Marxism, Fabian Socialism and American Liberalism: The Left’s Fear of Christianity, the Lone Weapon to Defeat Its Totalitarianism

My perspective as a Christian is nuanced in observing the natural right of the individual to be at liberty to have a choice as the base for all of social understanding within a Christian theological construct, separating our relationship with the Trinity from that of other faiths which can only diffuse through “voluntary submission” under the penalty of death.

When one compares Christianity to Islam, the difference is clear in abundance: Christianity does not contain a “Verse of the Sword” in order to define how Christ insists there is no compulsion in religion unless one refuses total proselytization. The Qur’an would be right here, because Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship with Jesus Christ. And one will never enter into a relationship willingly should he or she not feel the personal attraction to do so with all their heart.

No god will see fit to be offended over the disparaging remarks of the amoral fringes nor simply kill them for the sake of differing opinions. Socialism, ergo, has always enjoyed the love affair of class warfare, that based upon the status quo of a society’s cultural heritage will oppose anyone for any reason so long as they profit by acquiring absolute power. Too, socialism will only consider itself secular until a faith of equally volatile opposition to the status quo arises, entrenching themselves in the crucible of an unholy war through Islam’s “Verse of the Sword” and per Mao Zedong, “political power… through the barrel of the gun”.

Christians live understanding all God’s children are innately flawed, our lives predestined by the very base of mankind’s existence to die a death cursed by the Fall of Man or accept voluntarily Jesus as our Savior. There can be no egalitarianism as a base for a just society if we are to be a free people at liberty to exercise this God-given right to life and the ownership of property. A society bred of Almighty God will be the most just and blessed in His approval of liberty. It should be understood no man can be consistently pious, as all are innately corrupt.

The pursuit of moral perfection is itself an exercise in futility, for no man will ever be perfect to manufacture a utopia based on one individual’s temporal order. If the temporal flaws of mankind’s machinations predestine all to be born of sin, he not only will do so again ad nauseum, but diffuse his definition of perfection through propaganda and coercion. As rape forces oneself upon another person invasive of the body of Christ, the most grotesque form of rape is the most general. If one must exert his or her power by declaration of his absolute sovereignty, it foreshadows a need for mob rule, a social devolution into an anarchical malaise of the spirit to rape or be coerced mentality. As no mob materializes at the behest of God or in Jesus’ Name, its violence alone can never be pandemic amid its pervasiveness without an amoral figure engaging in corrupt bargains through lies, deceit and material wealth supplanting the riches of the Holy Spirit. As science never explains spontaneity nor the purpose why mankind is born laced with the idyllic tabula rasa, a people in a just society must learn temperance and forbearance, forgiveness and a justice tailored towards the individual, not a society predicated on bloodshed in the forms of planned anarchism, the rise of a brutal totalitarianism and the lie under his authority may our liberty be declared through his amoral relativism as his means to self-actualize. It is why Jean Jacques Rousseau’s rhetoric near the conclusion of The Social Contract (1762), he declared the great threat to “the general will” are Christians who guide by the Gospels and do not obey any earthly authority. 

There remains therefore the religion of man or Christianity — not the Christianity of to-day, but that of the Gospel, which is entirely different. By means of this holy, sublime, and real religion all men, being children of one God, recognise one another as brothers, and the society that unites them is not dissolved even at death.

But this religion, having no particular relation to the body politic, leaves the laws in possession of the force they have in themselves without making any addition to it; and thus one of the great bonds that unite society considered in severally fails to operate. Nay, more, so far from binding the hearts of the citizens to the State, it has the effect of taking them away from all earthly things. I know of nothing more contrary to the social spirit.

We are told that a people of true Christians would form the most perfect society imaginable. I see in this supposition only one great difficulty: that a society of true Christians would not be a society of men.

I say further that such a society, with all its perfection, would be neither the strongest nor the most lasting: the very fact that it was perfect would rob it of its bond of union; the flaw that would destroy it would lie in its very perfection.

Every one would do his duty; the people would be law-abiding, the rulers just and temperate; the magistrates upright and incorruptible; the soldiers would scorn death; there would be neither vanity nor luxury. So far, so good; but let us hear more.

Christianity as a religion is entirely spiritual, occupied solely with heavenly things; the country of the Christian is not of this world. He does his duty, indeed, but does it with profound indifference to the good or ill success of his cares. Provided he has nothing to reproach himself with, it matters little to him whether things go well or ill here on earth. If the State is prosperous, he hardly dares to share in the public happiness, for fear he may grow proud of his country’s glory; if the State is languishing, he blesses the hand of God that is hard upon His people.

