“You can change the course of your life with your words.”
“The invisible hand of language change (structurally-motivated change) can create an environment for change, which is then helped along by a certain social group adopting that change, and using it as a social marker.”
Language is one of the most critical elements of civilization. Language defines the mores that restrict civil boundaries and enables peaceable existence. Language is an incredible art that can define heroism and instill resolve but can also instigate hatred and insurrection.
The American language has been hijacked, manipulated, tortured and twisted to support perversion of basic civilities and morality. Our language has become “plastic” in today’s upside-down culture. Previous vocabulary is now used to communicate the opposite concepts than in the past. The ancient prophet reveals this is not a modern phenomenon. “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah).
Historical anecdotes abound showing how a twisted language misdirected, misled and manipulated a population to unimagined actions. A manipulated language has led many nations to a destructive cycle. The troubling consequences of a national vocabulary that leads to deprivation, manipulation and erasure is aptly stated, “My people have exchanged their glory for that which is of no benefit” (Jeremiah).
Illustrating this tragedy…
I grew up in the heyday of the Russian propaganda machine. There were two major sources of Russian State approved news. There was “Pravda” (Правда, which means “Truth”—hence the subtle message was that only those in the State could tell you the “truth”). The other publication was “Izvestia” (Известия, meaning “The News”—only the approved State releases presents the real news). A number of other publications attempted to publish, but the totalitarian Marxist censors quickly isolated and terminated these sources because they threatened the State’s control. In that era, America was incensed that such blatant censorship was practiced and urged political forces to address and punish such inhumanity. And at times we were on the precipice of WWIII.
Those involved in analyzing the USSR’s evil, found Pravada and Izvestia very informative as a means of mining discovery of the Soviet tyranny, activity and influence. The Soviet media language was crafted to frame the State as the total source of truth and all opposition as anarchists and troublers.
The sobering reality that we face today is, the manipulation of language did not did die with the dissolution of the USSR. This is present in our epoch on the timeline of civilization. This manipulation of language is a historical constant. The action has existed from the beginning of time (Genesis 3) and will continue until the end of time (Revelation 13:11).
Evil is relentless in manipulating mankind with a twisted vocabulary that directs populations into paths that surrender their personal freedom.
This is why “freedom of speech” was a foremost concern of our Founding Fathers. However, this priority has become subservient in the agenda of the Elite Rulers in our nation. Two examples highlight this subtle attack upon our freedom. My focus is on two of the CDC’s edicts that are being viewed as binding legislative rules.
The first manipulation of free speech—MASKING. The futility of this has been discussed often but the modern editors of Pravada USA and Izvestia USA have decided the opposition must be silenced. Masking (aka “face diapers”) has been opposed with TRUE science for at least the past 12 months. New studies have only verified that the CDC/NIH mandates are useless regarding the COVID-19 virus. But the CDC has released a new advisory update on masking at schools of 2021. “Updated to recommend universal indoor masking for all students, staff, teachers, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status.”
Welcome to Pravada USA and Izvestia USA where TRUE science is cursed and the “new” scientific method is embraced—conclusion and warnings can be issued with the cavalier whim of the Director…no lengthy studies, no verifiable test group, no consistent results. All is decided in a state of flux. “Science,” in the COVID19 environment, is unstable and its counsel is undependable. The BEST that CDC/NIH offers are generally phrased comments: “regardless of vaccination status,” “a negative may not be a true negative and a positive may not be a true positive”! Now citizens are told to have absolute, unquestioned confidence that these people know what they are doing—a manipulative vocabulary! And so, we are told “up is down and down is up” and we are not to question this!
The second manipulation of free speech is the CDC’s “proper-speak.” The CDC Director has arrogantly published an update on “Preferred Terms for Select Population Groups & Communities.” The Gateway Pundit highlighted this egregious mandate. This is an astonishing manipulation of our language. It redefines and perverts basic the language vocabulary that we have used for centuries. This is the Postmodern “doublespeak” used by Progressives to destroy our Republic’s foundations.
This is a blatant attack on our culture, civility and morality. It embraces an inclusive vocabulary that tolerates everything except exceptionalism!
This is a plagiarized ploy straight out of the Engles/Marx playbook. These “tolerant despicables” theorized that “class distinction” is the inherent evil that has prevent mankind’s true happiness. They presented a scheme to destroy current civility and then, from the debris, build a better civilization of equity and fairness. You should remember this from your Ninth Grade Civics classes!
This is an overreach by the CDC that seeks to instill and validate Marxist mandates in the USA. Look at how the CDC has assumed the role of totalitarianism. The CDC has placed itself as the foremost economic authority (forbidding evictions), and as the only authority regarding the insidious and tyrannical COVID-19 mandates. And now, the CDC has assumed the august position of “Language Police”!Never before in the history of our Republic has a bureaucratic office wielded such unchallenged totalitarianism—NEVER! And…the Legislative and Executive Branches have cowered before this organization and only recently has the Judicial Branch appeared to challenge this unconstitutional action by ruling in regard to the CDC’s eviction ban.
An interesting article Illustrating Engles/Marxist manipulation of language is found in the June 20, July 4, and August 2, 1950 issues of Pravda, Marxism and Problems of Linguistics, by J.V. Stalin (Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow). The Marxist objective is to use the current language but subtly manipulate it so old meanings are destroyed as it morphs into a new meaning. By changing the language, one compromises those opposed and speaking out against the Marxist “classless dream.”
J.V. Stalin’s article (written in 1950 during the peak of Soviet Power) provides insight to the Marxist cunningto destroy the old cultural/political mores and introduce the new fundamental, inclusive mores. The author comments,
“(T)he Russian language has remained basically what it was before the October Revolution. What has changed in the Russian language in this period? To a certain extent the vocabulary of the Russian language has changed, in the sense that it has been replenished with a considerable number of new words and expressions, which have arisen in connection with the rise of the new socialist production…a number of words and expressions have changed their meaning, have acquired a new signification…(language) becomes an exceedingly active force, actively assisting its base to take shape and consolidate itself, and doing its utmost to help the new system to finish off and eliminate the old base and the old classes.
“What can be the necessity for a linguistic revolution, if it has been demonstrated that the existing language and its structure are fundamentally quite suited to the needs of the new system? The old superstructure can and should be destroyed and replaced by a new one in the course of a few years, in order to give free scope for the development of the productive forces of society; but how can an existing language be destroyed and a new one built in its place in the course of a few years without causing anarchy in social life and without creating the threat of the disintegration of society? Who but a Don Quixote could set himself such a task?”
Please do not allow the metaphorical reference to “Don Quixote” to be ignored as a comment on the delusional pursuit of Marxist seeking a “fundamental transformation” in the USA. Such an imaginative delusion leads not to the elusive utopian joy but to national disaster and destruction. Notice: This is only “an imagined delusion” IF the population is vigilant of the language manipulation! IF the population remains compliant and does nothing, then the “fundamental transformation” is successful.
This is where we are today…
Welcome to Pravada USA and Izvestia USA! The MSM sources arrogantly announce they have the “balanced truth,” the “total reporting,” and the “accurate analysis” of the news that Americans must read. Those opposed to the State’s version of truth and news are ignored, castigated, demonetized, blocked, banned, and litigated by a perverted justice. With such a manipulation of history once again the announcement is repeated, “Truth has stumbled in the streets.”
Perhaps the saddest point of this analysis is the impact this has upon the nation’s children. They are being schooled by this manipulative vocabulary. They are being conditioned to accept the surrender of personal freedom. They are being trained to cower before tyranny’s mandates.
This is history redux…an ancient nation surrendered prestige and freedom thinking they were benefitting. But they lost their distinctiveness. A prominent feature of any national demise is its compromised vocabulary. “As for their children, half spoke in the language of Ashdod, and none of them knew how to speak the language of Judah, but only the language of his own people.”
It is tragic that many of our population no longer know the vocabulary of our nation’s great documents and have accepted a linguistic manipulation. It is amazing that many now believe that “up is down and down is up.”
We are in a tragic historical cycle—fear rules because truth has stumbled in the streets!
John Kachelman, Jr.is a Christian patriot, preacher, and missionary for Jesus Christ to foreign countries. He lives in Montgomery, AL.
