restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations
A Treatise on American Cultural Socialism
Part 1: Introduction and Philosophy
I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. –Roger Baldwin, cofounder of the ACLU
Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise…We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions. –Roger Baldwin
Tyranny manifests itself when the citizens fear the government; liberty manifests itself when the government fears the citizens. –Unknown
Tolerance and diversity have become the political battle cry of the cultural left and a plethora of so called human rights or civil liberties organizations. Liberty as our Founders defined it has ceased to exist and in its place we insert terms such as human right or civil liberty. Rights no longer come from our Creator God as the majority of our founders believed, but instead are arbitrarily issued by the government this fits their socialist and communist ideologies well for if rights come by the government, rights are created and equally nullified by the government. The idea that rights come from the government is fueled by copious amounts of propaganda and terminology that have been thrown around by groups such as the ACLU. The term civil right tends to imply civil government concerning the origin of such a right; likewise, human right tends to imply some humanistic civil doctrine that enables its mere existence.
Today, it is not infrequent to here folks ramble about their constitutional rights; this term has been thrown around and has been abused and marred like no other. I marvel at the ignorance of a majority of these folks as most of these people fail to see that rights that are intended to be guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have become watered down, if not outright usurped or taken away by the government. As a result of the gradual loss of freedom, which is now monumental if one considers the freedom that exists now and the freedom that our founders referred to, in conjunction with the unwillingness of many to exercise self restraint, American culture has approached a giant proverbial fork in the course of its history; one road that leads to liberty and one road that leads to ultimate destruction.
At this particular point in time, my optimism has managed to grow dim and weary concerning the road in which our nation will take. Perhaps many will simply reply that I am a political pessimist, and under the given circumstances, I believe that such is a correct statement. But I also believe that I am being a realist as well. This essay is merely the first of many, by which I attempt to describe the menace and problem of socialism here in America. I am primarily interested in looking at socialism from a cultural point of view as opposed to an economic point of view simply because I believe that the economic view often times follows from the cultural point of view. Within the context of these essays I would like to accomplish two things. First, I would like to discuss the philosophy behind the modern diversity movement and how it is being used as a propaganda tool to coerce a new morality as Robert Bork once put it. Such a morality is necessary if cultural socialism, economic socialism and, ultimately, communism are to be achieved. Second, I would like to examine three interdependent problems that hinder social change from proceeding that way that our Founders intended.
A Philosophical Look at Tolerance and Diversity
To begin with, allow me to define what is meant when the terms diversity or diversity movement are used. I am referring to a collection of philosophical ideals that seeks to combine a plethora of traditional and non-traditional views in addition to many other attributes or identities concerning individuals into an amalgamation of ideas and views, often times concerning specific views therein. This is a fairly general definition but is easy to see how diversity, as we see it manifested on our college campuses and around the nation, satisfies such requirements. Diversity requires the celebration of a plethora of cultures, religious views, backgrounds, lifestyles and so forth. Observe the following: first, the new diversity movement does not consider any particular idea to be better or more correct than any of the others. However, this leads to fallacy simply because the idea that any particular idea is not better than any of the others in itself is a superior idea that dare not be trampled on. Thus, the new diversity movement is inherently relativistic whenever applied to inferior ideas (i.e. ideas that make up a diverse environment). Second, the new diversity movement combines several disjoint areas, as implied (sometimes referred to as dimensions); among those of interest to us are sexual orientation, religion, culture, and so on. I should note that race, ethnicity, and gender are often included in the above list but am omitting those because these are not the central characteristics of diversity that I shall be discussing. Moreover, characteristics such as race or ethnicity are often thrown into the mix so that accusations against those who reject the more heinous aspects of diversity may be easily made they provide an easy route to reconcile racism with those who have virtue and shun the general concept of modern lifestyle diversity. Third, perhaps one of the more important characteristics is to note that many of these ideas contained within the taxonomy of diversity often contradict one another. Proponents of the new diversity movement believe that nobody should ever have any type of dogmatic belief, save the more general concept of diversity. In fact, to these people, diversity is their dogma and its principles are zealously and religiously defended. One could possibly argue that more inferior ideas within the scope of diversity serve only as a means to further the more general concept of diversity as a movement in itself, rather than the specific ideas contained. A natural corollary to the given axiomatic formations of the modern diversity movement is that any type of philosophy that directly challenges the philosophy upheld by diversity proponents should be rejected, if not repressed and silenced. Hence the new diversity movement only tolerates rhetoric and philosophies that do not directly challenge or criticize their philosophy in any way.