For the State to be peaceable and for harmony to be maintained, all the citizens without exception would have to be good Christians; if by ill hap there should be a single self-seeker or hypocrite, a Catiline or a Cromwell, for instance, he would certainly get the better of his pious compatriots. Christian charity does not readily allow a man to think hardly of his neighbours. As soon as, by some trick, he has discovered the art of imposing on them and getting hold of a share in the public authority, you have a man established in dignity; it is the will of God that he be respected: very soon you have a power; it is God’s will that it be obeyed: and if the power is abused by him who wields it, it is the scourge wherewith God punishes His children. There would be scruples about driving out the usurper: public tranquillity would have to be disturbed, violence would have to be employed, and blood spilt; all this accords ill with Christian meekness; and after all, in this vale of sorrows, what does it matter whether we are free men or serfs? The essential thing is to get to heaven, and resignation is only an additional means of doing so.

If war breaks out with another State, the citizens march readily out to battle; not one of them thinks of flight; they do their duty, but they have no passion for victory; they know better how to die than how to conquer. What does it matter whether they win or lose? Does not Providence know better than they what is meet for them? Only think to what account a proud, impetuous and passionate enemy could turn their stoicism! Set over against them those generous peoples who were devoured by ardent love of glory and of their country, imagine your Christian republic face to face with Sparta or Rome: the pious Christians will be beaten, crushed and destroyed, before they know where they are, or will owe their safety only to the contempt their enemy will conceive for them. It was to my mind a fine oath that was taken by the soldiers of Fabius, who swore, not to conquer or die, but to come back victorious — and kept their oath. Christians would never have taken such an oath; they would have looked on it as tempting God.

But I am mistaken in speaking of a Christian republic; the terms are mutually exclusive. Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favourable to tyranny that it always profits by such a régime. True Christians are made to be slaves, and they know it and do not much mind: this short life counts for too little in their eyes.

I shall be told that Christian troops are excellent. I deny it. Show me an instance. For my part, I know of no Christian troops. I shall be told of the Crusades. Without disputing the valour of the Crusaders, I answer that, so far from being Christians, they were the priests’ soldiery, citizens of the Church. They fought for their spiritual country, which the Church had, somehow or other, made temporal. Well understood, this goes back to paganism: as the Gospel sets up no national religion, a holy war is impossible among Christians.

Under the pagan emperors, the Christian soldiers were brave; every Christian writer affirms it, and I believe it: it was a case of honourable emulation of the pagan troops. As soon as the emperors were Christian, this emulation no longer existed, and, when the Cross had driven out the eagle, Roman valour wholly disappeared.

On Matters of Plural Consensus versus the Virtue of Individualized Conviction

Over the past two and one-half years, I have largely withdrawn from most exhibitions of popular culture. The consensus is if sex sells, one will purchase his liberation. I see no veracity in such a fallacy. Man is not equal due to the differentiation of the talents we singularly possess. We must understand subjecting the individual to the avarice of women in scorn (feminists) will never beget any consensus“might makes right”. The idea of the mighty versus the depths of the poor is itself a preclusion from the terminology a prince knows best how to relate to a large contingent of paupers. The idea a wealthy man bred of primogeniture and entail with unearned riches contradicts the fairness of those who earn less but actually work with a purpose. What might we say is the virtue of the post regem deum iuram era if the role of global revolutions initiated in America was to break the ties historically binding one to servitude of a monarch detached from reality, but never sees how a hand out to an unaccomplished progeny with no purpose to ever work? Conventional wisdom states one who refuses to work should not be ethically permitted to siphon off the labors of those who do.

The Bible references this succinctly in 2 Thessalonians 3 New International Version (NIV).

Request for Prayer

3 As for other matters, brothers and sisters, pray for us that the message of the Lord may spread rapidly and be honored, just as it was with you. 2 And pray that we may be delivered from wicked and evil people, for not everyone has faith. 3 But the Lord is faithful, and he will strengthen you and protect you from the evil one. 4 We have confidence in the Lord that you are doing and will continue to do the things we command. 5 May the Lord direct your hearts into God’s love and Christ’s perseverance.

Warning Against Idleness

11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. 13 And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.

14 Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15 Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

Final Greetings

16 Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times and in every way. The Lord be with all of you.

17 I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.

18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.

There is no virtue in eating that which is not the fruit of your own labor, nor is there moral justification to tax a people beyond their capacities to pay in preventing their liberty to earn a healthy fortune as a token of their appreciation in God. To engage in the contradictory policy in any society of encouraging idleness for political expediency and power is a matter of the indifference towards those who gratefully are productive citizens out of spite to the lie of so many who can work, but refuse. It is only partially correct that power is nestled within the consent of the governed; to the contrary, power can be wielded at the edge of a sword or as Mao Zedong, the founder and first Chairman of the People’s Republic of China, put it this way.

“Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
  Chapter 5, Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book, 1964)

The legitimacy for being powerful resides not in mobilizing the masses to destroy revisionist reactionaries to their agenda, but those whose faith in The Lord and confidence in their own talents are applied to trust only the best bear fruit in a land of the free. The mind of the individual tramples the feeble capacity of the average blindly following a corrupt narcissistic demagogue(ry). It should be concluded if right is wrong, right can never make might if it is the temporal law of a man declaring himself a god on earth or a philosopher king. Right will only beget the might of a virtuous individual who applies his gifts to a trade to perform good deeds. Socialism, therefore, is a poor reflection of a perceived caste of elite polymaths of abundant eclecticism. Such an unaccountable governing body can never be applied in principle through the invocation such men derive the metastasis of an ever expanding totalitarian government. Therefore, might does not make right. If it did, no free people would exist under God, but rather at the behest of tyrants.

The Audacity of a False Hope Through Cultural Rape

Mahatma Gandhi once stated there are seven social sins, his very Vedic traditional interpretation which hearkens of Christian conservatism too.

“Seven social sins: politics without principles, wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, and worship without sacrifice.”

There are two lists of deadly sins to be ascertained in Scripture too. The first is from King Solomon, the wisest of all kings of Israel in Proverbs 6:16-19.

  • A proud look
  • A lying tongue
  • Hands that shed innocent blood
  • A heart that devises wicked plots
  • Feet that are swift to run into mischief
  • A deceitful witness that uttereth lies
  • Him that soweth discord among brethren

All seven are reflective of the idyllic politician,  a man or woman willing to sell her soul in order than he or she may acquire through her own avarice and disingenuity the trust of others.

In defense of employing the adjective “idyllic”, I want to first express how it applies to that of the amoral politician void of measurable virtue. The Oxford Dictionary defines “idyllic” as the following.

Pronunciation: /īˈdilik
Definition of idyllic in English:
(Especially of a time or place) like an idyll; extremely happy, peaceful, or picturesque: an attractive hotel in an idyllic setting.

We all have our causes; I know I do. At some point, one must add together the figures to grasp that what is one individual’s wealth is the other’s poverty of the spirit. To live well entails that one engage in work beneficial to aiding the greater good, for it is a moral affront and a universal deception to remain idle while powerful men enable a collective blinded by deception. Socialism cannot serve as a compulsory grounds for charity, for charity is never a matter of social coercion. Charity emanates from the love God instilled in good men and women, that He blinded of His light as the salt intended to enrich the flavors of the discontented and spiritually sullen.

The condition of mankind is the result of the individual’s own talents his or her gifts pay forward. No man or woman will ever be all things to a collective of individuals, but to the contrary, each individual with his or her uniquities must contribute to the greater cause of a functioning society. To force one into charity is to confiscate the fruits of the individual’s labors. He who tills the land should profit from his crop yields; those who refuse to enrichen God’s earthly soil will die a death mired from the personal famine of  his false sense of self-entitlement. To acquire great wealth means to invest it to create more of it, to provide opportunity for others to prosper under one’s tutelage, to assure for all posterity that the civil society of today will perpetuate into tomorrow’s aristocracy of virtue, more civilized and God-blessed as history teaches what our progeny should observe.

Perfection is unattainable by man, and those who enforce it as a secular god among men will do so only as it is subjective to his or her own whims. The manifestation of the individual imperative cannot be diffused as a consensus among the minds of a society where each mind naturally is exclusive to every individual. Nature, then, is the freedom to simply be human, to err and to recover and celebrate the triumphs of the human spirit even as defeat is inevitable due to the inherence of our flaws. Thus, to deny the rights of all men and women to be equal under God is to defy the immovable object that is His moral imperative, or that of our God-begotten right to prosper by our own mechanizations through natural law through the bull rush of an irresistible force intent upon proselytizing the minds of a population of the laypeople of a fickle nature.

Socialism’s Defiance of the Will of God that All Be Equal Beneath Him Through the Uniquities of their Talents

Socialism is not the state of nature under any god, nor is it of a religion where the definition of “peace” is a defined faux proselytization uncoerced at the hands of a false prophet declaring God must be venerated under the penalty of the blasphemer’s life. Socialism and Islam, therefore, are inherently intertwined with the same purpose but through a different lens as to the source of some false measure of a collective obligational imperative. There is no such law segregating “the separate” from the “more equal”, but rather the misnomer that through egalitarianism may we each be free by devaluing the gifted in order to soften the redundancy of the rising morbidly impoverished.