The people of Isaiah’s day said to the seers, “’See no more visions! And to the prophets, ‘Give us no more visions of what is right. Tell us pleasant (smooth) things, prophesy illusions. Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.” – Isaiah 30:10-11
The Jews of Isaiah’s day (approximately 730 years Before Christ) were God’s chosen people, but they had grown rebellious. The prophets checked them in these pursuits, but they did not wish to hear of God’s commandments and especially His hatred of sin. Remind us not any more of these things!
Instead, they wanted flatteries—things agreeable to their own wishes. Their desire was to be entertained, not instructed and certainly not corrected. Illusions and deceits is what they wished for. As Matthew Henry comments, “But as they despised the word of God, their sins undermined their safety. Their state would be dashed in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
Sounds like today’s pulpits, doesn’t it? No spirited edge, only milquetoast and honeyed words. What occurred? Socialism.
Max Eastman (1883-1969) was a prominent editor, political activist and “prominent radical” who, like many in Woodrow Wilson’s “progressive” America, became infatuated with Marxism. Eastman traveled to the Soviet Union to learn firsthand how to be a good socialist and became friends with Leon Trotsky. Years later, when Eastman became convinced that socialism is void of validity, he reflected upon his time as a Marxist. “I sadly regret the precious twenty years I spent muddling and messing around with this idea, which with enough mental clarity and moral force I might have seen through when I went to Russia in 1922” (Reflections on the Failure of Socialism).
Eastman commented on socialism this way.
Marxists profess to reject religion in favor of science, but they cherish a belief that the external universe is evolving with reliable, if not divine, necessity in exactly the direction in which they want it to go. They do not conceive themselves as struggling to build the communist society in a world which is of its own nature indifferent to them. They conceive themselves as traveling toward that society in a world which is like a moving-stairway, but walking in the wrong direction. This is not a scientific, but in the most technical sense, a religious conception of the world. (Max Eastman, Marxism—Is It Science?)
Eastman knew whereof he spoke.
Socialism is not normally classified as a religion, but when its doctrines are examined, it more closely resembles a religious concept than anything else. The only difference between socialism and Christianity is that the latter is grounded upon historical fact while socialistic faith is founded upon unproven assumptions. Communism particularly is a philosophy of faith in the dialectic—the zig-zagging of history onward and upward to a more perfect society.
Because socialism is in reality an implicit religion, Spargo & Arner, who virtually wrote the textbook on Socialism, called Elements of Socialism (1912), tell us that not only is a “future life” such as heaven an “invention of man” but that God Himself is a “construct of the human mind.” They present socialism as an “alternative to Christianity” which infuses a passion for perfection “without God” and “without heaven.” Further, it is based upon the general theory of evolution(p. 63, 75, 111, 206, 222), which itself is a theory designed to replace belief in God.
This brings us back to the churches of today. Far too many Bible classes, pulpits and church groups have bought into the lie that one needs to keep separated “politics” and “religion.” To frame the issue this way is to make like some preachers are running for political office themselves in sermon material. The real issue is: Do social ideas have any input from the Bible? Should the church and Christians have any interest in social ideas for the community and the family? Do biblical principles have any say on the social issues of the day?
In truth, the social issues plaguing our society today are born of the alternative religion: socialism. Welfare, government housing, government schools, government manipulation of the free market, government intrusion into farming, businesses, health care, family planning, and the list goes on.
Should Christians be interested at all in maintaining a free society by which they may, without reprisal, worship God? Or, shall we capitulate to the social justice warriors such as the Barack Obama’s and Joe Biden’s who wish to force their godless worldview on a free people? When Marxist BLM declares its intention to rid society of the “nuclear family,” should biblical Christians have something to say?
Is it in the interest of Christians to be able to defend private property and enjoy the fruits of our own toil as biblical principles teach? Does “thou shalt not steal” not imply the concept of private property? Or, shall we endorse government plunder in order to provide medical care, housing, education, food, services and you-name-it for those who do not have these things? Should I not show the difference between freedom to be charitable and government confiscation and squandering? Or, should we ignore these crucial distinctions?
Frederic Bastiat, the 19th-century French economist, made this crucial point: “Socialism … confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to it being done at all….It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
Shall pulpits insist upon the freedom to teach our children the way of the Lord in homeschooling (Deut. 6:4-9); or must we capitulate to government schools with its full display of hedonistic life-styles in the halls and Marxist propaganda in the classrooms? Is it not within the scope of this topic to remind congregants that there are political operatives that wish to remove this God-given liberty?
Am I, as a preacher, out-of-line to remind churches in sermonic material that some political candidates support the strong arm of government confiscating your own monies to pay for ungodly abortions? For redistributing your earnings to those who refuse to work? For giving your money to those who deal in drugs and wander the streets lawlessly looking for more stores and innocents to loot?
In preaching against homosexuality am I not within my God-given boundaries to remind people that some politicians not only support this wickedness, but use the strong arm of the law to coerce it within your houses of worship and private businesses? Shall preachers not “mark” those in apostate pulpits who endorse this lifestyle? (Rom. 16:17). And does not consistency demand we also “mark and avoid” the devil’s legions in the political ranks who are doing the same?
R.C. Foster, a Christian Church preacher of yesteryear, commented on the anemia that had already begun affecting the pulpits of his day. He commented that things will change in America only “when Christian martyrs, instead of craven cowards or selfish worldlings, stand in the pulpit.” The pulpit remains powerful when the gospel is preached and the church refuses to “substitute theatrical performances, pie suppers, and pool-tables for the preaching of the gospel.” But when “the husks of philosophical and scientific speculation, modernism, and infidelity are substituted for the gospel, God’s people are starved and the kingdom suffers defeat.”
Preaching the gospel includes more than merely speaking the “smooth things” (2 Tim. 4:2-4). Corruption in the pulpits is caused, in part, by the siren-song of socialism which has infatuated the unsuspecting and unlearned and caused multitudes of preachers to preach merely the illusions of the day.
Critical Race Theory, all the rage in America’s government schools, is just rehashed Marxist Critical Theory attempting to divide the country along racial lines.
During China’s so-called Cultural Revolution, the mass-murdering monster Chairman Mao and his minions divided the children and the population as a whole into two broad categories: the black classes and the red classes.
The black classes — those who came from families that owned land or businesses prior to the revolution, for instance — were the “oppressors.” Individuals from those classes were ordered to stand in front of their peers and do “self-criticism.” They also had to repent of their supposed “privilege,” though all of the repenting in the world could not get rid of the stain of having been born into a “black” family. In many cases confused children were ordered to denounce their own parents.
The red classes, by contrast, which included landless peasant families and revolutionary Communist Party soldiers, among others, were members of the “oppressed” class that was set to “liberate” China. All of the oppressed’s problems, claimed the propaganda and functionaries of the regime and its indoctrination centers, were the result of systematic exploitation and oppression coming from the evil black classes. To fix it, all of the “olds” — the habits, customs, culture, and ideas of China’s ancient civilization supposedly developed by the black classes to oppress everyone else and maintain power — needed to be dismantled and eradicated.
Before long, blood was literally running in the streets, as crazed and brainwashed “Red” youth in thrall to Chairman Mao’s lies terrorized and massacred their own countrymen. Children even turned their own parents over to the Communist savages to be tortured or executed. Libraries were burned, statues were torn down, professors and intellectuals who stood in the way were cut down, and frenzied children behaved more like rabid hyenas than human beings.
Lily Tang-Williams, who was just a young girl at the time, remembers it all like it was yesterday — and she remembers getting caught up in the mass hysteria, too. She was there. She lived it. She remembers the seething hatred and division that was inculcated in the population and especially impressionable young children. She remembers the violence that resulted. And she sees troubling parallels with the ideology and worldview that has taken over America like a fast-moving cancer.
They’ve seen this before: Lily Tang-Williams (left) grew up during Mao’s Cultural Revolution in Communist China, and she remembers how children were brainwashed and divided into “oppressor” and “oppressed” classes. After fleeing communist madness in North Korea, Yeonmi Park (right) came to America in search of freedom, but what she found in the “education” system was more outrageous than in her native land. (Photo credit: Left, John C. Williams, right, P Tore Sætre/Wikimedia)
“What is going on today in America with Critical Race Theory and identity politics really reminds me of what happened in China during the Cultural Revolution,” said Tang-Williams, who is now a proud American trying to sound the alarm about the mass insanity involving CRT and race that is gripping her adopted homeland before it is too late.
“I have witnessed how horrible social and political chaos can be when you tell the police to stand down and you … categorize people into classes, into two groups, oppressors versus oppressed, like the Marxists did,” she recalled, noting that there were five subcategories within the red and black classes that the communists used to foment more and more hate between people. “Mao divided the whole Chinese population into identity politics, fighting tooth and nail with each other, and 20 million people died.”
“I feel like this is a lesson I need to share with my fellow American citizens,” explained Williams, who serves on the advisory board of U.S. Parents Involved in Education (USPIE) and has been raising awareness about the dangers of CRT by doing everything from testifying in legislatures to publishing columns in major newspapers. “This is my new country, and I came here to achieve the American dream, not to relive another Cultural Revolution.”
It’s not just Chinese refugees to America who recall with horror the use of Critical Race Theory-style tactics to divide and enslave their nation. North Korean defectors and even those who fled from communist slave states in Europe remember it well, too — and they are expressing shock at seeing the very same techniques being deployed in America, from schools and businesses to government agencies and even in churches.
At a school-board meeting in Bedford Central, New York, in June, a mother who was born and raised in the Soviet Union spoke out against CRT and “equity” schemes. “The proposed ‘anti-racist program’ is just a prettier name for racial Marxist teaching. You don’t need to sugarcoat it for me. I lived it. Same methods, same vocabulary, same preferential treatment to certain groups,” explained the outraged mom. “That’s why equity is packed with good causes like ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion,’ so nobody can challenge it. But, I know.”
Blasting the “equity for all” program and other racialized Marxist teachings, she said it is “actually a tyrannical Soviet ideology” that has resulted in mass starvation and millions of executions around the world. “Ask me how I know? I was born in Soviet Union and my family has seen it all. Suffering first from Nazi and then from tyrannical Soviet ideology. Back there, what started with ‘equity for all,’ quickly ended with nothing to eat for my people,” she declared. “And now my family is here because of it — because ‘equity’ does not work.”
“They told us they were advocates for equity and enemies of privilege, people believed this, and we paid the awful price. This ideology killed millions of people worldwide. And now you’re bringing it here to indoctrinate our own children,” continued the mother. “Equity was just a tool used by communists to make sure everyone was equally poorly educated so people didn’t question authority. While in definition it was about fairness, in reality, it means same outcome — nobody excels, mind-boggling sameness. The key tactic is to remove all the incentives and motivation to succeed for all the students.”
Now, despite having fled that horror, she sees it rearing its ugly head in her new homeland. “We did not come here for a blanketed synthetic equity. We had enough of that one,” the mom concluded in her stinging three-minute scorching of the indoctrination taking place in government schools. “We came here for equal opportunity under the law and freedoms in this country. Soviets extinguished all the excellence and opportunity.”
According to a North Korean defector, the anti-American propaganda in America’s “education” system is even more extreme than the North Korean regime’s indoctrination. When Yeonmi Park fled to the United States from North Korea, she was under the impression that America was a land of free speech and freedom of thought. After attending Columbia University, however, her views changed. “Even North Korea isn’t this nuts,” she told Fox News.
The Critical Race Theory was laid on thick at Columbia. “Every problem, they explained [to] us, is because of white men,” Park continued. Many of the hyper-racialized indoctrination sessions on “white privilege” and similar CRT-inspired nonsense reminded her of the “caste system” in North Korea where individuals were placed in categories based on their ancestry and family history.
“I expected that I was paying this fortune, all this time and energy, to learn how to think. But they are forcing you to think the way they want you to think,” Park explained, saying she could not believe how much she was being asked to censor herself. “I realized, wow, this is insane. I thought America was different but I saw so many similarities to what I saw in North Korea that I started worrying.”
Divide and Conquer
The reason so many victims of communism from around the world see the parallels between CRT and what they experienced under communist oppression is simple. Critical Race Theory, a derivative of Critical Theory, is literally a Marxist tool created by Marxists to be used for dividing and conquering nations to further Marxist objectives.
Leaving aside the fact that the Bible never speaks of “race” as an issue — in fact the Bible says all men come from “one blood” and are descended from Adam and Eve — the New Testament in the Bible sheds light on the dangers of CRT and its utility for subversives. Three of the four Gospels quote Jesus warning that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. In fact, in Matthew, Jesus is quoted warning that divided kingdoms will be “laid waste” or “brought to desolation,” depending on the translation used. And that is the point: Marxists have known all along that the way to destroy a nation is to divide it — especially one as powerful as the United States.
Marx, of course, viewed the key fault line to base conflict around as being bourgeoisie (capitalist class) versus proletariat (working class). In Russia, revolutionaries backed by American mega-banks, as documented by Stanford historian Antony Sutton in his essential book Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution,succeeded with that class-struggle formula. After all, Czarist Russia was already a deeply divided society with a relatively oppressive, quasi-feudalistic ruling class lording over the peasantry. Backed by Wall Street money, Marx’s formula proved successful.
In America and Western Europe, however, the class conflict argument was far less appealing. Indeed, trying to persuade “working-class” Americans that they were being “oppressed” by their employers proved largely futile. The “American Dream” was real: People from anywhere could come to America with nothing and, if they worked hard and served their fellow man, they could become rich and successful beyond anything that the world had ever seen. Thus, the Marxists needed a new tactic to divide America.
Enter the exploitation and even weaponization of “race.” Communist operatives recognized early on the potential of exploiting racial division in America. In fact, documents from both the KGB and the FBI reveal a Soviet plan to create what they described as a “Negro Soviet Republic” in the American South that could serve as a beachhead for Communist slavery on the American continent.
Black American revolutionaries were brought into leading positions in the Communist Party USA to help advance this agenda. Among them was Manning Johnson, a black radical who rose so far through the ranks in the Communist Party that he was invited to Moscow. But eventually, he realized what was going on and blew the whistle in his historic book Color, Communism, and Common Sense. Not only did communists not care about black Americans, he explained, but the Reds were actually vicious racists exploiting black Americans to enslave mankind.
“The placing of the repository of everything, right and just, among the darker races is a dastardly Communist trick to use race as a means of grabbing and enslaving the whole of humanity,” explained Johnson, who defected from the party after realizing he was being used. “Moscow’s Negro tools in the incitement of racial warfare place all the ills of the Negro at the door of the white leaders of America…. Moreover, while they talk about ‘racial strife’ in America as providing grist for Moscow’s propaganda mill they are busy creating it.”
Like old friends: Black Lives Matter co-founder Opal Tometi (right), whose parents came to America from Nigeria (presumably not for the alleged “systemic racism”), stands next to murderous Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro. (Photo credit: Twitter)
Today, the situation is the same: Behind the race-mongering and CRT are Marxist operatives. Consider, for example, Black Lives Matter. All three of the co-founders are proud Marxists. Speaking on The Real News Network, BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors admitted that she and fellow BLM co-founder Alicia Garza were “trained Marxists.” The third co-founder, Opal Tometi, posted to Twitter a photograph of herself in Venezuela with mass-murdering Marxist dictator Nicolás Maduro. “Currently in Venezuela,” she tweeted along with the picture. “Such a relief to be in a place where there is intelligent political discourse.”
And just like the black Marxists pushing racial hatred in Johnson’s day, behind the three BLM co-founders are wealthy white financiers such as George Soros, the Rockefeller dynasty, and many of America’s Fortune 500 corporations.
CRT fundamentally rejects the official rallying cry of Martin Luther King, Jr., and (more broadly) the Civil Rights movement — the idea that people should be judged on the “content of their character” rather than the color of their skin. Instead, Critical Race theorists argue that people should be judged by the color of their skin. But as always with Marxist campaigns, the issue is never really the issue — the issue is always the revolution, as the 1960s Students for a Democratic Society used to say.
Almost a century ago, a cabal of Marxists led by law professor Carl Grünberg organized around the Institute for Social Research (ISR) at Goethe University Frankfurt in Germany. More commonly known as the “Frankfurt School,” this subversive operation was actually hatched in a Moscow meeting at the Marx-Engels Institute convened by the Communist Internationale and mass-murdering Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin’s key operative Karl Radek. Other key players included Soviet secret police boss Felix Dzerzhinsky, Hungarian Bolshevik “cultural commissar” Gyorgy Lukacs, and Communist Internationale (Comintern) bigwig Willi Münzenberg.
