CULTURAL MARXISM IN THE CHURCH
From the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Sympathy for the Devil
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.” 1 Timothy 4:1
Rosaria Champagne Butterfield is a former lesbian who was a tenured professor at Syracuse University, where her primary areas of study were “Freud, Marx, Darwin,” “Critical Theory” and “Queer Theory.” In October of 2014, Rosaria Butterfield made her debut at the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberties Commission National Conference on “The Gospel, Homosexuality and the Future of Marriage.” At this strange event to which homosexual activist organizations were invited, Rosaria Butterfield was introduced by Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and interviewed by Russell Moore, President of the ERLC. Dr. Mohler is a Founding Fellow of the Research Institute of the ERLC.
The alleged purpose of the ERLC is to protect religious liberty, however, the organization is also an NGO of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. Membership in this powerful globalist body requires not only agreement with, but also promotion of, the goals of the U.N., which include abortion and LGBT rights worldwide. Non-Governmental Organizations of the U.N. profess to advocate for causes like human rights, religious freedom and responsible government, however, the reality is that they execute political and corporate agendas by proxy.
So we are not surprised that the ERLC would feature speakers who advocate for gays and lesbians in the Church, on the pretext that these gays and lesbians embrace celibacy. Knowing how well celibacy has worked in the Catholic Church, the ERLC also featured an Oxford educated gay celibate priest in the Church of England. The Church of England also has consultative NGO status at the United Nations through the Anglican Communion.
The previous year in the UK, in July 2013, Parliament passed legislation to allow same-sex marriage in England and Wales. On July 17 the Queen granted Royal Assent to the Bill which became The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. The legislation was enacted on March 13, 2014, and the first same-sex marriages took place on March 29, 2014.
Following The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act of 2013, the House of Bishops of the Church of England published the Pillings Report on meetings held by a Working Group on Human Sexuality since July 2011. The purpose of the Pillings Report was to sway the Anglican Bishops to sanction gay and lesbian marriages in the churches, since the Queen who is the Head of the Church of England gave Royal Assent and Parliament was hotly debating the legislation. In the Bishops’ Working Group, the process of dialoguing to consensus seemed to be stalled on the thorny problem of what the Scriptures on homosexuality mean and if Scripture was the final word on human sexuality.
“It is worth, at this stage, setting out the nub of the disagreement – the sticking point, as we understand it, which has prevented us from coming closer as a result of our deliberations. It turns, as has the Church’s ongoing disagreement on questions of sexuality, on the meaning and authority of Scripture.” (p. 15)
The Pillings Report concluded that, although many verses and passages in Scripture condemn homosexuality, they only applied to the period of time in which they were written. “Inclusive Evangelicals” argued that the “faithful same-sex relationships” of contemporary culture are different than the sodomy God declared to be reprobate in their cultural context and therefore should not be condemned by the Church today:
“‘Including Evangelicals’… IEs, with others, have come to believe that there is place for faithful same sex relationships in the Church…. Careful study and conversation persuades them there are fresh exegetical challenges to long-held convictions about what Scripture teaches. This is undoubtedly influenced by the greater openness to same sex relationships in society as a whole and thus to the reality of lives most personally shaped by it…
“Debates on same sex relationships focus all too quickly on ‘The Texts’ – those six or seven passages in the Bible that actually speak of homosexuality or homosexual activity. IEs, along with other ‘revisionists’, are frequently asked to supply texts that support their view that Scripture supports same sex relationships. They cannot do so because there are none. But the lack of explicit biblical teaching on significant social and ethical issues is not the same as claiming there are no scriptural grounds to support a particular viewpoint…
“Christian history warns of the hazards of using texts alone to establish the biblical teaching on any issue… In more recent debate there has been a move away from a focus on individual texts towards a concern to read them in the context of the wider biblical narrative…
“Genesis 18–19 – The sin of Sodom. IEs question whether this notorious story has anything directly to say about faithful same sex relationships. However, its actual concern is very relevant to, and all too often ignored, in this debate. This concerns the covenant obligation to honour the stranger in the midst. What happens in Sodom is in direct contrast to what happened earlier at Abraham’s tent. That hospitality, not homosexuality, is the issue here is made clear by Lot’s protest to those who come demanding access to his guests. He does not say – ‘do not do this because homosexuality is wrong’, but ‘do not do this because they have come under my roof’ (19.8). In Ezekiel 16 the sin of Sodom is ‘pride’ and inhospitality. The message is clear. Hospitality offered leads to blessing. Hospitality rejected leads to destruction…
“Those few texts that have traditionally been presumed to establish a clear biblical ‘mind’ on this subject need more careful interpretation within the actual concerns of their own cultural context. When this is done their relevance to the contemporary debate is significantly called into question. IEs believe that in this area of human living and relating we have not read or taught Scripture well.