Earlier, I discussed two sets of seven deadly sins that kill the social good. I have yet provided the most famous list of all, that of Christendom’s Seven Deadly Sins. As the truth will set the individual’s soul free, that truth is also far stranger and less appealing than the lies that deceit gerrymandered through lexicographical revisionism of an established framework.

The Seven Deadly Sins are traceable to their liturgical roots as defined through the centuries:

    1. Γαστριμαργία (gastrimargia) gluttony
    2. Πορνεία (porneia) prostitution, fornication
    3. Φιλαργυρία (philargyria) avarice
    4. Ὑπερηφανία (hyperēphania) hubris – sometimes rendered as self-esteem.7]
    5. Λύπη (lypē) sadness – in the Philokalia, this term is rendered as envy, sadness at another’s good fortune
    6. Ὀργή (orgē) wrath
    7. Κενοδοξία (kenodoxia) boasting
    8. Ἀκηδία (akēdia) acedia – in the Philokalia, this term is rendered as dejection

How very pleasant it would be if only we might divest ourselves of our own natural flaws. We each experience these undesirable qualities at one point or another, but never for the same purpose nor rhyme or reason. Our modi operandi for a more puritanical lifestyle is one not based upon a statist’s terms for absolutism under its objectivity, but how each conduct our affairs, our modi viviendi. One cannot move Jerusalem to Rome or Constantinople (Istanbul). Each city must contribute so much, yet so much can deter the exceptional qualities if one enforces the nature of each city’s ecclesiastical significance its achievements bequeathed to a world to be discovered. At this, history cannot be transferred as synonymous from one cultural valuation to that of others of a distinctive flavor in singularity. Fresh approaches to a common cause must be encouraged, for even among the Apostles there was no consensus, as each understood the Gospels of Jesus differently.

Through pride may one be guilty of prejudice, but pride is subjective to the diverse extremities latent within the hearts of individuals. To have confidence is no crime, but to be arrogant is to set forth the conditions of an epic fall from the social graces one has achieved. Pride begets prejudice amid its excesses activities conducted due to one’s malevolence. Avarice, excessive self-esteem and boasting of one’s superiority through an achievement is the greatest show of hubris as all are enabled by God.  

But of all forms of pride and prejudice, the crime of hubris is the most egregious of all. In Greek, hubris is defined as “defiance in the face of the gods”, which leads to manifesting temporal opposition and social discord giving birth to “nemesis”, or each man’s final destruction. Such crimes as this are to be correlated to the consumption by Eve of the Forbidden Fruit. The Hanging Gardens of Eden were God’s one proviso for mankind to live amid a state of Utopia. But as imperfection led to temptation of defying The Will of God, that opposition to His Goodness was the result of an amoral degenerate of a serpent, the archangel who fell from grace through rebelling against God. Through the temptation of Lucifer in the form of the serpent are we now a degenerate race from that of God’s perfection.

Western Christendom once was a precondition, a social contract between the Roman Catholic Church and that of the papacy’s subjects west of the Byzantine divide. The matter of consensus as a singular nation under a central authority was predestined to falter, for no two people much less clergy interpreted Scripture the same. The Church was the West’s source for a dictatorial pathos amid the necessity for a corrupt logical proposition, mired amid the temporal fallacies of those with absolute power. The Bishop of Rome (now known simply as the pope or “pontificate”) usurped his mandate as the messenger between the Christ of God and that of an inherently ignorant, illiterate population of yeomen.

Discrepancies amid the theological discourse can be traced to Emperor Constantine’s epiphany during the Battle of the Milivian Bridge in 313 AD. Prior to such, Christians were the most persecuted peoples of faith in Western Civilization. To understand how Christianity manifested itself is to possess the knowledge of the Last Supper prior to the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot. No better resource than again, The Bible, will ever expound so adequately or as perfect as the Gospels recorded by the Apostles.

First, a detailing of Last Supper per the Apostle Luke.

Luke 22 New International Version (NIV)
udas Agrees to Betray Jesus

22 Now the Festival of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2 and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money.6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.

One popular cliche is good guys finish last. Among the Twelve Apostles was one Judas Iscariot, who guided not by the conviction instilled in the righteous by Christ, but that of a consensual blinding light by the sea of Satan. The number twelve is significant among the Abrahamic traditions of Christianity and Islam, for the fork diverged and along one path was Isaac and the other, Ishmael. As stated earlier in the paragraph, “twelve” is linked to each Apostle.