Around the same time that Italian communist Antonio Gramsci dreamt up what came to be known as cultural Marxism, the forces behind the Frankfurt school also realized that Marxist “revolution” would not be possible in the West — at least not until the nuclear family, Christian culture, religion, and other key institutions were undermined. And so they set about destroying the pillars that sustained civilization so that a new Marxist society could emerge from the ruins of the old world. After helping lay the foundation for National Socialism’s rise in Germany by promoting Nietzsche and others, the Frankfurt School ended up having to flee from the Nazis. They ultimately landed at Columbia University in New York.
There were many tools used to break down the old order — radically sexualizing the youth, demonizing religion, weaponizing education, and more. But among the key weapons formed by the Frankfurt School to deploy against Western civilization was Critical Theory. In his 1937 work Traditional and Critical Theory, ISR Director Max Horkheimer explained that the goal of Critical Theory was to bring about radical social change by exposing the alleged oppression of people by capitalism and traditional culture.
Analyzing everything through the lens of “oppression,” Critical Theory was used to criticize every institution and idea that was contrary to the Marxist agenda until it became discredited in the mind of the people. The theory was promoted primarily through academia at first, but from there worked its way into K-12 schools and eventually into every American institution. From Critical Theory grew Critical Legal Studies, which worked to demonize the American legal system, grounded in the Constitution and the laws of Nature and Nature’s God, as a tool of oppression.
By the 1990s, CRT had been born. In 2001, Critical Race theorists and pioneers in the field Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic published Critical Race Theory: An Introduction outlining the key beliefs of the CRT movement. Among other ideas, they claimed racism was the norm in America and that any advances made by non-whites were only allowed because such advances supposedly served the interests of “whites.”
But again, behind the façade, Marxism was never far away. Another modern pioneer of Critical Race Theory, for example, was fringe left-wing UCLA law professor Cheryl Harris. Among other Marxist ideas, she proposed confiscation of private property, including land. The primary difference from traditional Marxism was that, rather than redistributing the property to the oppressed proletariat, it would be doled out by the nation’s new racial overlords based on race. In practice, though, it would almost certainly end up with property in the hands of a centralized state, just as Marxist redistribution schemes always do.
More recently, CRT kingpin Ibram X. Kendi, who leads Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research, has proposed a full-blown racial dictatorship. This would include the creation of a “U.S. Department of Antiracism” with the power to overturn any law or policy at any level of government if the department, which would be beyond the reach of voters, determined that it did not contribute vigorously enough to “antiracism.” Even the speech of politicians would be subject to controls from the new department.
Basically, the goal is to destroy Christian civilization and replace it with Marxism. “In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist,” explained Kendi, who has also publicly argued that orthodox Christianity, particularly the Christian doctrine of salvation, generally “breeds bigotry.”
CRT Is Everywhere
Today, Critical Race Theory has become ubiquitous in America. From corporate boardrooms and church pulpits to government agencies, entertainment, and even schools, there is no “safe space” to hide from the escalating madness. “Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy,” warned Christopher Rufo, founder and director of the public policy research center known as Battlefront and a leading figure exposing CRT.
“Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, over the past decade it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions,” Rufo continued in a talk for Hills-dale College that was adapted into an essay for the school’s Imprimis publication. “When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, it is not an exaggeration — from the universities to bureaucracies to k-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down.”
CRT now dominates federal agencies and bureaucracies. This very much includes the U.S. military, where soldiers are being taught that America is plagued with white supremacy and that all whites contribute to this, fomenting division and distrust between soldiers and sailors based on “racial identity,” not to mention encouraging a hostile view of their nation and its institutions. The national-security implications of this madness cannot be overstated. Meanwhile, the toxic ideology has overrun federal law-enforcement agencies, the “intelligence” apparatus, the bureaucracy, and much more. Rufo gives a brief overview of CRT indoctrination within the federal government:
The FBI was holding workshops on intersectionality theory. The Department of Homeland Security was telling white employees they were committing “microinequities” and had been “socialized into oppressor roles.” The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that “virtually all white people contribute to racism” and that they must convert “everyone in the federal government” to the ideology of “antiracism.” And the Sandia National Laboratories, which designs America’s nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day reeducation camp, where they were told that “white male culture” was analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists,” and “mass killings.” The executives were then forced to renounce their “white male privilege” and write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color.
Of course, Trump famously banned CRT training within the federal workforce by executive order. But the fact that it was going on even during the Trump presidency highlights the fact that this insidious weapon — much like termites eating away at the structures that support a building — was already very advanced in destroying the nation before most of the public caught wind of it. In any case, Biden overturned Trump’s executive order on his first day in office so that the dangerous CRT brainwashing of America’s millions of federal employees could continue.
“This is a revolutionary change,” continued Rufo, adding that the entire machinery of the federal government and even state and local power is increasingly being “turned against the American people.” “This ideology will not stop until it has devoured all of our institutions.”
And indeed, CRT now dominates major corporations, megabanks, and more. Coca-Cola even famously told its employees they should try to be “less white.” Mega-corporations across the nation are forcing their workers into training sessions where CRT dogma is pounded into them. Those who dare to publicly disagree can be drummed out of their jobs, denied promotions, and more. An entire cottage industry of grossly overpaid “consultants” and “experts,” along with “chief diversity officers” and “equity and inclusion directors,” is now a staple at nearly every major business and institution.
Training the next generation: America’s children in all 50 states — even those that banned CRT — are being indoctrinated with CRT and lies to hate their churches, families, and nation. (Photo credit: AP Images)
Even more alarming, perhaps, is the infiltration of CRT into the churches. Despite the Bible specifically pointing out that God created all people of “one blood” and never dividing human beings by “race,” churches, including even many conservative evangelical churches, have fallen victim to the poisonous Marxist narrative. In fact, the CRT banner has been picked up even by the Southern Baptist Convention, which infamously adopted a resolution claiming it was a useful “analytical” tool. While the SBC walked that back somewhat in 2021 following outrage, CRT and its proponents continue to wreak havoc among Southern Baptists and Christian denominations across the board. For a much more detailed treatment of this subject by prominent Pastor Voddie Baucham, who argues that CRT is actually an anti-biblical “cult” animated by “demonic” ideas, see his book Fault Lines, reviewed on page 18.
CRT in the Classroom
Nowhere is the CRT extremism more out of control than in government schools, however. As detailed in The New American’s June 21 Special Report on education headlined “Save Our Children,” CRT is now the lens through which everything from math and science to English and civics is taught. Racial propaganda and Black Lives Matter dogma are taught literally from pre-K to university in every state in the union.
To get a sense of what this looks like, consider an exercise forced on third-grade children, typically aged eight or nine, in one of the wealthiest school districts in the nation, Silicon Valley’s Cupertino Union School District. The confused children were ordered to “deconstruct” their racial, gender, religious, family structure, and sexual identities. After that, they were told to create an “identity map” and rank themselves based on the “power and privilege” received from the “intersection” of their various “identities.” “A white, cisgender man, who is able-bodied, heterosexual, considered handsome and speaks English has more privilege than a Black transgender woman,” offered the school materials in an example of how to understand the results.
Despite growing outrage from parents of all skin tones across America, the three-million-member National Education Association recently approved a resolution at its convention vowing to teach CRT everywhere. Amid half-hearted denials from dishonest union bosses that CRT is being forced on children, the far-left NEA even vowed to create a team to help teachers “fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric.” Even in the states that have banned it, CRT brainwashing of children continues. Indeed, Biden’s Department of Education is bribing state and local governments to peddle the poison to children in government schools using “stimulus” money.
Of course, promoting a false narrative such as CRT depends on the creation of fake history to support the narrative. Enter the 1619 Project, written by a virulent racist for the far-left New York Times and taught nationwide in government schools. This fraudulent narrative holds, among other claims, that “anti-black racism,” slavery, systemic oppression, and other evils are embedded “in the very DNA” of America. Of course, if America’s very DNA is evil, there can be no change in policy and no possible transformation that would make the nation redeemable. In other words, the only solution is to kill America and replace it with something new. That is the point.
