.
To avoid the intellectual stagnation of pure materialism, Marx kept his Hegelian dialectic. He just turned it upside down. For Hegel, reason, or the spirit, was the ultimate and active element in the universe, and Hegel applied his laws of dialectic to reason, in order to impact the material world. Marx, being now a materialist like Feuerbach, applied Hegel’s dialectic to the materiality of the world, and postulated change and upward development in the material constitution of the world. Keep in mind, he did that in the 1840’s, a whole 15 years before Darwin’s The Origin of Species. What Darwin did for biology in 1859 – postulate an upward impersonal development in the material constitution of things – Marx did for speculative philosophy 15 years earlier. The two men had much in common: both wanted to push God out of the universe, and both tried to do it by postulating dialectical, developing matter. No wonder Marx was so excited about Darwin’s book, and in 1973 sent Darwin a copy of the second German edition of Das Kapital, autographed, “To Mr. Charles Darwin, on the part of his sincere admirer, Karl Marx.”
Thus, in Marx’s view, man was the product of material development – all of man, including his mind and reason and culture and society – but he was not a simple and direct product of material factors. He was rather the product of dynamic, dialectical development within matter. In Engels’s words, “the mind is a product of highly organized matter.” This philosophy was called Dialectical Materialism, to separate it from the earlier form, dubbed Metaphysical Materialism, that is, one in which man’s nature remained fixed and unmovable, because the material element in him was fixed as his metaphysics, that is, his inner, essential nature.
A good thesis can be written (and probably has been written!) on how many Christian ideas Marx smuggled into Marxism, in an attempt to keep Christian dynamism and optimism while cutting out the God that powers it.
(But just in case the PC brigade has mysteriously never gotten to writing it… why not you? You don’t need the stamp of approval from some godless institution to do solid, scholarly work, if you are willing to put in the decade or so of hard work needed to master the material.)
What was left now is how to apply this principle of general philosophy to man’s society. (Keep in mind, I am giving here the systematic, logical reasoning of Marx’s philosophy. Historically, Marx developed it the other way around: he first postulated the necessity for social change, and then built his philosophy around it. But this is a topic for another episode.) So, how do we apply this philosophy of Dialectical Materialism to man’s society? How do we move from Dialectical Materialism to what Marx called Historical Materialism? What is the material element whose dynamic, dialectical change will produce the change in man and his society? It can’t be genetics – even though Marx was a vicious racist, and he believed that certain human races are genetically incapable of reaching a civilized stage – for the biological heritage of man always remained the same, or changed very little over centuries.
Marx’s solution was: the active factor in a society is its economic base, or, to use the Marxist term, its mode of production. The mode of production has two components: the relations of production (forms of property, organization of production, mode of distribution of goods, etc.) and the forces of production (labor and the means of labor). Narrowing the search down, the active element in the dynamics of history, for Marx, were the means of labor, and specifically the tools of production. Yes, you heard that correct. In Marx’s system of Historical Materialism, it was the tools of production that were the active factor in social change. Yes, the tools in themselves, no matter what ideology or religion or habits or customs or culture the people had.
Yes, Marx was a lunatic. In this case, a vile, racist, mass-murdering lunatic… with at one point of history, millions of highly-educated followers, trained in the best universities.
A bone-deep hatred of God does that to people.
(Isn’t it fascinating, that the powerful word genocidal cannot be used to describe mass-murdering Marxist governments? Hmmm…)
The central defining characteristic of man, therefore, was his class identity, and it was strictly economic: how does he relate to the means of production in his society? Is he an owner of means of production, hiring other people to work for him in his factories, or is he an owner only of his labor, selling his labor to the owners of means of production?
What about the other factors of self-identity that men use: religion, culture, art, politics, family, etc.? In Marx’s view, they were all simply a superstructure built on the firm and stable economic base. The economic base determines and defines all these non-economic components of the society. Moreover, not just that the economic base determines and defines religion, culture, art, etc, but also, the specific social existence of every class determines its class consciousness, and therefore the religion, culture, art, politics, etc., of that class. The consciousness of a man is defined by his economic status. Even more than that: the ethical system of a man is determined and defined by his economic status. Yes, this is not a joke. There is bourgeois system of morality, and there is system of morality of the proletariat, that is, of the dispossessed who have nothing to sell except for their labor. The whole superstructure of society – the non-economic areas of life – is entirely defined by its base, the economic relations and status. Marxism, thus, is a highly developed philosophy of materialistic determinism.
Much more can be said on the philosophical system of Marxism, but what we said so far should be sufficient to understand the important lesson for this episode: “cultural Marxism” is an oxymoron. There is no way, under the Marxist system of thought, to imagine culture as an active factor through which society can be changed. The different classes in the society may create their own cultures, or versions of culture, but none of them can transcend their own class consciousness defined and determined by their economic status. Culture can not be used to bring about a Marxist society – such a concept is a contradiction of terms for Marxism. Neither can culture be used to destroy a civilization – under Marxism, a civilization is built on its mode of production, not on its culture. Taking over a society can happen in only one possible way: seizing the means of production. No other solution can be found. Producing movies, or news, or articles, or ballet performances, or fiction may be a good help for strengthening the class consciousness of the working class, but they can not create such consciousness, nor can they produce any call for action. And it is absurd to even imagine they can destroy a civilization, let alone the Western civilization. As long as there are means of production in the hands of their owners, this is the only thing that matters.
And so we get the worship of things and tools, of power and control, and the explicit and intentional dehumanizing of everything outside of the Working Class…
(…or, more exactly, the Party that speaks for the Working Class. After all, neither Stalin nor Mao has any problems with killing millions of working-class men, women, and children who challenged the Party that supposedly spoke for their interests.
Or who merely got in the way of the Party’s Vision of the Future.)
The term “cultural Marxism” was first used as part of a conspiracy theory in 1998 by the Christian and conservative activist Paul Weyrich. You might remember the name from our previous episode on Moral Majority; Weyrich was one of the three leading men behind it.
(For that Moral Majority episode – not transcribed, sadly – go here.)
In 1998, frustrated by the indifference of the general public towards the Monica Lewinsky’s scandal, he decided to try to start another moral crusade. He used “cultural Marxism” as his buzzword – or as his scarecrow for conservatives – and declared that Marxism is not dead, but it has been working in the West in the media and among the cultural elite. Consequently, he and William Lynd took the work of the Frankfurt School and blew it out of proportions, declaring that the Frankfurt School has been critically influential in the development of the modern American culture. The purpose, they claimed, was the destruction of the Western civilization, and through it, the destruction of Christianity; and therefore, the ultimate triumph of Marxism, although not by the same means as Marx envisioned. Weyrich passed away in 2008, not before making a fool of himself by proposing different weird solution to fight “cultural Marxism,” among which were a return to localized subsistence farming and a restoration of railways as the chief means of transportation. The scarecrow of “cultural Marxism” continues to live among quite a few Christians and conservatives in general.
Christians, however, have several reasons to stay away from this scare of “cultural Marxism” and not pick up its terminology:
First, the term is simply oxymoronic, and its use reveals ignorance. To speak of “cultural Marxism” is just as legitimate as to speak of “materialistic Christianity,” that is, Christianity that arises from a materialistic understanding of reality. When we speak ignorantly, we may convince ourselves, but to the outsiders we will be presenting a good reason to reject our message, and thus our testimony for the Gospel will suffer.
Second, the use of the phrase “cultural Marxism” is just a newer version of the phrase “cultural Bolshevism” used by the Nazis in the 1920s and the 1930s to deal with their political opponents in Germany. It means nothing – and is oxymoronic, anyway – but it gives ammo to anti-Christian ideologies in the name of some imaginary noble cause. Indeed, the phrase today is mainly adopted by different fringe groups who aim at the restoration of racial segregation, or of some form of militaristic statism with the purpose, of course, of fighting those bad guys out there, the Commies and the Muslims. And others. Christianity has its own social agenda; we don’t have to be allies with one anti-Christian group to fight another anti-Christian group, unless we want to undermine our testimony to the world.
And third, the ideology behind the fight against “cultural Marxism” is that we need to defend the Western civilization, because in this way, we are defending Christianity. That is, that the survival of Christianity depends on the survival of the Western civilization. This is the same materialistic determinism as that of Marxism: that our faith depends on the material existence of a civilization. The truth is that the civilization depends on the survival of Christianity; and if the West is degenerating today, it is not because of the imaginary power and influence of the Frankfurt School, but because our own churches and celebrities have abandoned the vibrant, theonomic, postmillennal Christianity that produced the Western civilization in the first place. Political correctness didn’t come out of “cultural Marxism”; it came first from our pulpits. The effeminacy in the culture didn’t come from Hollywood; it came from our churches. All our problems today are the product of our pulpits and those who man them. Any restoration of Christendom must start not with chasing imaginary enemies in Hollywood, but with purging our pulpits. “Cultural Marxism” is just a smokescreen; your real problem is your pastor and your elders.
Thus, ignore the fake scares, focus on the real causes.
OK, let’s go over the money quote again – now with extra bolding!
The truth is that the civilization depends on the survival of Christianity; and if the West is degenerating today, it is not because of the imaginary power and influence of the Frankfurt School, but because our own churches and celebrities have abandoned the vibrant, theonomic, postmillennal Christianity that produced the Western civilization in the first place.
It’s not about Race or State or Land, or any other idol.
It isn’t even about Morality or Law, per se.
It’s about obedience to Christ the King, Lord of Heaven and Earth.
Political correctness didn’t come out of “cultural Marxism”; it came first from our pulpits. The effeminacy in the culture didn’t come from Hollywood; it came from our churches. All our problems today are the product of our pulpits and those who man them.
The current pastorate should be grateful that Marinov didn’t put quotes around the word ‘man’. I think that Marinov made the right choice here, but I would have probably gone with ‘geldings’ myself, as it is self-evident that there is no trace of the power of the Holy Spirit in them, to shape and redeem the culture.
For evidence for that accusation, look around you.
Any restoration of Christendom must start not with chasing imaginary enemies in Hollywood, but with purging our pulpits. “Cultural Marxism” is just a smokescreen; your real problem is your pastor and your elders.
Thus, ignore the fake scares, focus on the real causes.
The book I will assign for reading today [is] The Betrayal of the Church by Edmund W. Robb and Julia Robb. As you read it, consider this: Most of these renegade pastors and church leaders had no idea of the Frankfurt School or even of Marxism. Their betrayal had nothing to do with any outside conspiracies. And then, as you go to church next Sunday, consider the fact that a pastor who is not preaching a Christian social order based on the Bible is part of the same betrayal. And act accordingly.
Get going, get building… and ditch the heretical churches, fast.
Time to cut off the traitors from our lives.
Let them turn to the God-State and the Power Elite for support and sustenance: we must root our lives in the Commandments of Christ our King!