“Is this that? IEs are not persuaded that those Scriptures that make reference to homosexual activity are describing contemporary expressions of faithful same sex relationships. Indeed the comparison can be deeply offensive. It is questionable whether the contemporary expression of faithful same sex relationships is known in the Bible at all.”
The purpose of this two year dialectic (2011-2013) was to gradually move Anglican congregants who held to the Scriptures, or traditional morals, closer to affirming what the Crown had declared to be legal. And so the “celibate” homosexual priest, Sam Allberry, was brought out of the closet to elicit sympathy for gay people who felt marginalized by the Church of England. Using the Church of England’s strategy in the United States, religious leaders such as Albert Mohler and Russell Moore have promoted gay priest, Sam Allberry, and former lesbian, Rosaria Butterfield, to project guilt on Christians for excluding gays and lesbians from membership in the church. Meanwhile, in June of 2015 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states.
A dialectical war is being waged against Christians and Christian churches to draw them away from the Word of God to a new so-called “conservative view,” that is, to welcome “gay celibate Christians” and eventually “gay Christians” into Church membership. The dialectical process is a direct assault on the Word of God intended to gradually move the Church away from it through protracted conflict in order to wear down the resolve and steadfastness of the Saints until consensus is reached.
In Stage 1, the Word of God is ruthlessly attacked by outside forces demanding that it be interpreted to conform to the secular culture, leading seeker-friendly and doctrinally unstable churches to negotiate a compromise on the issue of homosexuality. Adherents representing both sides—Thesis and Antithesis—debate until a Synthesis of both sides of the issue is agreed upon. At the end of Stage 1, the Word of God is compromised.
Thesis (Word of God) + Antithesis (Same-Sex Marriage) = Synthesis (Gay Celibate “Christians” in Church)
However, allowing “celibate gay Christians,” also referred to as “same-sex attracted” or SSA Christians, to join Christian churches is merely a ploy to open the church doors to “non-celibate” homosexuals. It has already happened in one major church that, after gay celibate Christians were allowed into the membership, it was found they could not or chose not to remain celibate. So the pastor dropped the condition of celibacy for “Gay Christians” to be received into the membership of the church. Thus the compromise (Synthesis) replaces the Thesis (Word of God), leading to yet another compromise—a new consensus or Synthesis.
Thesis (Gay Celibate Christians) + Antithesis (Same-Sex Marriage) = Synthesis (Gay Non-Celibate Christians in Church)
Eventually, non-celibate homosexuals will be married in that church, if they aren’t already. Thus, the Synthesis again becomes the new Thesis and the dialectic is carried forward until the Antithesis becomes the Synthesis, which is the predetermined outcome of the dialectical process for all Christian churches.
Thesis (Gay Non-Celibate “Christians” in Church) + Antithesis (Same-Sex Marriage) = Synthesis (Same-Sex Marriage in Church)
It is already happening that an organization promoted by The Gospel Coalition is advocating for sexually active LGBTs to be welcomed into Christian churches. And this will not be the end of the sexual revolution in the Church. Emboldened by their success in legitimizing “gay Christians,” liberals are clamoring for the Christian Church to affirm yet “another relational orientation: polyamory.” “Polyamory” is a euphemism for adultery.
“But quietly, there are the thousands of faithful Christians who practice polyamory — living lives of giftedness, dignity, and worth, but receiving next-to-no spiritual support. This raises an important question. Where are the serious public conversations about this? Why aren’t most LGBTQ-affirming churches being equally vocal about their affirmation of polyamorous people?”
To launch this dialectical process in the U.S., the Church of England’s key dialectic partner, a homosexual priest, was invited to America, to the ERLC National Convention to promote the “new conservative” position on homosexuality in the Church, along with a former lesbian whose academic expertise was Cultural Marxism: Freud, Marx, Darwin, Critical Theory and Queer Theory. Typically, facilitators of the “gay Christian” dialectic have advanced degrees from liberal universities which are training centers for Cultural Marxists.
