Archives For Marxism

One thing we’re big on in theology is literary criticism. The scientific process of taking a statement back to its original source through questions, context, analysis, research, and faith-filled dialogue about our reasoned conclusions.

It’s a sure guard against deception, misrepresentation, and ignorance.

A good reason for our focus on this is highlighted by Eric Voegelin in his 1968 book, ‘Science, Politics & Gnosticism’:

‘The deception of the reader occurs when a text or citation is separated from its context and is used in isolation from its original intended meaning.’ [i] (paraphrased)

Context matters.

Voegelin had just gotten through explaining how Karl Marx in his doctoral dissertation of 1840–41 misrepresented the statement, “In a word, I hate all the gods”, from Prometheus in Aeschylus’ ‘Prometheus Bound.

For Voegelin, “anyone who doesn’t know Prometheus Bound must conclude that Prometheus’ “confession” sums up the meaning of the tragedy.”

Marxism’s revolt against, and hatred of God, is a product of Marx’s misunderstanding of ‘the Hellenic [Promethean] symbol.’ [ii]

Voegelin states that Prometheus is reinterpreted by Marx, ‘The revolutionary reversal of the symbol—the dethronement of the gods, the victory of Prometheus—lies beyond classical culture; it is the work of gnosticism.’

This is where, said Voegelin, the ‘young Marx presents his own attitude; under the symbol of Prometheus’ Marx wages war against God, and because they’re inseparably linked, also, man.

It could be said that Marxism uses a god, to dispose God, in order to exalt themselves as god; leaving in the wake of Promethean “wokeness,” a sea of mass graves, in exchange for the Divine seat of power.

Marx either got Prometheus horribly wrong, or deliberately manipulated the Greek myth to build a school of thought, and oppressive ideology around it.

Prometheus wasn’t a Marxist, but Marxists have forged Prometheus in their own image.

Bonhoeffer, in his lectures on Genesis, recorded in DBW3: ‘Creation and Fall,’ substantiates good reasons for discernment, and suspicion of this Marxist Promethean self-justification, better penned as Promethean wokeness.

According to Bonhoeffer, in the Garden of Eden, God’s Word was used as a weapon against God. The result was a catastrophic fallout between the creature and its benevolent Creator.

The power to decree that which is right and wrong, good and evil, is now considered to have been taken up into the hands of humanity.

Rather than a new day dawning [enlightenment], darkness descends [truth is hijacked] and humanity descends with it.

The source that determines what good and evil is relocated; reassigned by, and lowered down to a Creatorless humanity.

Humanity in its abstraction from God devours itself.

Instead of being liberated, God’s creature becomes burdened. The Promethean Marxist’s hatred of God, is powered by human lust for dominion and power. This is why I am convinced that Socialists, for all their protests to the contrary, care only about power, not people.

Marx’s Promethean wokeness seeks to overthrow God – demanding God’s kingdom, be ruled by man, without God in it [iii].

Thus, human beings, wrote Bonhoeffer, ‘renounce the word of God that approaches them again and again out of the inviolable center and boundary of life; they renounce the life that comes from this word and grab it for themselves.’

Man positions himself in God’s place; Good is called evil, and evil is called good, for ‘humanity stands in the center; disobedience in the semblance of obedience, the desire to rule in the semblance of service […]’ [iv]

We’re told in the Biblical accounts, such usurpation is the nonsense of Nothingness, it turns humans into the playthings of demons, and is ultimately destined to catastrophic failure.

The Governed become pawns, Government becomes God.

The overbearing weight of being governed by a government which has confused the Creator with the creature, is inevitably unjust, corrupt, and self-destructive.

Who, and what governs those who govern us? No one. There is no limit to Marx’s Promethean Wokeness.

Despite appearances, the Promethean self-justification, its pride filled proclamation about the “death of God,” and subsequent coronation of man as a god, doesn’t happen without a decisive response from God.

God isn’t wounded outside His own choosing [e.g.: as He does for our sakes in Jesus Christ].

Neither is He killed off.

Instead of liberation, in humanity’s exaltation of itself over against God, humans mortally wound themselves.

Despite this, God shows compassion.

In spite of the Promethean self-justification where ‘the ultimate possible rebellion, portrays the truth as a lie. [Where] the Abyss that underlies the lie lives because it poses as the truth and condemns the truth as a lie,’ [v] God doesn’t abandon His self-centred, rebellious creation.

He graciously intervenes, judge’s humanity, and in doing so saves it from itself. He then covers His creatures’ nakedness, and blesses it with posterity.

God remains God for us, even when He disagrees and takes a stand against us.

Even though His creature is so infused with, and consumed by the maddening effects of Marx’s misguided Promethean hate, God chooses to reconcile, liberate, and save the creature He loves.

God chooses not to jettison His creature, as it has jettisoned Him.

Promethean wokeness doesn’t allow any connection with this God.

It in fact, denies it. Reduces humanity to systems, and calls all questions that challenge it, “enemies,” “traitors,” and “bugs.”

Karl Marx’s big mistake was to read into the Promethean myth his own lust for power.

Promethean wokeness is a Marxist monstrosity.

What’s left behind is the butchered, and disfigured creation of an idea that prides itself as man’s true liberator, but conceals behind its mask the deep black void of the Abyss.


Sources:

[i] Voegelin, E. 1968, Science, Politics & Gnosticism: Two Essays, (paraphrased). Kindle (Loc.492)

[ii] ibid, 1968

[iii] Johnny Cash, U2 ‘The Wanderer’

[iv] Bonhoeffer, D 1937, Creation & Fall, Fortress Press (pp.109-116)

[v] ibid, 1937


First published on Caldron Pool, 8th April 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

One thing we’re big on in theology is literary criticism. The scientific process of taking a statement back to its original source through questions, context, analysis, research, and faith-filled dialogue about our reasoned conclusions.

It’s a sure guard against deception, misrepresentation, and ignorance.

A good reason for our focus on this is highlighted by Eric Voegelin in his 1968 book, ‘Science, Politics & Gnosticism’:

‘The deception of the reader occurs when a text or citation is separated from its context and is used in isolation from its original intended meaning.’ [i] (paraphrased)

Context matters.

Voegelin had just gotten through explaining how Karl Marx in his doctoral dissertation of 1840–41 misrepresented the statement, “In a word, I hate all the gods”, from Prometheus in Aeschylus’ ‘Prometheus Bound.

For Voegelin, “anyone who doesn’t know Prometheus Bound must conclude that Prometheus’ “confession” sums up the meaning of the tragedy.”

Marxism’s revolt against, and hatred of God, is a product of Marx’s misunderstanding of ‘the Hellenic [Promethean] symbol.’ [ii]

Voegelin states that Prometheus is reinterpreted by Marx, ‘The revolutionary reversal of the symbol—the dethronement of the gods, the victory of Prometheus—lies beyond classical culture; it is the work of gnosticism.’

This is where, said Voegelin, the ‘young Marx presents his own attitude; under the symbol of Prometheus’ Marx wages war against God, and because they’re inseparably linked, also, man.

It could be said that Marxism uses a god, to dispose God, in order to exalt themselves as god; leaving in the wake of Promethean “wokeness,” a sea of mass graves, in exchange for the Divine seat of power.

Marx either got Prometheus horribly wrong, or deliberately manipulated the Greek myth to build a school of thought, and oppressive ideology around it.

Prometheus wasn’t a Marxist, but Marxists have forged Prometheus in their own image.

Bonhoeffer, in his lectures on Genesis, recorded in DBW3: ‘Creation and Fall,’ substantiates good reasons for discernment, and suspicion of this Marxist Promethean self-justification, better penned as Promethean wokeness.

According to Bonhoeffer, in the Garden of Eden, God’s Word was used as a weapon against God. The result was a catastrophic fallout between the creature and its benevolent Creator.

The power to decree that which is right and wrong, good and evil, is now considered to have been taken up into the hands of humanity.

Rather than a new day dawning [enlightenment], darkness descends [truth is hijacked] and humanity descends with it.

The source that determines what good and evil is relocated; reassigned by, and lowered down to a Creatorless humanity.

Humanity in its abstraction from God devours itself.

Instead of being liberated, God’s creature becomes burdened. The Promethean Marxist’s hatred of God, is powered by human lust for dominion and power. This is why I am convinced that Socialists, for all their protests to the contrary, care only about power, not people.

Marx’s Promethean wokeness seeks to overthrow God – demanding God’s kingdom, be ruled by man, without God in it [iii].

Thus, human beings, wrote Bonhoeffer, ‘renounce the word of God that approaches them again and again out of the inviolable center and boundary of life; they renounce the life that comes from this word and grab it for themselves.’

Man positions himself in God’s place; Good is called evil, and evil is called good, for ‘humanity stands in the center; disobedience in the semblance of obedience, the desire to rule in the semblance of service […]’ [iv]

We’re told in the Biblical accounts, such usurpation is the nonsense of Nothingness, it turns humans into the playthings of demons, and is ultimately destined to catastrophic failure.

The Governed become pawns, Government becomes God.

The overbearing weight of being governed by a government which has confused the Creator with the creature, is inevitably unjust, corrupt, and self-destructive.

Who, and what governs those who govern us? No one. There is no limit to Marx’s Promethean Wokeness.

Despite appearances, the Promethean self-justification, its pride filled proclamation about the “death of God,” and subsequent coronation of man as a god, doesn’t happen without a decisive response from God.

God isn’t wounded outside His own choosing [e.g.: as He does for our sakes in Jesus Christ].

Neither is He killed off.

Instead of liberation, in humanity’s exaltation of itself over against God, humans mortally wound themselves.

Despite this, God shows compassion.

In spite of the Promethean self-justification where ‘the ultimate possible rebellion, portrays the truth as a lie. [Where] the Abyss that underlies the lie lives because it poses as the truth and condemns the truth as a lie,’ [v] God doesn’t abandon His self-centred, rebellious creation.

He graciously intervenes, judge’s humanity, and in doing so saves it from itself. He then covers His creatures’ nakedness, and blesses it with posterity.

God remains God for us, even when He disagrees and takes a stand against us.

Even though His creature is so infused with, and consumed by the maddening effects of Marx’s misguided Promethean hate, God chooses to reconcile, liberate, and save the creature He loves.

God chooses not to jettison His creature, as it has jettisoned Him.

Promethean wokeness doesn’t allow any connection with this God.

It in fact, denies it. Reduces humanity to systems, and calls all questions that challenge it, “enemies,” “traitors,” and “bugs.”

Karl Marx’s big mistake was to read into the Promethean myth his own lust for power.

Promethean wokeness is a Marxist monstrosity.

What’s left behind is the butchered, and disfigured creation of an idea that prides itself as man’s true liberator, but conceals behind its mask the deep black void of the Abyss.


Sources:

[i] Voegelin, E. 1968, Science, Politics & Gnosticism: Two Essays, (paraphrased). Kindle (Loc.492)

[ii] ibid, 1968

[iii] Johnny Cash, U2 ‘The Wanderer’

[iv] Bonhoeffer, D 1937, Creation & Fall, Fortress Press (pp.109-116)

[v] ibid, 1937


First published on Caldron Pool, 8th April 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Truth Exchange’s (TruthXchange) layman-friendly, academic discussion between its director, Dr. Peter Jones, and Australia’s Dr. Stephen Chavura is a worthwhile look at the surreptitious cognitive devices, and distortions, being used to undermine healthy tradition in Western societies.

The hour-long podcast, entitled ‘The Great Awokening: Being Woke in a Post-secular society’, is a “Wokeness 101” crash course. Discussing the jargon, and ideological foundations of Leftist constructs such as “white fragility”, “systemic racism”, who are the Frankfurt school, John Dewey’s possible connection to that Marxist movement, and its progeny: Cultural Marxism.

Jones outlined how the absence of well-defined terms automatically negate terms like ‘systemic racism’ because its founded on subjective ambiguity.

This “vagueness” was bolstered by “questionable examples” which are also used to prop up generalizations.

In order to prove the existence of systemic racism – the belief that “all institutions are solely programmed to benefit white people” – advocates have to use melanin as a measuring stick in order to give their argument the appearance of credibility.

This vagueness necessitates the art of embellishment, and the overlooking of irony.

Jones argued that “being called systemic racism based on white melanin is extremely simplistic” because skin colour is “crazy criterion.” Define whiteness.

Without a proper definition for systemic, there can be no intellectually honest justification for labelling a person, place or thing, as being proof of the existence of “white systemic racism.” Using melanin to judge an entire group of people as evil, for instance, is by definition racist.

For example, ‘white systemic racism’ asserts that racism is a sin condition that only plagues those born with white melanin.

Jones (rightly in my opinion) labelled this a product of “post-modern hermeneutics.” There is “no such thing as truth” means that destructive untruths can be given free reign. Evidence can be manufactured and made to look a certain way, as long as those with the power have control of the language and/or narrative.

Such as the abuse of language which calls abortion “healthcare”, and the once celebrated [violent] intellectual practice of revisionism (deconstructing, and remaking history, people, places and things in our own image, through a preferred subjective ideological lens).

For Jones this is the applied “theory of language as a use of power.”

Linking in Cultural Marxism, Chavura stated that Cultural Marxism, though it’s dismissed by critics as a “term invented by the Right”, “was an undeniable school of thought taking Marxist categories of oppressed and oppressor beyond the economic realm and applying to it other forms of oppression: gender, race, sexuality.”

Chavura added that we shouldn’t use the term Cultural Marxism without qualification and caution, but “anyone who says that C.M isn’t a thing, doesn’t really understand that this particular mindset, was, and is, very common in universities. Particularly from the 1960s onwards.”

The fruit of which we’re witnessing at work in society today with domestic attempts at overturning, and undermining Biblical Christianity and Western Civilization.

Disagreeing with Jones’ comment about a detachment of Cultural Marxism from Marxism proper, Chavura noted that it’s important not to “downplay the relationship. Cultural Marxism”, he affirmed, “comes out of Marxism.

This relationship is clearly present in Black Lives Matter’s hatred for capitalism. The economic dichotomy of Marx lives on in “Woke Theory” and the BLM movement, “promoting victimization” along with the noticeable “absence of forgiveness” and mercy.

In general, I found little to dislike or with which to disagree.

I wasn’t aware of the connection Jones makes between John Dewey, Marxism, and the Frankfurt movement.

In addition, I don’t share Stephen’s current pessimism about America. Underestimating the ability, capacity and faith of the American people, goes hand in hand with the historical caveats against invading Russia from the West during winter.

However, Chavura’s cautious optimism (self-described “pessimistic optimism”) does raise important critical questions. While he ‘believes in the resolve of Americans’ and (correctly) holds the view that the current contemporary context is, or is birthing a “Kairos Moment” for the Christian Church, he’s also a realist. Aware that ‘sometimes things need to get worse before they get better.’

I would add onto this discussion the crisis of Critical Race Theory. As well as the culture of suspicion spread by the Intersectionality rubric, which forces onto society an us vs. them ‘cognitive distortion.’ (Jonathon Haidt)

The: “you are what they say you are. You will do, think, speak, as they tell you to, or else!”

If, as Chavura has said, ‘the Middle-Class is being weaponized’, I don’t think it’ll be a weapon of mass destruction.  

I don’t think the Middle-Class are fully capable of being turned into one.

If the Middle-Class is weaponized, it’ll be the weaponization of Middle-Class youth. Whose parents have long abdicated responsibility for what their children are learning.

If Cultural Marxism continues to march, recruit, and mobilize jackboots without challenge, the Middle Class are in for a great culture shock, as their youth seek to act out their indoctrination. Triggered into action by reflexes long conditioned through exposure to carefully positioned Marxists, manipulative propaganda, and the mass distortion of political education.


First published on Caldron Pool, 16th October 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

In reference to Kyle Rittenhouse, The Australian reported that ‘Joe Biden accused Donald Trump of letting his supporters act as an armed militia.’

The Democrat presidential hopeful laid the blame for leftist violence in Democrat run cities on Trump saying that ‘the President is deliberately fanning flames of deadly violence on the streets of American cities.’

Biden, following a loss in polling numbers, switched from the Democrat party line of supporting violent rioters under the guise of “peaceful protests” to now condemning violence, which he, and others like the New York times are trying to paint as “right-wing” activism.

The Australian’s editor-at-large, Paul Kelly (not a fan of Donald Trump) described the current American political milieu as ‘tribalism’, and warned that it revealed a ‘deeper crisis, where opponents are seen as enemies, with the entitlement to break norms to vanquish them’ attached.

Despite this, Kelly backed ex-New York Magazine contributor, Andrew Sullivan’s remarks which demonized Trump, chief among them all being the assumption that the current President won’t concede if he loses the November election.

Indirectly legitimizing the new Democrat party line which shifts the blame onto Donald Trump for Democrat mismanagement, and Leftist violence in Democrat cities, Kelly cites Sullivan as saying “Trump will use street gangs and propaganda outfits to campaign against a Biden presidency.”

Sullivan, oddly adds that the “only chance for the centre to hold is for Joe Biden (both Kelly and Sullivan admit that Biden is not a strong leader, has surrendered to the radical left, and has ‘legions of progressives behind him seeking radical change’) to win.”

Kelly doesn’t clarify how a Biden win, which hands the keys to the Nuclear weapon’s cabinet to a potential Democrat President controlled by the far-left faction, would preserve the centre. Or anyone in the centre who hasn’t already been cancelled, or threatened to be cancelled by the Left, because they haven’t complied with the Leftist ideological hegemony, and the vice grip of its – proven to be – tyrannical new cultural laws.

Neither did Kelly mention Joe Biden’s Vice President hopeful, Kamala Harris’ statements made to Stephen Colbert, that these “protests won’t stop, nor should they.” Nor did Kelly point out that it was Biden, not Donald Trump, who effectively issued a veiled threat stating, “vote for me, or else!”

The Daily Wire noted this yesterday, quoting a Biden tweet, which ‘insinuated that if he is elected, the current violence around the country will stop, but if President Trump is elected it will continue.’

Paul Kelly’s description of the election being a ‘civil war over what constitutes virtue,’ (stated with clear favoritism towards Biden), misses the mark.

I’m not ready to call what we’re seeing in the United States a civil war. It’s far too complex, resembling more a religio-cultural conflict marked by an increasing weaponization of legislation, intolerance, and violence, to enforce new cultural norms, chiefly designed by and pushed by radical left agitators.

For many leftists, as exhibited by Black Lives Matter Marxists, and Antifa this is an intifada; a new jihad, waged against all who these groups, and their backers label infidels.

Recent political conventions held by both parties in the United States attest to this.

The tone between the Democrat and the Republican conventions couldn’t have been any more different.

The Democrats attempted to mobilise people through hopelessness, blame, bitterness, fear and hate. While Republicans rallied people towards hope, grace, discipline and opportunity.

As was aptly noted by Matt Walsh.

With the rhetoric from team Biden/Harris and the accompanying Pro-Biden thug violence on the streets – should he lose – it’s not Trump who’ll be the one having trouble conceding defeat in November.  The simple fact is, unlike many career politicians, Trump doesn’t need the top job in the White House to stay on top.

The one’s who’ll have trouble conceding defeat at the next election will be the violent leftist horde who’ve already shown their unwillingness to reason and dialogue. They are a mob who’ve been encouraged by many leading Democrats since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to “take Trump down.”

This isn’t hyperbole, or right-wing nonsense, it’s  well-documented fact.

In addition, the Biden/Harris team, as Paul Kelly also highlighted, claims to want to ‘restore the soul of America from the darkness of inequality and racism.’

This is the very same team who has failed to step up and maintain order in cities they run, so as to protect the soul of communities, lives and livelihoods against Antifa/BLM looting and riots. The very same party who is endorsed by, and wholeheartedly endorses Planned Parenthood.

Which is an industry that reduces a baby in the womb to the equivalent of a sexually transmitted disease. An industry which then demands public funds to violently interfere with, and end that life in the womb (up to birth).

The killing of black baby in the womb through a systematic purge of his or her life, by an institution that profits from the systemic indoctrination of the community with lies such as “abortion is healthcare”, reveals a dissonance that derails the Biden/Harris (“safe for centrists”) platform.

Violence appears to be a way of life for those on the Left who don’t get what they want. This isn’t civil war, at least not yet. It’s more akin to a jihad that demands you either convert, pay a tax or die.

All the evidence and testimonies presented to the public through a wide range of media indicates that the appearance of Trumps so-called ‘chaotic governance’, runs rings around the incoherent, blood-thirsty and inconsistent alternative.

The conclusion for a lot of people is that the November election isn’t Trump vs. Biden. It’s liberty vs. chains.

 

Restraint shouldn’t be confused with apathy, or an excuse for indifference.

In 1775, Abigale Adams wrote, ‘Even the “devils believe and tremble,” and I really believe they are more afraid of the Americans’ prayers than of their swords.’

We need to extinguish the fire by remembering that ‘we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.’ (Ephesians 6:12)

Trump was right to call for restraint, telling Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, ‘I want [my supporters] to leave [radical leftist violence] to law enforcement.”

Non-leftists have to be careful not to shoot themselves in the foot with the loaded gun leftists’ hand them on a daily basis.

Until restraint is no longer an option, we can avoid appeasing the jihadists by not giving the radical left the war they seem to want to trigger. Be the better alternative.

As edgy author, and senior editor of Stream.org, John Zmirak recently wrote:

‘Which ever party threatens you that its thugs will burn your cities if you don’t hand it the nuclear briefcase … vote for the other party.’

First published on Caldron Pool, 2nd September 2020.

Photo by Hasan Almasi on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

Blaze contributor, Elijah Schaffer filmed Dr. Stella Immanuel, (Pediatrician, and member of America’s Frontline Doctors) being lectured to by an irate activist in Washington D.C.

Sporting a “no religion” bandana, the black clad activist can be seen yelling at Immanuel accusing her of “betraying Black Lives Matter”, saying “You’re not black on the inside, I’m more black than you on the inside…You’re on the wrong side, mam, I promise you.”

Immanuel, an immigrant from Cameroon, was in D.C with a team of Doctors, who went public with their experience using hydroxychloroquine, a politically controversial treatment for Wuhan COVID-19.

Suffice to say, nothing sums up the Marxist Black Lives Matter political party, like a White BLM activist accusing a Black immigrant doctor of betraying Black Lives Matter.


First published on Caldron Pool, 29th July 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

Are we truly listening to the voice of ALL African Americans?

Or are we only hearing from those who’ve been pre-approved to speak on behalf of our would-be Marxist overlords?

In the case of the latter, our African American brothers and sisters are seen as a possession, powerless and inferior; an instrument for Cultural Marxists to plough through Western Civilisation, further establishing the false promise of a Utopia, via hidden power brokers within the Western Marxist hegemony.

Are we truly listening?

Or is it, that the only black lives who matter, are those who can be used to further the paralyzing, oppressive, and divisive, Leftist ideological paradigm?

[Read more here: Woke Healthcare workers lose their Wokeness When asked Whether Black lives in the Womb Mattered]

Brandon Tatum:

“Leaving the Student For Trump Rally today the lone Trump protester couldn’t believe ME a Black man was a Trump supporter 🤣”

Grow the Heck Up:

Angela Stanton-King:

Voddie Baucham:

Anthony Brian Logan:

 

The opening sentence of Jacques Ellul’s, ‘Islam and Judeo-Christianity: A Critique of their commonality’, reads, ‘For nearly a decade, French intellectuals, generally speaking, have been seized with an excessive affection for Islam.’ (p.3)

What follows is a ninety-four page treatise on the reasons for why this excessive affection is not only dangerous, but misguided. Ellul acknowledges the existence of a disproportionate tolerance of Islam. He then compares that to the disdain of how French intellectuals have been interacting with Judeo-Christianity (Biblical Christianity), since the 1960s’.

The reason for this excessive affection is due to Islam’s[1] proximity to Marxism (“scientific” socialism). Roger Scruton, not a novice on both subjects, states: ‘like the Communist Party in its Leninist construction, Islam aims to control the state without being a subject of the state.’[2] Scruton’s own analysis of Islam, and the West, implies that excessive affection for Islam is connected to how close many academics in the West, are to Marxism.

Commonality between Islamism and Marxism includes the downgrade of Jesus Christ. Under both Marxist and Islamist rule, the Church is eradicated and the State is made god[3].

American (first wave) Feminist and Political scientist, Jean Bethke Elshtain’s work on Just War theory points in the same direction. Elshtain noted that Quranic Islam ‘condemns all who disagree’.  Quranic Islam is also a ‘militant theocracy that insists there can be no distinction between civil law and the strict, fundamentalist Shari’a law, the ancient Islamic holy law.’[4]

In other worse, even with a distinction between the interpretations of Islamic holy law, Shari’a law (infallible and unchangeable) and Fiqh (fallible and changeable), within Islam, there still is no concept of a separation of Mosque and State. Nor is there any concept of Just War – restrained violence – there is only jihad (War against the unbeliever). Quranic Islam and Marxism both look to violence as the necessary means to an end – total conversion and compliance.

Like Marxism, Islam shows no real affection for Classical Liberalism. Nor do Islamists and Marxists show any genuine acknowledgement that the precious freedoms birthed and nurtured in the West, were born from, and under the Light the Church carries. Even if Christians sometimes have carried that Light awkwardly, or have, from time to time, dropped it entirely.

Although Marxists are happy to borrow from the Bible[5], and the Quran speaks about Jesus and Mary, both the Marxist and Islamist deny the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Marxism and Quranic Islam downgrade Christ’s uniqueness to that of a righteous prophet, or a sage, proletarian rebel.

Marxism and Islam also show complete contempt for Christianity. The reasoning for this usually involves citing the Crusades (without reference to Islamist militant expansionism , or Missionaries and Imperialism, (without reference to Missionaries helping the poor, or preserving the language of many tribal groups).

Differences between Islam and Marxism do exist. Such as, the Islamic practice of female genital mutilation, and the oppression of women[6]. These differences, however don’t appear to dissuade academics from their affection for Islam. What unifies them is stronger than what distinguishes them from each other. Contempt for Jews and Christians, unjust restrictive laws[7], cruel punishment of any opposition, jihad (war against the infidel) and oppression, are the primary means of achieving the goal of each respective utopian ideal.

It’s worth noting that the great and fallible, Winston Churchill, noted similarities between Quranic Islam and Socialism. In a passing comment he made known his view that there are certain parallels to the Quran and Mein Kampf. He called Hitler’s book, the ‘new Koran of faith and war; the granite pillars of Hitler’s policy included, use of the sword, the conversion of Germans into soldiers, anti-Semitism, fanaticism and hysterical passion.’[8]

This partially meets with the observation made by Scottish Theologian, T.F. Torrance:

‘I had been in Palestine, as it was then called, in 1936 when the Grand Mufti came back to Jerusalem from visiting Hitler and spread the terrible poison of anti-Semitism all over the Middle East.’[9]

Swiss, anti-Nazi theologian, Karl Barth’s famous refutation of natural theology, unpacked in tedious detail, within his Gifford Lectures in 1937 and 1938, was in large part a refutation of Nazism. His “nein” to natural theology[10] was built on a keen awareness of man and woman’s rebellion against God, when, like Narcissus, man and woman turn to their own image and build religion on the sand of human imagination, ideas and superstition. For Barth, there is no other revelation of God outside where God has already made Himself known. This meant that the führer could never be Our Father. Hitler was not, and could never be, a second revelation of God. The State could never be God. Deus Dixit: in Jesus Christ, God has already spoken!

This is primarily why Barth saw Quranic Islam as idolatry, stating that ‘the God of Mohammed is an idol like all other idols […]’[11]

It’s with this in mind that we see how Quranic Islam and Marxism are more aligned than we are taught to think. For the Marxist and the Islamist, the command of the state is equal to that of the Supreme Being.   There can be no denying that like Islamists, the Bolsheviks, and later the Soviets, converted by the ‘sword of the revolution for arbitrary use at the regime’s demand’[12].

Simone Weil, herself once an ardent Marxist, criticized Marxism for being

‘a badly constructed religion […]   Marx was an idolater; he idolised the Proletariat and considered himself to be their natural leader’ (p.151); Marx made oppression the central notion of his writings, but never attempted to analyse it.’[13]

Furthermore, György Lukács, the father of modern Marxism stated without reservation that “you cannot just sample Marxism […] you must be converted to it.”[14]

What lies at the heart of this excessive affection from academics for Islam is deconstructionism (or revisionism). Like romanticism, revisionism is essentially built on lies. It builds its own facts out of the very thing it just deconstructed. Facts are distorted and sometimes reversed. Revisionism calls that which is good, evil and that which is evil, good.

Deconstructionism inflicts violence on language through redefinition. It ends up policing speech, undermining reason and civil rights. It reduces all discourse to propaganda[15].  For example, the depraved “logic” of deconstructionism reverses a claim like “the Nazis oppressed the Jews,” showing instead that the Jew cooked in a Nazi oven was really the Nazis’ oppressor…”[16]

Jacques Ellul was no debutante to Marxism or Islam. Not a lot unlike Roger Scruton, Jacques Ellul was part of the early Leftist establishment. His critique of the excessive affection from academics for Islam, is in line with Karl Barth’s rejection of Natural theology.

Such excessive affection is tantamount to believing that the best way to overcome sin is to reject the concept of sin; to ignore it, and treat sin as if it never really existed. According to this view, you can’t be a sinner if sin doesn’t exist.

However, relabelling or denying sin doesn’t make sin disappear. All this does, is allow self-justification for sin. The same goes for the academic establishment’s treatment of Islam. Calling Islam a “religion of peace”, doesn’t make it so.

Quranic Islam and Marxism view violence as a primary means to reach their respective utopian ideals. With its totalitarian: “convert, pay a tax, or die”, Islamism has proven to be much the same as Marxism. This makes them both the ultimate tool for totalitarian oppression.

What seems to explain the excessive affection from academics for Islam is the affection academics have for Marxism. As I’ve said before, those who chose to entertain Marxism, big bureaucracy or crony capitalism, ride the backs of monsters. We have to be ready and willing to ask whether or not Islamism should be added to this list.

Ideology is a good servant, but a cruel task-master. We either submit Christ to Mohammad, or Mohammad to Christ. We either submit Christ to the State or the State and Church to Christ. We cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24), and three’s a crowd.

If we give academics the benefit of the doubt we could conclude that such affection is simply just foolish romanticism.

It, however, isn’t that simple. The policing of speech, the increasing exclusion of conservatives and Christians from academia; the reckless labeling of opposing views as hate and bigotry; and the diagnosing of those who hold to scientific facts as phobic, all lead us to ask, whether such open affection isn’t just an innocent flirtation, but is in fact appeasement, or worse, a calculated naiveté and sinister wishful thinking, where Marxists use Islamists, and Islamists use Marxists for their own ends.

If the latter is true, it must be addressed. Non-critical thinking and appeasement gives Quranic Islam (and we could add the LGBT religion) the same free ride that it gave to Nazism and still does with Marxism. If we are not free to give gracious criticisms about Islamism and Marxism; if we are paralyzed by political correctness, we are dooming our children to fight a war that can still be avoided by honest intellectual engagement and open dialogue.

As David, W. Gill (retired Professor, President of the IJES, ethicist and theologian) noted,

Nothing is gained by cowardice and avoidance. All is lost by arrogance and accusation. As Paul writes, we must “speak truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) […]’  (p.vii)

Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi[17].


References:

[1] Islamism or Islamist Fundamentalism

[2] Sir Roger Scruton, 2002. The West & The Rest: Globalization & The Terrorist Threat, p.6

[3] See Alan Woods’ 2001 essay, Marxism & Religion, where Wood’s offers a dishonest account of Christian belief, but does talk about the atheism of Marxism. He also, rightly, condemns the oppression of women under in Islam. Sourced from Marxist.com 16th June 2019.

[4] Elshtain, B.J, 2003. Just War Theory: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World, (p.3) Also see Elshtain’s discussion on Islamic Supremacism and anti-Semitism.

[5] See Jesus & Marx: From Gospel to Ideology, 1988.

[6] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2006. Infidel. Free Press

[7] Khan, Muqtedar M.A. 2006. Islamic Democratice Discourse: Theory, Debates, and Philosophical Perspectives, Lexington Books

[8] Churchill, W. 1948. The Gathering Storm Rosetta Books

[9] Torrance, T.G. 1994. P.C.T: The Gospel and scientific thinking (p.28).

[10] Natural theology ejects the need for the Revelation of God in Jesus Christ as the starting point of faith. Barth rejected such dependence because it rejected God’s own decisive action and humanity’s only anchor of hope for salvation. Barth saw this as the main reason for the ease at which even the discerning voter was sucked in by National Socialism.

[11] Barth, K. The Knowledge of God and the Service of God According to the Teaching of the Reformation: Recalling the Scottish Confession of 1560 (Gifford Lectures 1937 & 1938) (p. 21). Wipf & Stock, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

[12] Service, R. 1997. A History of Twentieth Century Russia. Harvard University Press, 1998 (2nd Edition) p. 74

[13] Weil, S. 1955. Oppression and Liberty. 2001. Routledge Classics (p.154)

[14] Lukacs, G.  1971. Record of a Life, The Thetford Press Ltd. 1983 (p.62)

[15] Veith, Gene Edward. 1993. Citing Ward Parks,  Modern Fascism: Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview . Concordia Publishing House

[16] Ibid, 1993

[17] As we pray, so we believe, so we live.

Photo by Randy Colas on Unsplash

(Originally published at The Caldron Pool, 17th June 2019)

©Rod Lampard, 2019