The Breakdown of the American Polity: Part 1: Mrs. Hillary Clinton and the Neo-Marxist Democrats

 by Bob Cheeks  

| View comments |  Print This Post

Neo-Marxist political constructs, formulations, and policy are distortions predicated on relativism, positivism, scientism, and the usual Gnostic deformations and portend the rise of collectivism and suppression of liberty.

Evidence of the resurgence of Marxism, or neo-Marxism, as a result of the failures of the neo-conservative Bush regime, is evident both in polling data and in the current debate among the participants in the Democrat primary contest. The leading contender, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, proffers a specific set of concepts designed to assert a “progressive” or positivistic policy whose intention is to “improve” the condition of the American people.

The question is, does the neo-Marxist/Democratic political philosophy, grounded as it is in positivism, scientism, and its rejection of the transcendent, seek the summum bonum, or the “highest good?”

However, any analysis of the summum bonum must begin with the acknowledgement that the founders of the American federated republic achieved a rather impressive level of noetic differentiation in discerning man’s order of being. Their achievement is best exemplified in the foundational documents of the American government where political power is constitutionally dispersed and segregated, and where the order of being is seen as “surmounted by a transcendent source of being and its order.”

Without going into an in-depth historical analysis, we can see that over the past two centuries the American polity has lost the understanding not only of its political symbols but also suffers from an inability to apperceive the importance of cherishing and embracing a love for the wise, the good, and the beautiful which provide the “image of the order of being.” That is, we have chosen to ignore man’s inherent quest for the divine, thus losing our ability to engage in an analysis of man’s right order predicated on an “agreement with the order of being.”

The contemporary neo-Marxist/Democratic political agenda mirrors Marxist ideology in that it understands the order of being “as a process of nature complete in itself.” The transcendent is not only “shutoff” it is non-existent because it cannot be defined in objective terms within the immanent world-reality. The promulgation of laws and the administration of justice within this paradigm are not a function of the perceived will of the divine, expressed in terms of “good or wise,” but rather in positivistic terminology defined by a bureaucratic nomenclatura and the managerial elite.

One example of the more insidious aspects of the neo-Marxist/Democrats is the “prohibition of questions.”

In the political realm we have seen Mrs. Clinton object when certain questions are raised, i.e., when the question of New York State licenses for “illegal” taxi drivers was asked. And while we may be amused by her righteous indignation and the political gaffes that followed, her ambiguity may reflect a broader and deeper psychosis that correlates to the Marxist declaration that “for ‘socialist man’ such a question ‘becomes a practical impossibility.’”

We can see then that Mrs. Clinton is fully engaged in a “psychological phenomenon” that expresses itself in her desire not to answer questions where she knows that the construction of her political philosophy (neo-Marxism) will breakdown under examination.

Her action, the desire to avoid the question, is a form of  “intellectual deception” rooted in her passion for the libido dominandi, her will to power and dominion. Also, it has been noted that individuals possessed of this libido dominandi have a nasty inclination toward violence and cruelty, which in Mrs. Clinton’s case surfaces in anecdotal evidence provided by a number of her closest advisors.

As Marx was a “speculative Gnostic” so too is Mrs. Clinton. She is spiritually engaged in the “swindle,” the embrace of the tenets of neo-Marxism, and being a rather intelligent human being, Mrs. Clinton is very much aware of her “deception,” although she continues to engage in the egophanic act, the revolt against God, which establishes “the motive of the swindle.” As she persists in the Gnostic error (the “swindle,” or “deception”) the reason becomes illuminated as a psychopathological disorder.

At the root of Mrs. Clinton’s disorder is a choice she made probably at the beginning of her college years where she was confronted with the two conditions that exist in the question of the integrity of the existential being:  the first is an intense relationship between reason and the openness toward the ground. When this bond exists “reason is existential philia,” or love between man and God expressed as the “openness of existence raised to consciousness;” the second condition is met when existence is closed, as is the case of Mrs. Clinton’s embrace of speculative Marxist gnosticism, where the rational structure of the person’s psyche is consumed in existential disorder, as a participant in “demonic mendacity.”

Mrs. Clinton’s psyche exhibits, as is the case with anyone captured by ideological deformations, a rebellion against “the cosmic order,” against God. She is an righteous ideologue whose rise to the presidency will herald a new age in America where the parousiastic concept of “being construed as immanent” will finally come to fruition so she may claim her place as deliverer from the evil, chaos, and ignorance of our time.

Neo-Marxist principles have failed to address the problems facing America today because they are established on a distorted reductionism that negates the metaleptic experience that constitutes the core of being. The neo-Marxists fail to incorporate the totality of man’s reality, specifically man’s true existence in the In-Between “of immanence and transcendence, mortality and immortality, nature and divine.” That failure, of course, has been chronicled in the blood-drenched history of the past century. Recent American history has shown us that the Marxist ideology fails, miserably, to provide necessary social order and common sense would indicate there is no reason to try it again.

In conclusion, neither Mrs. Clinton nor the neo-Marxist Democrats give any indication of being aware of let alone seeking the summum bonum; indeed they appear captured by a second reality. Their political constructs, formulations, and policy are distortions predicated on relativism, positivism, scientism, and the usual Gnostic deformations and portend the rise of collectivism and suppression of liberty.

Elections & Political Parties

Read more articles by Bob Cheeks