German philosopher Georg Hegel (1770-1831) hypothesized that history unfolds through dialectical processes of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Karl Marx (1818-1883) adapted Hegel’s dialectical philosophy to the Communist Manifesto of agitating the masses toward world revolution. But alas for Marx and his successors the proletariat did not revolt against the bourgeoisie as planned when they witnessed the brutality and carnage of Communism; therefore a different strategy was needed to overthrow Western Civilization. In 1923, the Communist International funded a group of Jewish intellectuals to set up the Institute of Social Science at Frankfurt am Main—where also the Jewish banking family, the House of Rothschild, had long been established.
“Frankfurt School Cultural Marxism”
“The early beginnings of the Frankfurt School emphasised the reformulation of Marxism. The Marxist proletariat revolution was not going according to plan, as signified by World War I (the working classes, rather than aligning with their class, gave preference to their nations and fought each other), and by the socialist regimes under Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin in Russia spawned by the 1917 Bolshevik revolution. Marxist intellectuals gathered in the Weimar Republic to discuss why the revolution had not taken place in Europe, and returned to the drawing board to perform a ‘searching reexamination of the very foundations of Marxist theory with the dual hope of explaining past errors and preparing for future action.’ The Frankfurt School was explicitly created to do this research and planning ‘to become a major force in the revitalization of Western European Marxism in the postwar years.’
“As they reworked Marxist theories they developed a new strain of Marxism that gave priority to the radical transformation of the cultural superstructure (foundations) of Western civilization. They perceived Christianity and Western cultural traditions as obstacles to the revolution, which needed to be severed at their roots. This Marxist ideology came to be called cultural Marxism, a non-violent but revolutionary collectivist ideology that seeks the gradual gain of power via the modification of laws, institutions, and social organisations.
“Other than [Karl Korsch (1886-1961)], there were three European Marxist theorists who had a significant impact on Frankfurt School cultural Marxism: in the initial founding stages, Georg Lukács (1885-1971), and in the later stages, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) and Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), whose writings were particularly influential in the 1960s, especially on the British-created Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, or the Birmingham School (1964) and the counter-culture movement and the New Left.
“While he was Deputy Commissar Lukács sought to destroy society along with the traditional values of the West, writing: ‘I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution,’ and:’ ‘A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.’ His methods became known as cultural terrorism. One of these methods to undermine traditional Western culture was the introduction of a radical sex education program; ‘special lectures and supportive literature were developed to instruct Hungarian children’ about free love and sexual intercourse, to repudiate middle class family codes of monogamy, and ‘to deride and ignore the authority of parental authority, and precepts of traditional morality.’ In addition, the promiscuity and rebellion of women against patriarchy was promoted.
“Lukács participated in the 1922 Marxist work week in Thuringia, and thus helped found the Frankfurt School. In 1923 he published History and Class Consciousness, the same year that Korsch published his Marxism and Philosophy. Lukács argued that the Christian cultural institutions of the West were oppressive, intolerant, and had ‘blinded’ people ‘to their true class interests’ (Bill Lind, The Origins of Political Correctness). He wanted to destroy the cultural institutions of the West so that power would ‘fall into their laps like ripened fruit’ and the Communist state could be created.15
“Lukács also influenced the Frankfurt School development of Critical Theory.”
Thus, the founding Marxists of the Frankfurt Institute set out to destroy the traditional values of Western civilization by declaring war on the family: “…the introduction of a radical sex education program; ‘special lectures and supportive literature were developed to instruct Hungarian children’ about free love and sexual intercourse, to repudiate middle class family codes of monogamy, and ‘to deride and ignore the authority of parental authority, and precepts of traditional morality.’ In addition, the promiscuity and rebellion of women against patriarchy was promoted.” In Hungary, however, Georg Lukacs’ sexual revolution was aborted by Roman Catholics whose “bishops asked the community not to follow the world. Not to cooperate with the communists.” (Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea)
“Lukacs was well-suited to the Comintern task: he had been one of the Commissars of Culture during the short-lived Hungarian Soviet in Budapest in 1919; in fact, modern historians link the shortness of the Budapest experiment to Lukacs’ orders mandating sex education in the schools, easy access to contraception, and the loosening of divorce laws—all of which revulsed Hungary’s Roman Catholic population.” (The Frankfurt School: Bolshevik Intelligentsia)
“In 1918, a man named György Lukács became the minister of culture in the short-lived Communist government of Béla Kun in Hungary. Being of the opinion that Marxist theory could only be implemented where the family unit and sexual morals were broken down, Lukács implemented a bold program of social reform that mandated sex education in schools. The Hungarian people were horrified by this outrage, as well as other aspects of the Kun regime, and this Marxist government of Hungary lasted only about 180 days. Sadly, 1949 would bring a much longer lasting Communist regime…” (Cultural Marxism Versus The Church)
In 1933, the Frankfurt Marxist Jews fled Nazi Germany and were welcomed by the U.S. There they set up shop at Columbia University and proceeded to apply their “critical theory” to American culture.
“The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory”
“The Frankfurt School, also known as the Institute of Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), is a social and political philosophical movement of thought located in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. It is the original source of what is known as Critical Theory. The Institute was founded, thanks to a donation by Felix Weil in 1923, with the aim of developing Marxist studies in Germany. The Institute eventually generated a specific school of thought after 1933 when the Nazis forced it to close and move to the United States, where it found hospitality at Columbia University, New York.
“The academic influence of the ‘critical’ method is far reaching in terms of educational institutions in which such tradition is taught and in terms of the problems it addresses. Some of its core issues involve the critique of modernities and of capitalist society, the definition of social emancipation and the perceived pathologies of society. Critical theory provides a specific interpretation of Marxist philosophy and reinterprets some of its central economic and political notions such as commodification, reification, fetishization and critique of mass culture…”
Fast forward to 2017 in the United States of America:
“How The Cultural Marxists Of The Frankfurt School Subverted American Education”
by Beau Albrecht of ReturnOfKings.com
“Perhaps you’ve wondered why so many college professors are so left-wing. In your freshman year, you might have noted with dread—as I did—some of your fellow students ‘going with the flow’ and molding their beliefs to fit in. Perhaps one of them was you, before you grew up and snapped out of it! The Frankfurt School is the answer to why so many universities are Social Justice Warrior factories.
The origins of the Frankfurt School
“They found themselves unwelcome in Germany during the 1930s, and one of the two reasons was that all of them were Communists. They moved to the USA, settling down in Columbia University. How did they repay the country that gave them refuge? By subverting it, of course. If all this sounds like McCarthyist alarmism, note that the Communists themselves claim them.
“Because the proletariat just wasn’t interested in revolution, they rebranded Communism, taking out the elements of class struggle, and adding contributions from Freudian theory. This was a mistake; Communism emphasized hard work and heroism; that much is respectable even if the rest of the ideology is badly flawed…”
Note: Marx and Engels also mocked homosexuality; Stalin and Castro criminalized sodomy. Today, however, Mariela Castro, the daughter of Raul Castro and a member of Parliament, is leading the LGBT movement which is supported by the Cuban government.
How Cultural Marxism took root
“They had two strategies: ensconcing themselves into academia, and the criticism of society (hence ‘critical theory’). Ultimately, this meant ideological subversion and basically badgering society to death. (It seems incredible that they did so much without picking up a single rifle.) They stressed moral relativism and the ‘question everything’ atmosphere that became the 1960s counterculture zeitgeist. A few of their books, such as Eros and Civilization by Herbert Marcuse and The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno, have become classics in academia.
“Many of their students graduated and became professors elsewhere, just in time for the 1960s. Young people are at the most impressionable time of their lives, so indoctrinating college students was a very effective strategy. It’s little wonder that campuses became hotbeds of student activism! College draft deferments surely helped them reach more students sympathetic to their message.
“Further, the ideological seeds of the Frankfurt School—along with the Communist Party USA—fell onto fertile ground. There were several groups that they—cultural Marxists and garden variety Communists—infiltrated and subverted, for instance:
“There was already a feminist movement, mostly moderate and mostly simply about equal rights (a goal which was nearly complete by then). Under leftist influence, second wave feminism began, which was anything but moderate and effectively about deconstructing society.
“There was already a beatnik counterculture. With a little encouragement, this became a much larger youth counterculture, the hippies. Having a significant toehold in academia put the Critical Theory folks in a very good position to influence the young Baby Boomers.
“There was already a civil rights movement, which the Communists had put a lot of effort into influencing. This included figures such as W.E.B. DuBois, Paul Robeson, Stanley Levison (MLK’s top advisor), and Frank Marshall Davis (called ‘Pops’ in Obama’s autobiography).
“The gay movement was heavily influenced in the beginning by the Mattachine Society, founded by Harry Hay, of which most members were Communists.”