The 1619 Project was so dishonest that even the Times’ own fact checker argued against publishing it, and countless left-wing historians have debunked it. Indeed, the screed even omits the historical fact that the first legal slave owner in America was an African named Anthony Johnson, who arrived in America as an indentured servant like most Africans and many Europeans at that time. After serving his time, Johnson purchased rights to many indentured servants, including Europeans.
The CRT-peddling history books have completely rewritten American history. Christian America, organized under the self-evident truth that God created all equally with unalienable rights, went from being the very first society in human history to abolish slavery (numerous states abolished it before Britain) to being portrayed as a uniquely evil nation that practically invented slavery. Instead of being proud of their incredible heritage, young Americans are taught to be ashamed. Even the struggle for independence is falsely portrayed as an effort to preserve slavery.
Of course, to peddle that false narrative, lies and omissions abound. Virtually all the so-called history books today have removed any reference to the first martyr for the cause of America’s independence, a patriot of African heritage named Crispus Attucks, who was the first casualty of the Boston Massacre in 1770, and thus, the first American killed in the revolution. How could Americans of African descent be convinced that they needed their own “Independence Day,” so-called Juneteenth, if they knew the truth? Many other great American patriots of African heritage have similarly been deleted from history because, if people knew their stories, the CRT narrative would implode.
The goal of CRT promoters is to dismantle America. Ultimately, the goal is the complete overthrow of the free market, freedom of speech, Christianity and Christian culture, federalism, Western civilization, separation of powers, the U.S. Constitution, God-given rights, equality under the law, and even America itself. This can be seen clearly in the effort to demonize each of these as the product of — or even perpetuator of — “white supremacy” and “systemic racism.” If the evil forces behind CRT succeed, America will go the way of many nations before it — China, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, Angola, Mozambique, North Korea, and so many others.
Because CRT and its offshoots and proponents increasingly have a bad smell associated with them — and because in some jurisdictions CRT has been banned in government institutions — new terms and phrases are constantly being dreamed up. After all, CRT itself is just re-branded Marxist propaganda. Today, this poison hides behind seemingly innocuous and non-threatening terminology such as “equity,” “social justice,” “inclusion” and “inclusivity,” “diversity,” and so on. No matter what disguise the monster takes, it must be opposed and exposed.
Defeating CRT will require a multi-faceted response. And it will not be easy. Tens of millions of Americans — including millions of teachers shaping the minds of America’s youth — now see the world from a Marxist-CRT worldview. That means simply passing a state law or school board resolution purporting to “ban” CRT will be totally ineffective. A much more comprehensive approach will be required.
At the political level, Congress, governors, legislatures, and even local governments must root it out from government. Not one cent of taxpayer money should flow to any institution or individual promoting this evil, anti-American ideology. Lawsuits against this poison are already making their way through the courts and may offer a useful avenue when it comes to reining in public institutions. In the business world, consumers should avoid doing business with any company that promotes CRT or any of its derivatives. Churches that embrace CRT should be corrected or, if that proves impossible, abandoned. And parents must get their children out of government schools before another generation of children is raised to believe these deadly lies.
More importantly, though, will be developing and propagating a truthful narrative about America, Christianity, and Western civilization that exposes the evil fraud of Marxism and CRT. Of course, America has had its flaws, and still does, because it is made up of sinful human beings. However, it is also unique and amazing: Americans, first at the state and then at the federal level, were among the first people in human history to reject slavery, an institution that has been ubiquitous throughout human history and was not even criminalized in parts of Africa until the 21st century. America created a model for the rest of mankind to follow. It established liberty and protected the God-given rights of more people, and created more material prosperity and human well-being, than any other nation in history. America is amazing, and it is worth not only preserving, but celebrating. The dishonest Marxists and their useful idiots must never be allowed to obscure that.
These and many other problems with public education are discussed in the February 4, 2019 TNA Special Report “Rescuing Our Children” and the June 21, 2021 TNA Special Report “Save Our Children.”
It is imperative that Americanists take action to prevent the next generation from fully succumbing to Marxist thinking that will ultimately destroy the United States. However, to be effective, patriots must strike at the root of the problem.
Some conservatives have suggested running for school-board positions or passing legislation to ban sex-ed or critical race theory. However, these are not sufficient solutions. School-board members don’t have power to make even modest reforms, while state legislation merely strikes at certain aspects of public-school indoctrination while ignoring the root.
The solution to an irreparably corrupt and leftist-captured institution — in addition to the essential step of withdrawing one’s children from it — is ending all government support, whether fiscal or otherwise.
Public schools receive significant amounts of funding, and more money is spent per student in the United States than in nearly every other country. But why spend so much money if the end result is young people indoctrinated to hate America and the Founding Fathers’ values? Furthermore, why spend so much money when an increasing number of parents are already pulling their children out of the public schools, resulting in a mass exodus, and instead choosing options such as homeschooling.
Furthermore, public schools were originally created — by Marxist-influenced individuals — to control the next generation and how it views the world.
Rather than throw money at a system that is rotten to the core, state legislators must defund the public schools. Not only would such an action suffocate the system, but the savings — nearly $15,000 is spent per student in the United States, on average — would give parents greater ability to find higher-quality alternatives for their children.
To urge your state legislators to support defunding the public school system, visit The John Birch Society’s legislative alert here. To view The JBS’s new “Save Our Children” action project, click here.
It is heartbreaking to confess, but America is in the midst of a Marxist Revolution. This is strictly an anti-God, anti-Christian assault—and it is occurring right now. As time progresses, it will only intensify.
The New York Post (5/26/21) reports this week that “Team Biden wants white teachers to undergo anti-racist therapy.” Money is already being designated for this purpose under the cloak of COVID-19 relief funds. “Congress allocated nearly $200 million in COVID-19 relief funds for K-12 schools over the past year. While this money was intended to help reopen schools and mitigate learning loss, President Joe Biden’s Department of Education is encouraging school districts to spend some of it on a different purpose: providing ‘free, antiracist therapy for white educators.’”
Biden’s operation is called the American Rescue Plan which advocates “intervention” to “respond to students’ academic, social and emotional needs.” Team Biden’s guidance booklet for spending these ARP funds suggests that INCLUDED in the “students’ social and emotional needs is “disruption of ‘whiteness’ and the propagation of the Critical Race Theory.”
Therapy? Therapy or Psychotherapy is defined as the “process of working with a therapist to develop coping skills “to treat specific mental health conditions.” Normally those conditions fall into the category of “depression, anxiety, trauma” or some of the challenges we face on a daily basis. This prescribed therapy implies that “white people” have mental health issues by virtue of being white. This is the Critical Race Theory.
The former Soviet Union brainwashed an entire population with the notion that belief in God, or conservative and/or biblical-based values, is equivalent to a mental health problem. Such citizens were labeled as “mentally unstable”, then incarcerated for being out-of-step with the official state dogma.
Christians: it is a late hour in our once great Republic. The labeling is already occurring as the table is being set for broad-scale persecution. Time to gird up the loins of our minds and hearts and vow to re-dedicate our lives to Jesus Christ.
Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier, a former instructor and fighter pilot in the US Air Force, and until this week a commanding officer of the 11th Space Warning Squadron of the US Space Force, has just been relieved of duty for privately publishing a book that “warned of the spread of Marxism and critical race theory in the military.” Lt. Gen. Stephen Whiting, the Space Operations commander, removed Lohmeier from his position at Colorado’s Buckley AFB due to what he called “loss of trust and ability to lead.”
Lohmeier has made public comments in a podcast about Marxist ideology in the military, namely the Critical Race Theory. This runs afoul of the Marxist-leaning administration in Washington, D.C. and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin took particular offense at the remarks.
Jen Psaki, the Press Secretary for President Biden, officially, on behalf of the administration, defended the Marxist view of history and the Critical Race Theory when she publicly defended the racist “1619 Project.”
As Christopher Rufo, founder and director of Battlefront, put it, “Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy.” Apparently, it is not just “becoming” the orthodox position, it is the orthodox position.
Critical Race Theory is a re-configuring of Marxism. Karl Marx, building his system upon atheistic assumptions, constructed the political program on the “theory of class conflict” in order to create upheavals in society. These classes were the capitalists and the workers. Ensuing conflicts between them ignited the powder kegs that would shatter the status quo.
CRT is this same volatile brew of “class conflict”, but it has simply substituted race for class. This became the predominant form of Marxism beginning in the 1960’s which predominated academia.
Therefore, we hear of “white supremacy,” “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion,” and “culturally responsive teaching.” This is all nothing less than re-formulated Marxism, or neo-Marxism.
For example, in the name of “equity,” UCLA Law professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines. The identical model is already being practiced in South Africa where government officials already are exterminating white Afrikaners and confiscating their farms.
That this hard-core Marxism is now the dominant working theory in the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, Treasury Department, and even the MILITARY, is cause of major concern, to say the least.
What you see happening in the US Military at the moment is that if you’re a conservative, then you’re lumped into a group of people who are labeled extremists, if you’re will to voice your views. And if you’re aligned on the left, then its ok to be an activist online because no one’s going to hold you accountable.
“Since taking command as a commander about 10 months ago, I saw what I consider fundamentally incompatible narratives of what America was, is and should be,” Lohmeier said. “That wasn’t just prolific in social media, or throughout the country during this past year, but is spreading throughout the United States military. And I recognized those narratives as being Marxist in nature.”
The Critical Race Theory creates an “oppressor vs. oppressive” narrative and makes “race the lens through which the world is viewed.” Further, he pointed out that this “weaponizes race dialogue to cause division and contentions hoping the people would get up one another’s necks—not unified, but divided.”
Regarding Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin himself as well as the Biden Administration, Lohmeier added, “I don’t demonize the man, but I want to make it clear to both him and every service member this agenda—it will divide us. It will not unify us.” Referring to Austin, he lamented that the Defense Secretary is promoting “diversity, inclusion, and equity” which is rooted in the Critical Race Theory, “which is rooted in Marxism.”
This is too straight of a dose of medicine for our politically-correct High Command in the military, and the ruling elite in Washington, D.C. Unalloyed truth stings too much and Lohmeier was relieved of duty.
First, America is in serious trouble. When the military, once a conservative bastion, becomes a practitioner of Marxist theory, trouble will follow. The division of which Lohmeier speaks is increasingly manifested in all rungs of society. This Marxist conflict is no accident. It began in earnest during the presidency of Barack Obama, a Marxist at heart, as the country began to explode along racial lines. He also managed to excise the military of numerous conservative high-ranking officers. The purge continues under Biden.
We should not even begin to ask what would occur if America enters another foreign war, undirected by the United Nations. Democrats are too busy tearing apart the fabric of our nation with Marxism to be interested in equipping ourselves for real combat.
Will this Marxist-military be used eventually to strip Americans themselves of rights? Instead of pooh-poohing this question, perhaps look at what is currently occurring in Washington, D.C. A populace of citizens still locked out and troops still deployed.
Second, contrary to the political puppet Lt. Gen. Whiting, who relieved Lohmeier of command, it is Lohmeier himself who is the real leader here. Whiting charged that the Lt. Col. had lost the “ability to lead.”
What is real leadership?
Leadership absent courage is a farce. … not arrogance or bravado, but real courage. It takes courage to break from the norm, challenge the status quo … Courage is having the strength of conviction to do the right thing when it would just be easier to do things right.
Real leaders are not men such as Lt. Gen. Russell Honore, touted as the tobacco-spitting, cursing, Ragin’ Cajin tough guy by the MSM. All Honore does is go around spouting Marxist slogans and verbally attacking conservatives. That is easy in our Marxist climate. It is easy to bob downstream with the rest of the clueless people while belching out ugly epithets against Constitutionalists.
Real leaders are not men such as Lt. Gen Whiting, who is the blind politically-correct devotee, who is either apparently afraid of losing his own job at the Biden Administration, or has himself become a willing client of the Marxist-oriented culture that surrounds Washington, D.C. It is to be noted that Lohmeier’s criticisms and concerns have not been answered.
Real leadership goes upstream—against the current—and is unafraid to speak out against the real perils to our society. This is Lohmeier. He may have lost his job at the command post, but he has earned admiration from the common man.
Christians and conservative Americans have lost their government. The sooner constitutionally-minded citizens awaken to this fact, the better. Individual freedom is a thing of the past, and no amount of “suing the government” is going to recapture it. Through the Biden Administration the liberal, Neo-Marxist, post-modern humanists, atheists and God-haters make up a Deep State.
If one doubts that assessment, consider the current lawsuit against the Administration by the College of the Ozarks.
According to The Federalist, the “College of the Ozarks in Hollister, Missouri, is suing the Biden administration over a directive from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development forcing religious institutions to permit students of the opposite sex in the same bathrooms, dorm rooms and dormitories.”
Here is the White House’s “justification.” It announced in February that “it will administer and enforce the Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Religious liberty legal group Alliance Defending Freedom filed a suit on behalf of the Missouri college, asserting Biden’s decision “requires private religious colleges to place biological males into female dormitories and assign them as females’ roommates.”
In other words, the Biden Administration is in the business of forcing private institutions to open girls’ dormitories to males based upon their “perceived” sexual identity. What high-handed arrogant atrocities by rulers! Biblical teaching regarding sexuality, marriage, chastity, and social order is under direct attack. As Dr. Jerry Davis, president of the school, announced, “To threaten religious freedom is to threaten America itself.”
Davis went on to make clear that “College of the Ozarks will not allow politicians to erode the essential American right or the ideals that shaped America’s founding.”
In the above, I stated that “suing the government” is not going to fix this hedonistic communism that has taken over America. For proof, examine a source of this moral sepsis. In part, they go back to the outrageous “ruling” by the Supreme Court last summer in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia.
In that case, six justices “turned themselves into legislators, rewriting the intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to fit the current narrative, ruling that there is to be no ‘discrimination’ against the LGBTQ community, regardless of rights guaranteed in the Constitution protecting religious freedom.” This ruling was a 6-3 decision, in which supposed-conservative Neil Gorsuch, writing the majority opinion, stated that Title VII protections extended to sexual orientation and gender identity. “Sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today,” he opined.
No, what is “unsustainable” is a Supreme Court, and Socialistic/Marxist government that intrudes upon all freedom—religious and otherwise. The federal government, and particularly the judicial branch in this case, has radically overstepped its constitutional boundaries. What solace therefore, should Christians take in “suing at court” the Biden Administration? And, even if there is a win in the College of the Ozarks’ case—what security has Christian America that these God-hating totalitarian trends will not continue?
Besides the obvious fact that the bounds of propriety, common-sense, decency, and morality have been trampled by Gorsuch and the Court, what about the Constitution? Ours is a Republic—the rule of law. This eliminated from the beginning the “rule by mob”, riotous mutineers, or even black-robed propagandists who goose step to political correctness. Adherence to law has been the hallmark of American society.
To change the law, specific provisions were instituted by our founders. These begin and end with the lawmaking branch of government—the Legislative. There is absolutely no lawmaking power granted by the Constitution to the judicial branch. Instead, they are sworn to uphold the Constitution as written.
However, in the Bostock case, the Supreme Court legislatively declared that that 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, must now include the non-scientific categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Gorsuch and crew enlarged the meaningof the 1964 law so that “sex” now includes “manipulations in the biological makeup of human beings or conduct that is clearly forbidden by the Almighty.” These six justices brazenly and boldly cast science and God behind their backs and inserted their modernistic version of what they believe we should be doing in America.
In sum, we have no rule of law. It is the whim of the Judicial Branch, among other areas of deterioration. So, again, I ask, what will be accomplished by suing in the courts the Federal Government? Justices are making it up as they go along. Christians, beware!
Western culture is built upon Christian presuppositions. The word cult, in its original connotation, meant religion. Religious ideals at the foundation of society make up what we call “a culture.” This is why almost every definition of the word “culture” includes such items as values, beliefs, and customary views of a society.
These “customary beliefs” of America, which many have taken for granted, are summed up in the Declaration of Independence; specifically, that our individual rights are gifts from God and that the prime role of government is simply to protect those rights. Biblical values all. Our culture not only sprang from these concepts, but is the only culture in the history of the world to provide this framework for a nation.
This is all anathema to Marxists who play a heavy hand in America today. Karl Marx, one of the founders of what we know of as Marxism/communism, whose efforts to explain the world solely in terms of materialistic philosophy is well-known, actually began at the starting point of atheism. His Manifesto called for “the abolition of religion.” His Marxists followers, whose number are legion, Goosestep with the same hatred for all things religious—particularly Christian.
Antonio Gramsci was an Italian communist, born in 1891. After founding Italy’s Communist Party, he moved to Russia where he expected to find that Marxism was a success. On closer inspection, however, he concluded that Stalin’s terror was unnecessary. But he did not relinquish the atheistic worldview which was at the center of Marxism. Instead, after moving back to Italy and then being imprisoned by Mussolini, he gathered his thoughts on how a nation could be made into a “Marxist paradise.” These thoughts are in nine volumes, known as Prison Notebooks.
His notes included the following.
Any country grounded in Judeo-Christian values can’t be overthrown until those roots are cut … Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity … in the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.
In these revolutionary ideas is the “cancel culture” being carried out in America today. First, there is the “overwhelming” of Christianity, the basis of western culture. Cut the Christian roots of society. Second, replacing Christianity is the “new order,” the “religion of socialism.” As with Karl Marx, criticizing, even condemning and blaspheming Christianity, would be the very foundation of the new world order. This is socialism—a new religion.
In the “German Ideology” (1845), Marx and Friedrich Engels opined that “for the widespread generation of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause, it is necessary that man himself should suffer a massive change.”
Georg Jung, a Marx contemporary and member of the Doctors’ Club along with Marx himself, reflected that Marx was not a political revolutionary, but a theological-philosophical revolutionary who was attempting to overthrow the entire social system, not just an economic system.This is the “massive change” required for cancel culture—the overthrow of Christianity.
A new bogeyman has supposedly made an entrance in the American scene: Christian Nationalism. Multitudes of Christians – specifically white people who support the Republican Party platform–are said to be in its clutches. The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), a humanist organization that attacks all things Christian, co-founded by atheist Dan Barker and whose board boasts rabid anti-Christian heavy-weights such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, summarized what the concept means in a 2007 article by Michelle Goldberg.
She explains that it is a political ideology masquerading as a faith. Christian Nationalism basically holds that America was founded as a Christian nation, that the founders never intended to separate church and state, and that church/state separation is a lie and a fraud perpetrated by secularists in the last 100 years, which has to be undone so America can reclaim its ‘former glory.’
Christian Nationalism is the charge against those who believe America was founded as a “Christian Nation.” Goldberg worries that “this movement” seeks to “Christianize all the institutions of American life, from the schools to the judiciary to the federal government, the presidency, Congress, etc.” A similar screed by FFRF (10-14-19) blasted former Attorney General William Barr with “Christian Nationalism” for referring to the values upon which our nation was founded as “Judeo-Christian” ethics.
A 2017 booklet entitled Christian Nationalism in the United States, edited by Mark T. Edwards, a professor of US History and Politics at Spring Arbor University in Michigan, likens Christian Nationalism to the belief that America is a “Christian Nation,” even when the verbiage itself is absent. The accusation includes that even in the early 19th century, “lettered men and women were ‘reinventing’ the United States as a Christian nation. Outspoken Christian nationalists like Justice Joseph Story joined [Alexis de] Tocqueville in solidifying the Pilgrims and the Puritans as the foundation of religious and political liberty present in antebellum America.”
Kevin Kruse, professor of history at Princeton University, in his book, One Nation Under God (2015), makes the identical accusation against conservatives. George S. Benson, long-time president of Harding University, is heavily criticized for having advanced the cause of “religious nationalism.” The thesis of Kruse’s book is that America was “re-branded” as a “Christian Nation” in the 20th century. The chief culprits for such a plot were the religious professors, conservative politicians, and preachers, including Harding’s National Education Program, headed by Benson.
Fred Schwarz, the Baptist preacher from Australia who began the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, who worked in the same fields as did Benson’s NEP, is also called out by Kruse for pressing “religious nationalism.” As a matter of fact, the NEP’s model of a nation which is founded upon a “Fundamental Belief in God,” is singled out by Kruse for harsh criticism as being completely erroneous (p. 71).
The Christian Nationalism charge was picked up by Christianity Today in an article by Michael Horton (What Are Evangelicals Afraid of Losing? 8-31-2018). In it he lambasts preachers and professors who are on board with President Trump’s “America First” agenda as, “courting political power and happily” allowing “themselves to be used by it.” “This always happens when the church confuses the kingdom of Christ with the kingdoms of this present age. Jesus came not to jump-start the theocracy in Israel, much less to be the founding father of any other nation.” That which is “at stake” here, according to Horton, is “whether evangelical Christians place their faith more in Caesar and his kingdom than in Christ and his reign.”
Christian Nationalism in the churches of Christ?
From here the idea has been uncritically picked up and repeated in articles by members of the churches of Christ. In a blog entitled, For King, Not Country, Brian Casey (7-8-2020) informs us that “’Christian Nationalism’ is a contradiction in terms. ‘God and country’ is a misleading amalgamation.” “Things get very confused as Christian and national identities are blended indiscriminately and ignorantly. The mixture is so toxic to the Christian life…”
He introduces the article by criticizing with heavy-hand Harding’s George Benson for the mistake of confusing the church and the country. “…he promulgated the false marriage of the Kingdom of God (and the ideal of Harding) with the political machine of the United States. The National Education Program became the center of conservative political activism.” The madness in America today could have been avoided, says Casey, if Benson “not merged” nationalistic ideals” with “Christianity.”
Benson, the tireless missionary to China and president of Harding College, according to Casey even confused evangelism for Christ with “making America safe for democracy.” This is an “ill-blended mindset,” he intones.
Now comes The Christian Chronicle with articles written by Bobby Ross, Jr. (10-30-2020; 1-13-21) which carries the same ill-informed charges of Christian Nationalism against members of the churches of Christ who happen to be conservative Trump supporters. Interviewed in the articles are a number of ministers and church workers. The recent rash of attention on the topic is supposedly because some Trump supporters rioted and broke into the Capitol building on January 6. But that wrong-doing merely highlights a much more sinister sin, per these ministers.
Jeremie Beller, congregational minister of the Wilshire church of Christ in Oklahoma City and adjunct professor at OCU, repeats the Michael Horton charge (Christianity Today) that “Christian nationalism is the intertwining of the Kingdom of God with the kingdoms of men.”
Tanya Smith Brice is the dean of the College of Professional Studies at Bowie State University in Maryland. She gravely warned that Christian Nationalism is a “form of civil religion that places one’s earthly citizenship above one’s obligation as a follower of Christ.” Those who do this “falsely” give to a “nation-state a Messianic identity.” The “nation-state” is seen as the “primary mechanism for ‘saving’ human history.”
Tanya Smith Brice, who is black, now levels the racist charge. “White evangelicals are more likely to support the oppressive class and behaviors of our current federal administration than those who don’t identify as White evangelical.” She then remarks, “Christian nationalism has become inextricably linked with White Supremacy.”
Lee Camp, professor of theology as David Lipscomb University, goes so far as to say that this Christian Nationalism is “idolatry.”
Melvin Otey, former U.S. Justice Department trial lawyer for the Obama Administration and law professor at Faulkner University, says that “People believe that being an American or being a patriot or being a part of a political party is part of their faith. It absolutely is not. That’s what keeps people divided.” He admonishes with words of the apostle Paul, that we are “citizens of heaven.” Says Otey, “we have too many people in the church who aspire to be Christian Republicans, Christian Democrats …Their alliances and their allegiances are not first and foremost to Christ.”
Divided allegiances; white supremacy; confusing the church with Americanism; mistaking missionary activity for Christ for Americanism; idolatry invented in the 20th century—a heavier list of dark sins is hard to be found.
What Shall We Say to These Things?
First, America was founded as a Christian Nation. This is no “re-invention” by later generations, for the Founding generation spoke almost with one voice on this topic. It is noteworthy that celebrated authors such as Kevin Kruse of Princeton, in his One Nation Under God, hardly takes a glance at what the founding generation of Americans actually said. He assumes that in the mid-20th century the entire concept was invented, and he moves forward from there.
When our Founding Fathers referred to this nation, as “Christian Nation,” as did John Jay, one of authors of Federalist Papers, they did not intend that this be understood in the sense that an official church had been established, or that a “Theocracy” was in place, but rather that the principles upon which our republic rests were Christian in origin. Benjamin Morris, a second-generation American, in surveying the mass of material on this topic, summarized:
“Christianity is the principle and all-pervading element, the deepest and most solid foundation, of all our civil institutions.It is the religion of the people—the national religion; but we have neither an established church nor an established religion.”
Some of founders even referred to America as a “Christian Republic.” That generation demonstrated this by the fact that they adorned public buildings with biblical symbols such as Moses crossing Red Sea; or Moses holding tablets of stone carved on the building of the Supreme Court; or that the state papers of the Continental Congress that are filled with Christianity.
One of the formative laws of the United States, listed in the U.S. Code, is the Declaration of Independence. It reads more like a theological statement that a political thesis. Our republic posited that rights come from God and that the single role of government is to protect what God gave us, inclusive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Republic itself is an outgrowth of Christian principles.
Roger Sherman, from Connecticut, one of the most influential of the founders, having signed not only the Declaration of Independence, but the Articles of Confederation as well as the Constitution. He wrote to Samuel Baldwin in 1790 that “his faith in the new republic was largely because he felt it was founded on Christianity as he understood it.”
Joseph Story, a jurist who served on the Supreme Court during the founding era and wrote the first lengthy Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, commented as follows:
Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal sentiment was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.
The Supreme Court in numerous cases has referred to this as “A Christian Nation.” Most notable is the 1892 case entitled The Church of the Holy Trinity v. The United States. Here the Court packed its decision with a litany of precedents from American history to establish “this is a religious people, … this is a Christian Nation.”
The First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion …” simply forbade the establishment of an official National Denomination in the sense of a state church supported by federal taxes. Fisher Aimes, who offered the wording of the Amendment, makes clear from his original version that “religion” meant “a single Christian denomination.” This is also how Thomas Jefferson understood the Amendment in his comment upon it in which he used the phrase “separation of church and state.”
Even Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1989 expressed the same.
It was never intended by the Constitution that the government should be prohibited from recognizing religion …The Christian religion was always recognized in the administration of canon law, and so far that the law continues to be the law of the land, the fundamental principles of that religion must continue to be recognized … (County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573).
The charge therefore that our Founders desired “Christian Nationalism” because they spoke of a Christian Nation reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. The modern pretension misfires completely by suggesting that some of our brethren have been guilty of “re-inventing history” when they point to a Christian foundation of America.
Second, the blanket charge that great evangelists of modern times, such as George Benson, somehow confused the kingdom of God, or heavenly reward, with a Christian America is flagrant falsehood. I challenge any of these who make such an outlandish charge to produce one statement from Benson or James D. Bales, who also worked for the National Education Program, or any other prominent evangelist such as Baptist Fred Schwarz, who has made any statement that remotely resembles these accusations.
The truth is, our modern-day professorships completely misunderstand the concept of a Christian Nation. The reason our founders desired to have a nation established on a Christian principles was that it provided—for the first time in modern history—a zone of order established upon the fundamental concepts that God provided us our rights, including life, liberty, and property—that the government was merely an institution designed to protect those rights.
And instead of inventing charges of “Christian Nationalism” against fellow Christians, as if someone somewhere wishes to establish a theocracy where an official State Church would rule, I would like one of these ministers to take in hand to defend how a Christian can in any way subscribe to the Democratic Party platform, that enshrines as a principle the destruction of innocent human life through infanticide and abortion and champions the practice of sodomy in our land. It would be interesting to hear one of these professors defend supporting a political platform that sounds as if had been written by King Herod.
Professor Otey’s rebuke is that Christians are “citizens of heaven.” The logical conclusion to that argument in this context is that one should not be involved at all in anything that partakes of civil government. Yet, he is one who continually calls for “conversations” about “race” in the church. What does “race” have to do with being a citizen of heaven? (Gal. 3:28). Apparently there are things about which he thinks we should be concerned as citizens of the United States as well.
Politics is nothing more than the organizing of human society and its institutions upon certain principles. Why should not Christians desire biblical principles to help regulate conduct at various societal levels? The apostle Paul’s ultimate citizenship was in heaven, but that did not stop him from appealing to his Roman citizenship (Acts 22) and ultimately to Caesar (Acts 25) to prevent miscarriage of justice in civil society.
Earlier Paul had been beaten with rods—unjustly by Romans in the city of Philippi. When the magistrates of the community discovered his Roman citizenship they were fearful and invited him to leave quietly (Acts 16:22ff). The apostle would have none of it. He utilized his Roman citizenship to his own benefit. “They have beaten us in public without trial, men who are Romans, and have thrown us into prison; and now are they sending us away secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and bring us out.”
Did Paul do wrong to press his Roman citizenship and fair treatment in Roman society? Should we have remonstrated with him that his “citizenship is in heaven” and not to worry about such matters? Was Paul “blending his Christian and national identities,” in the words of Brian Casey? Was he “conflating” Roman citizenship with being a citizen of heaven?
There is nothing more erroneous about speaking of a Christian Nation than of a Christian Family. What is a Christian family? It is one where biblical principles are implemented. Does that mean it is a perfect family? Is this family absent of sins committed by mother, father, children? No. But the principles there taught we recognize as Christian and refer to it as a Christian family. No one objects by suggesting that the entire family has not been baptized into Christ, or that not every family member is a Christian. But we still recognize what is a Christian family. So also a Christian nation.
More importantly, shall we say that when someone uses the phrase “Christian family” that we have “conflated the concepts of heaven and the family?” Have we laid ourselves open to the charge that we have “confused the Lord’s church with the family?” The answer is obvious. Brother Benson and others who worked with the NEP merely recognized that just as a godly, Christian family is more conducive in which to rear children to love and respect God, so also the nation.
Third, perhaps the most dangerous element revealed of the above critiques of Christian Nationalism is that they are born of Cultural Marxism. Classical Marxism, revealed in The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is rooted in atheism. This atheistic creed demands that the sole factor that determines a person is his economic status. A person thinks and moves as he does because of the class into which he is born.
Society is divided between the bourgeois (land-owners, middle-class) and the proletariat (the workers, who do not have property to sell, but only their labor). Between these classes there is an inevitable class struggle. This is the dialectic. People are not considered as individuals, but as part of a class.
The Italian philosopher, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), built on Marx’s materialistic base and developed the concept of “cultural hegemony” meaning that the dominant ideology of society reflects beliefs and interests of the ruling class. Nicki Lisa Cole, Ph.D. explains:
Cultural hegemony refers to domination or rule maintained through ideological or cultural means. It is usually achieved through social institutions, which allow those in power to strongly influence the values, norms, ideas, expectations, worldview, and behavior of the rest of society.
Cultural hegemony functions by framing the worldview of the ruling class, and the social and economic structures that embody it, as just, legitimate, and designed for the benefit of all, even though these structures may only benefit the ruling class. This kind of power is distinct from rule by force, as in a military dictatorship, because it allows the ruling class to exercise authority using the “peaceful” means of ideology and culture.
Gramsci would argue that “consent to the rule of the dominant group” in a nation is achieved by the “spread of ideologies—beliefs, assumptions, and values—through social institutions such as schools, churches, courts, …” The dominant values in America—designed solely to maintain power of this class—is white male heterosexual.
To Gramsci’s Marxism the founders were only “a group of white men” constructing a government to protect their own cultural dominance. So also today. Laws in America supposedly reflect whiteness; the proof of this is the fact that minorities comprise the majority of prison populations. The assumption is that white America—the dominant culture– is racist. Hence, Cancel Culture rages in our streets.
Tanya Brice Smith’s blanket charge of sin of White Supremacy among Trump supporters is nothing less than this cultural Marxism. An entire class of people—white males—are guilty. Period. No need for evidence or fact. It just is. White people may insist continually the opposite of these things, but to no avail.
Cultural hegemony also explains why Jim Wallis, the “spiritual advisor” to Barack Obama, lambasted America by saying that “Racism is America’s Original Sin.” Sin attaches to white people because of whiteness. Again, no proof necessary. Whites are guilty. Lamentable as it is, now there are black preachers among us who will sound more like Jim Wallis than the Apostle Paul. Some suggest white people have “racism” in their “DNA.” Again, no proof necessary before a bar of justice. Just assume and blast away. Cultural Marxism.
It is indeed a sad day in America when preachers of the gospel of Christ will be more about beating the drums against an entire culture that has provided the greatest freedom to preach since the days of Adam and Eve. And that a Christian paper would allow these types of blanket Marxist-style charges indicting a large portion of the brotherhood of Christians shows how far we have gone.