Among this cabal, Scripture states the following in the Books of Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:14-19, and Luke 6:13-16.

And when day came, he called his disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas [also called Thaddeus or Jude] the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

The legitimacy of the papacy laid claim to that of Peter, the first pope then known as “The Bishop of Rome”. As he was a witness of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, he was also well-acquainted with Judas, the rogue Apostle clandestinely cloaked amid the darkened cloth of Lucifer the archangel. Evil emanates from excess Pride, which begets Prejudice, Avarice, Envy and at their most extreme, Hubris. Prostitution is the end which mal-intent provides as the means, for while the Whore of Babylon may represent Eve, Original Sin is the evil that through the Judaic traditions is conceived through a matrilineal lineage. And while all God’s children possess ample opportunities to atone for misdeeds, there still is the scourge of Original Sin, which as Jesus died upon the Cross at Calvary, He bore the weight of all the world to liberate as his penance through the pain of an agonizing death. With so many souls to die for their salvation, such a burden immeasurable by conventional standards is impossible to qualitate as well temporally.

Judas Iscariot embodied all the preconditions that served him as the second Antichrist after Eve. Engrossed in this is concept of fear, one all too common of those who guide by their convictions, not by popular consent. Through fear, we have mistrust, and through mistrust may we ascertain eternal winters of discontent. This is particularly true for today’s world in how all peoples not of a secular nature distrust the Muslim nations and militants of the world, for Muhammad taught the followers he cultivated through promises of a peace through his fickle subjectivity of their means that to lie was a virtue in waging jihad in the name of Allah and himself as the prophet.

The God of Abraham need never lower His omnipotence to that of a lay person ostensibly afflicted with a psychosis such as disassociative personality disorder or the madness potentially a byproduct of schizophrenia. To lie is to reflect not God’s perfect virtue, but that of Lucifer, the fallen archangel who rebelled to liberate himself from the vagaries of his narcissism. Lucifer as the archangel was like any other among his angelic taxonomy: below God and the caste of mankind. The prophecy was realized in the parables of the Book of Isaiah.

“How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: ‘Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?'”

Communism and other variations of socialism declare self-exaltation of the dictatorship of the proletariat by way of declaration that such a democratic approach arises from the corruption of mankind and the deadly solicitation of bribing the populace in exchange for their liberty, or that begat by God as his greatest legacy: the soul of the individual. Through Pride may Envy conceive Hubris, and through Hubris may one prostitute the Body of Christ, to sully His gift of the primogeniture of divinity and virtue, in exchange for the vagaries of all the wealth one can indulge. I refer to this as the Midas Effect, for one can own all the gold bullion in the world, but never for a moment will it sustain a soul if it cannot buy the individual the love that is unconditionally provided by Christ.

Soviet General Secretary Joseph Stalin made direct reference to the difference between the God on his and the amorality of a man possessed by an evil rebel of His Sovereignty.

“God is on your side? Is He a Conservative? The Devil’s on my side, he’s a good Communist.”
— Said to Winston Churchill in Tehran, November 1943, as quoted in Fallen Eagle: The Last Days of the Third Reich (1995) by Robin Cross, p. 21

The good will always be opposed by the innate evil of a corrupt man or oligarchy; consequently, evil is far more pervasive through the deceitful machinations of Lucifer’s malevolence as the advocate of lying. In politics, socialism and Islam will eternally oppose the cultural ties which bind a society of common ethical principles and godly virtue contradictory to their own, and that is again described by the founder of the People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong.

“We shall support whatever our enemies oppose and oppose whatever our enemies support.”
—Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book, 1964), Chapter 2

Lucifer is the consummate representation of a narcissist; so too are the blackened hearts of the atheist that hates all which exists declining to declare him lord and master. No man is born into the void of amoral entropy that is atheism; it is a platform about nothing, much ado about nothing at all nor with any particular direction for a life unconstrained by any individualized moral infrastructure. Ergo, if it is right to rebel, a popular revolution through anarchy can only succeed if the plebiscite is intentionally kept illiterate and therefore, ignorant and in general, morbidly impoverished. The vacant of mind will always be the sheep herded not by a man of conviction and integrity, but an individual or cabal of elitists in pursuit of Utopia which  he or she alone can legally define. Hubris through Avarice breeds discontent among the mobs of sustainably deprived and the morally-depraved. Desperation will lead to the rise of a philosopher king self-absorbed and insecure. And one who instills such values in those who slates have intentionally be kept black will only succeed temporarily before the laws of nature and Nature’s God subvert the pre-destined destruction to the barriers of liberty and piety.

Comments are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner