Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Marx viewed history as a series of class conflicts, each of which forced a new Hegelian synthesis, like stairsteps to Communism.[1. In 1864, Karl Marx sent Abraham Lincoln a letter stating that “victory for the North would be a turning point for nineteenth-century politics, an affirmation of free labor, and a defeat for the most reactionary capitalists who depended on slavery and racial oppression.” Marx was well-known to Lincoln, as he and Engels had written some 500 articles for the New York Daily Tribune, the most influential Republican newspaper of the 1850s. The American ambassador in London, Charles Francis Adams, responded, thanking them for their support and expressing his conviction that the defeat of the South would be a victory for humanity.] Since the time of Trotsky, the accusation of “racism” has been an effective tool of Marxists to foment strife in growing economies with a middle class, where class conflict is more difficult to achieve.
Critical Theory is the name given to the theoretical perspective of the (Jewish) Frankfurt School, which Hitler ran out of Germany six weeks after taking power. These academics and their ideological descendants are known as “Western Marxists,” who focus not so much on labor and capital but on cultural critique for the purpose of changing society, hiding from the public as best they can the violent revolution that all Marxists need for producing the next synthesis.
According to Critical Theory, empirical social science is oppressive and unjust and is used as a tool for domination. The stance of the Jewish sociologist, therefore, is dissent and resistance to Christian order to pathologize in Gentiles what is considered necessary and beneficial for Jews. It’s a blend of (Jewish) Marxism and (Jewish) Freudian psychoanalysis that seeks a Utopia in which, as Kevin MacDonald puts it, “Judaism can continue as a cohesive group but in which cohesive, nationalistic, corporate gentile groups based on conformity to group norms have been abolished as manifestations of psychopathology.” It can be summarized as: Hitler was an authoritarian; Jews suffered under Hitler; cohesive Gentile societies are authoritarian, like the Third Reich, because they’re bad for Jews; the solution is liberalism, and subjecting independent Gentiles to psychotherapy (secular absolution) to root out their anti-Semitic sins. Freud was adapted by the Frankfurt School to suggest that Gentile complaints about Jewish double standards on tribal segregation and intermarriage are projections that mask latent sodomy and fear of emasculation.
Feminist standpoint theory is a type of critical theory which holds that truth is a matter of perspective, that “marginalized” groups have a more comprehensive perspective than the groups which oppress them, and the “marginalized” must take dominion to end their oppression. The “standpoint” refers to the group identity of the oppressed. The (masculine) epistemology that truth is universal, irrespective of experience or belief, is tossed aside in favor of the fantasy that truth is properly understood in the context of subjective experience. Truth becomes relativized by feminism.
You can see the connection to the Jewish Marxism and Critical Theory on which it is based. Marxists profess to advocate for the proletariat, who are incapable of recognizing their own power until they are enlightened to their oppressed condition in the capitalist system.
Critical Theorists (aka Cultural Marxists) agitate women and diversities in the same way against the “privileged,” who are called “racist” and “sexist” for their natural superiority. Meanwhile, the Jews at the vanguard of the revolution reserve the proud genetic identity for themselves which they condemn in the “racist” goyim.
Cultural Marxists teach the agitated races that they can’t even be “racist,” because they don’t have the power to dominate whites – a verbose way of admitting inferiority, apparently. This is an outgrowth of standpoint theory, where the oppressed claim to be the rightful arbiters of what is hateful, while we who are white (i.e. “privileged”) can’t detect the seething hatred bubbling beneath our skin. It’s intentionally sentimental and provisional rather than epistemic, which is why logical responses about why women are paid less than men on average, or that educational and occupational opportunities are objectively equal, fall on deaf ears.
Just as Marxists view workers as central to production, feminists view women as central to reproduction. Since men “marginalize” women, women gain the superior standpoint and the superior perspective on patriarchy.
This poisoned thinking has infected churches, with authors now teaching that a woman’s sexuality is her “soul essence,” which her husband must obey. Doug Wilson teaches that a man’s virtue is measured by his wife’s sexual desire for him, and that he is a guest in his home, where his wife is the despot. Albert Mohler, contrary to 1 Cor. 7, teaches that the wife is the sexual gatekeeper, and her husband must prove to her that he is worthy of her desire before she allows him to partake.
All of this springs from the old courtly love – men submitting themselves to women rather than their rightful Head (1 Cor. 11:3). Doug Wilson takes 1 Cor. 7, which tells a wife not to separate from her husband, and changes it to mean that a wife should separate from her husband if she feels it is right. He takes 1 Peter 3, which tells the wife to submit even to a husband who is not a believer, and changes it to mean that the wife will submit when her husband wins her over. This is a combination of two currently-popular ideas in the clown-churches of Judeojesus: wives as responders – i.e. a happy wife has a good husband, a sad wife has a bad husband – and servant leadership, which is “headship” without hierarchy or authority. It gets really weird from there.
Even the pro-life movement is rendered culturally impotent, because rescuing babies from death is more important to its Christian supporters than defending the law of God, which identifies the mother who kills her own child as a murderer. Too many Christians are afraid of offending women by holding them to the same standards as those with whom they contract for gruesome services. By doing so, ignorant Christians only validate feminism.
The face of feminism is equality, but the goal of feminism is to control men while removing all controls on women.
[C]onsent to inequality, nay, delight in inequality, is an erotic necessity. Mrs. Mitchison speaks of women so fostered on a defiant idea of equality that the mere sensation of the male embrace rouses an undercurrent of resentment. Marriages are thus shipwrecked. This is the tragi-comedy of the modern woman; taught by Freud to consider the act of love the most important thing in life, and then inhibited by feminism from that internal surrender which alone can make it a complete emotional success.
Critical Theory has spawned a multitude of bastard ideologies, most prominently Critical Race Theory, which has been adopted by Tim Keller and the neo-Christians at The Gospel Coalition. CRT critiques traditional, cultural, legal, and biblical norms to effect social “justice,” which is simply organized theft. The leftist understanding of “justice” and “reconciliation” seeped into white churches and parachurch ministries like Promise Keepers years ago, but it was preceded by the late James Cone’s Black Liberation Theology. Cone was a huge influence on Barack Obama’s impastor, Jeremiah Wright. Cone rejected all theology as white and oppressive unless it came from the standpoint of black “victims.” The Cone cult views Jesus as a proto-Marxist liberator of the oppressed, enslaved, and unequal. Black “churches” then become agencies for stealing white wealth, rejecting white authority, and destroying white civilization.
There was a time when racial integration was considered important for reducing and hopefully eliminating the strife that naturally occurs when races live in close proximity, and it was believed by well-intentioned, naïve folks that colorblindness was the best means of effecting integration. CRT rejects colorblindness as dehumanizing. The focus is now on separation and reparations, no longer integration and common cause. Storytelling, “naming one’s own reality,” and in general, narrative over analysis, are highly valued. Microaggressions can be anything the “victim” wants them to be, and again, the “oppressed” is assumed to have the better perspective. White privilege is original sin, and whiteness is treated much like property, in the sense that the privileged are able to exclude others from their domain, and ownership carries an esteem that the “disadvantaged” and “disenfranchised” do not possess. White privilege is considered to be so extensive that racism has been institutionalized. For now, white parents are still allowed to save, invest, and pass wealth to their children. But this is unfair to those who don’t even know their own fathers, much less are able to inherit from them. Eventually, a South African-style land grab and mass murder of white people must be attempted to level the field.
Critical Race Theory also promotes intersectionality, which is a hot topic in the news. This is basically the idea that more diversity points are scored as there is a greater overlap of discriminated social categories. Therefore, a crippled black lesbian wins the trifecta. One of the humorous reasons why this has caught on is that a grand unified theory of feminism was largely abandoned when it was considered to be the privileged viewpoint of wealthy white and Jewish women.
We’ve come a long way from our Christian fathers, who bequeathed an inheritance to their own children, governed by a confederated republic, which has now been replaced by an empire ruled by central bankers, where citizenship and ownership are free to all, because someone once wrote that all men are created equal.
| Tweet |
|
|
|