The Cultural Marxists were also ensconced in the churches, notably the United Methodist Church which was on the vanguard of promoting Gay Liberation. Their publication, motive Magazine, was circulated from 1941 to 1972. It was pro Gay and pro-Communist. The final issue of motive looks and sounds every bit like publications of the LGBTQ today.
“motive (always spelled with a lowercase ‘m’) was the official magazine for the Methodist Student Movement from its founding in 1941 and, for a few years at the end of its life, for the entire University Christian Movement (UCM). Much celebrated even at the time for its avant garde editorial and artistic vision, in 1966 Time magazine said it stood out among church publications ‘like a miniskirt at a church social.’ It was the single runner-up to Life as Magazine of the Year in 1965. Ultimately, its strong stands on civil rights, Vietnam, and emerging gender issues became more than the Methodist Church officials could take. The magazine ceased publication in 1972. Even so, an entire generation of religious activists were shaped by its vision.”
That generation of activists included Hillary Rodham Clinton who now aspires to become a Methodist minister.
“A new Washington Post story about Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State describes her as ‘a wonky Methodist who believes she is supposed to make good things happen.’” Clinton has in the past credited motive magazine as an important formative influence.” (Hillary Clinton: Methodist)
Rosaria Butterfield’s alma mater, Syracuse University, is affiliated with the ultra-liberal United Methodist Church.
Returning to “How The Cultural Marxists Of The Frankfurt School Subverted American Education” by Beau Albrecht:
“Earlier I had assumed that the Frankfurt School was an independent movement, with no particular encouragement or guidance from the USSR. Actually, it’s a little more complicated than that. Franz Leopold Neumann, identified by the Venona decrypts as a Soviet spy, was in contact with leading figures Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and also the spy Hede Massing, the wife of Paul Massing (another Frankfurt school figure). Later, he became a professor at Columbia University…
“…KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov noted that only 15% of the KGB’s efforts were spying; the other 85% went into ideological subversion; this is what he was assigned to do in India, until he got disgusted with it and escaped. He explained,
“‘It’s a great brainwashing process, which goes very slow[ly] and is divided [into] four basic stages. The first one [is] demoralization; it takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which [is required] to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged, or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism (American patriotism).
“The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties (drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals) are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, [and the] educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind[s], even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other words, these people… the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To [rid] society of these people, you need another twenty or fifteen years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common sense people, who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society.’
Memetic warfare
“Even though the Soviet Union fell apart twenty five years ago, the memes they launched are still out there. Many of the students the Frankfurt School taught became teachers and professors, who taught another batch of teachers and professors, and they’re now indoctrinating our youth. Some others became ensconced in the media or in government positions. This is what Italian Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci called ‘the long march through the institutions.’ Only a fraction identifies with Communism, but they still practice the party line even if few are aware of where their views originated.
“If you’ve ever wondered where all of today’s Social Justice Warriors came from, now you know the story.”
The Cultural Marxists’ “long march through the institutions” has encountered little opposition as it marches through the Christian Church—which the Italian Communist, Antonio Gramsci, recognized was the foundation of Western Civilization and the foremost obstacle to Marxist revolution.
“Gramsci’s signal contribution was to liberate the Marxist project from the prison of economic dogma, thereby dramatically enhancing its ability to subvert Christian society… The civilized world, Gramsci deduced, had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years and Christianity remains the dominant philosophical and moral system in Europe and North America. Practically speaking, civilization and Christianity were inextricably bound together. Christianity had become so thoroughly integrated into the daily lives of nearly everyone, including non-Christians living in Christian lands, it was so pervasive, that it formed an almost impenetrable barrier to the new, revolutionary civilization Marxists wish to create. Attempting to batter down that barrier proved unproductive, since it only generated powerful counter-revolutionary forces, consolidating them and making them potentially deadly. Therefore, in place of the frontal attack, how much more advantageous and less hazardous it would be to attack the enemy’s society subtly, with the aim of transforming the society’s collective mind gradually, over a period of a few generations, from its former Christian worldview into one more harmonious to Marxism.” (Gramsci’s Grand Plan)
Reformed Pastor Bret McAtee has written many short but informative articles exposing the ideology of Marxism / Cultural Marxism and its subversion of the Christian Church and Western culture. In the following essay, Pastor McAtee identifies the main tactics employed by cultural Marxists to subvert Christianity.
“The Cultural Marxist Toolbox”
“The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped. Their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional power to those who oppress these minorities.” Herbert Marcuse, The Frankfurt School
“This ‘false consciousness,’ which one of the truly great Cultural Marxists railed against was the consciousness which has been shaped and formed by thousands of years of Christianity upon the West. It was this ‘false consciousness’ that Marcuse and his cohorts at the Frankfurt School desired to overthrow and so the oppressed must be protected from this ‘false consciousness’ even if it meant denying the proper protection of law to those who were [designated] as the ‘oppressors.’ In this quote Marcuse is styling his worldview and beliefs as the true consciousness vis-a-vis the false consciousness that he and his ideological soul mates were waging civilizational war against.
“This false consciousness would be overthrown by use of the tool-kit developed by the Cultural Marxists. These tools came to be known as,
Critical theory
“In Cultural Marxism via the work of critical theory, every aspect of a person’s identity is to be questioned, be it gender, sexual orientation, family, race, culture, religion, in order to benefit supposedly oppressed groups. By deconstructing heretofore stable and unchanging identity social categories (part of the false consciousness problem) those who were part of moral, ethnic, racial, and religious minority groups could pull down and destroy the whole idea of norms that arise in cultures that are comprised of distinct majorities.
“The underlying and enduring aspect of critical theory common to all its multitudinous expressions is the creation and application of interdisciplinary theories growing out of a worldview dedicated to overturning the false consciousness of traditional Christian thought and social order and so serving as an instrument of social transformation. Critical theory comes in all shapes, sizes, and expressions but the one thing it has in common is criticizing any residual influence of Christianity that remains on any and all of our Western institutions and disciplines. It typically expresses itself as the voice of the oppressed and the aggrieved and in doing so seeks to employ ‘social justice’ and ‘fairness’ as the sting within the theory. However, in order to do so Critical theory must invert and redefine almost all realities in order to be able to secure the superior position of the oppressed.
The New Proletariat
“The Cultural Marxists empirically observed that Marxism, in its classical expression, failed when it posited that there was automatic friction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Because of this observation, the Cultural Marxists understood that if the West was going to be a cake turned then what was required was the creation of both a new model and a new proletariat that would serve the purpose of providing the necessary friction and manpower in order to achieve Marxist transformation.
“The Cultural Marxists finally conceived of both new model and new proletariat when it changed the old class model of have vs. have not to the new model of oppressor vs. oppressed. The oppressed was thus to the agenda of Cultural Marxism what the working class proletariat was to the agenda of Classical Marxism. Just as in Classical Marxism there remained the sense of grievance in this new proletariat but instead of the grievance being based on an economic pivot Cultural Marxism chose the pivot of the unprivileged oppressed outcast as the tool by which to achieve social transformation in a Marxist direction. Having chosen that pivot it then worked to propagandize a large number of groups that they were both oppressed and that their identity as humans should be tied up with their oppression.
“Concretely speaking, the new Cultural Marxist proletariat — those who would do the yeoman work of the cultural Marxist march through the Institutions — would be comprised of all who would believe the critical theory propaganda that they were underprivileged and oppressed. Those successfully propagandized and recruited were feminists, ethnic minorities, and the sexually deviant. These were the new proletariat oppressed and they would fight against the new bourgeoisie who were cast as the oppressors. The new bourgeoisie were cast as Christian patriarchy, Heterosexual Married, the white majority (especially white males), people who insist that gender is binary (CIS-gender), and most emphatically Christians who rejected this Cultural Marxist social construct template. Ironically the new social construct that the cultural Marxist created used as one of its chief tools for social transformation the idea that previous normativity itself was merely social construct. In the cultural Marxist world, the oppressors were successful as oppressors because they had managed to force their social constructs on the oppressed. The work of the critical theory was to expose these putative social constructs for what they were.
Shaming
“In order of this to happen then, the previous normativity must be shamed and countered by the recruitment and so rise of a new normativity. For example, heterosexual marriage must be challenged by other forms of sexuality as mainstreamed into the social order. For example, since whites are oppressor then new slogans like ‘diversity is our strength,’ as combined with immigration policies which will decrease the overall percentage total of whites must be pursued. For example, if patriarchy is oppressive then matriarchy and anarchy is the solution. For example, if CIS-gender is merely a dominant social construct then transgenderism must be injected into the blood stream of the West. For example if Christianity is oppressive then a two pronged approach must be employed. First, Christianity must be emptied of its previous content and filled with the ideology of Cultural Marxism as its new content and second, those Christians who refuse to be re-programmed must be marginalized and diluted by bringing in teeming numbers of Muslim immigrants.
“The ground for all this was set by Theodore Adorno’s book ‘The Authoritarian Personality,’ wherein Adorno patholigizes what had always been considered normative. By the time Adorno is finished patriarchy, patriotism, familialism, and the Christian faith are all given the bum’s rush and characterized as signs of sickness. Of course the consequence of this, if taken seriously, is a social order that is rootless, international, alienated, and godless. These are the very characteristics which are descriptive of the West as a result of the canker that is cultural Marxism.
“The ground being set, the Cultural Marxist advance is made by use of the technique of shaming. Shaming occurs when labels are affixed to people for perfectly normal behavior. For example, if one is white and desirous of living in a homogeneous neighborhood or attend a homogeneous church one is shamed with catcalls of ‘racist,’ or ‘Islamaphobe,’ or ‘homophobe,’ or ‘Un-Christian.’ However when large influxes of differing people groups are relocated into Western cities (Lewiston, Maine comes to mind) with the natural result that these groups create their own sub-culture where homogeneity is characteristic this is called the benefit of multiculturalism. Shaming is saved for the majority White Christian. Normativity is reserved for the alien and the stranger.
Political Correctness
“A further tool for the advance of Cultural Marxism is the tool of Political correctness. Political correctness has many expressions but we will consider its use as a tool of thought control by way of linguistic manipulation. Political correctness controls thought by creating taboos in speech usage as enforced via social stigmatization. Words that cannot be said become words that will not be thought. This thought control is ubiquitous on American campuses today as riots ensure when certain speech is to be expressed. The recent riots on University campuses against Charles Murray and before him Milo Yiannopoulos provide proof.
“This thought control is also achieved by seeking to control the language by scandalizing language that does not serve the purposes of the Cultural Marxist. Examples of this abound. Most recently the phrase ‘anchor baby’ created a firestorm. The Cultural Marxists insisted that this was a pejorative. However, it is only a pejorative if you assume their worldview. By insisting that this phrase dare not be uttered the Cultural Marxists were advancing their agenda and their worldview. Instead they began to insist that the phrased, ‘citizen children of unauthorized immigrants’ be used in its place. But of course, the very issue up for debate is whether such children should be citizens. By using their language they win the debate. Another example is ‘illegal immigrant.’ Despite the fact that those immigrants which are here illegally are indeed, by definition, ‘illegal immigrants,’ the Cultural Marxists demand that these people be referred to as ‘undocumented workers.’ Such language advances their worldview and agenda. Control the language, control the thinking. Control the language and the thinking control the outcome. One more example will suffice. What we today call ‘affirmative action,’ is the triumph of political correctness. ‘Affirmative action,’ is in reality ethnic discrimination but many can’t see that because of the thought control achieved by our cultural mind masters.
“In the end Cultural Marxism as an ideology has as a goal the elimination of all stigmatization except the stigmatization of those who believe that stigmatism has a proper and necessary role in any social order. In the Cultural Marxist world oppressed and oppressor categories will eliminated with the consequence that stigma will be ended. The pedophile and tranny will be just as normal as the heterosexual and the Christian. In reality what will happen is that God’s normal will be stigmatized and maybe even criminalized.”
These summaries of the history, agenda and tactics of Cultural Marxism are presented as an introduction to the following expose of the agents and strategies that Cultural Marxists within the Christian community are employing to subvert Christianity. The cultural Marxists who are invading the Church are not the strident Social Justice Warriors of the radical Left, but are a fifth column peacefully infiltrating the Church to destroy it from within. This expose will hopefully equip Christians to identify cultural Marxist infiltrators and recognize their tactics. Already, prominent church leaders, instead of upholding sound doctrine and protecting the Church, are promoting those who teach the Cultural Marxist doctrines of demons and heap criticism on Christians for having the mind of Christ regarding sexual perversion. Meanwhile, these same church leaders meet secretly with gay rights organizations which are demanding that Christian denominations remove homosexuality from their “sin list” and welcome sodomites into their membership.
The hour is late and the need is urgent for Christians to discern the spirits, whether they be of God, and to contend earnestly for the faith that was once delivered to the Saints.
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” Jude 1:3-4
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” 1 John 4:1
Barbara Aho
September, 2017