If we consider the philosophy behind diversity and tolerance, we see that these ideologies prove to be useful when one is attempting to coerce a new morality that is opposed to more traditional forms. There are two primary advantages concerning why cultural socialists use diversity and tolerance as propaganda tools to push morality. First, and this is important, included with the notions of diversity and tolerance is the guise that nobody desires to shove morality down anybody else. Upon closer examination of the diversity movement as a whole, we find that nothing could be farther from the truth. Some of the most cruel, totalitarian governments have flourished under the guise of this false premise. Secondly, cultural socialists use diversity and tolerance because the fundamental maxims of the movement contain some truth to them. For example, the diversity movement teaches that we should not judge a person based on the color of their skin. Now, this is obviously something that most rational people are apt to accept. However, when we apply the fundamental principle behind such a statement to different religions, lifestyles, and other behavioral aspects of a persons life, we see that we now have a non-trivial problem on our hands. Moreover, most people fail to see what is it that makes judging someone based solely on the color of their skin and judging someone because of a lifestyle that they choose to engage in so fundamentally different. Has anyone taken the time to wonder why it is that scientists, psychologists, and sociologists are attempting to discover a gay gene and often times offer faux results when their attempts fail? The problem in this case, is not science nor is it a physical condition; the problem is the spiritual condition of man – in a word, sin.
It might also be helpful to consider the issue of pluralism because most diversity proponents love to throw out the argument that our society is pluralistic. However, I do not believe that pluralism can truly exist; at least not without the death of liberty and the habitual repression of those who oppose the diversity movement. Pluralism, as it is understood by most civil liberties organizations may be defined as follows: a type of social structure or society whereby various ideologies, lifestyles, cultures, religions, etc reside one by one in close contact with one another. This should explain why diversity is the only plausible dogma for its proponents; most ideas contained in this societal mix are often diametrically opposed to one another and are frequently established in uneasy coexistence. Because civil liberties organizations desire the creation of rights for each and every individual to engage in whatever personal matters they wish (while, ironically, systematically repressing rights guaranteed by the Constitution), the diversity movement then became a useful tool as they seek to coerce morality and repress the more traditional repertoires of morality. The reason I submit that this type of pluralism cannot truly exist is because there are only two types of citizens in America: those who accept the diversity movement and those who reject it. Pluralism exists in the minds of the cultural left and moderate socialists because to them, diversity is a superior mode of thought and all ideas contained therein are inferior. Thus, the issue does not really concern the application and spread of individual ideas that make up the diversity movement. Rather, the issue is more correctly about the fundamental premise concerning the diversity movement as being a superior dogma. And so, there are two types of individuals; those who are willing to compromise their own beliefs for the sake of diversity and those who are not.
A Note Concerning the Economic Theory
Many who consider socialism often times think of economic socialistic doctrine rather then this newer cultural socialistic idea. Although it is not my intention to discuss the economic aspects of socialism in great detail, I shall submit to you that the traditional economic doctrine often times follows from the more general cultural socialism because social equality almost always implies economic equality in the minds of a liberal. Yet, the marks of a free society should indicate that economic equality is far beyond reach. Some will be successful businessmen and some will not. We should at least note that the path to worldly success if often times hindered by a persons indolence and desire for the government to provide his/her needs. Basically, economic socialists and communists see a poor class and desire everyone to be lowered to that level because there exists a small class of folks who arent as fortunate. This is absurd! Besides this, poverty in America is quite different than poverty in some third world country. Yet, I have seen more Christians engage in charitable giving than I have seen any amount of socialists and liberals combined. They desire to show the world how compassionate they are by having the government pay for social programs. What I find ironic is that even though we are taxed to death by the government, most Christians still set aside money to give to the less fortunate. The solution is not more taxes or government ownership of business and property.
Businesses today have been so regulated to the point that they have absolutely no freedom to hire or refuse service to whomever they desire (in fact, they cant even make a product without the government dictating specifications). This type of regulation may be traced back to the diversity movement. In fact, things have become so absurd that a businessman dare not criticize the homosexual movement for fear of being blacklisted. Simply put, businesses should have the freedom to make their products as they see fit and to hire whom they want to hire. This may not seem fair but these situations become incredibly nebulous when we attempt to hire without regard to personal and moral conduct. For example, should a church that subscribes to orthodox doctrine have the freedom to refuse to hire an unrepentant homosexual? Certainly! Should a family business have a right to refuse to hire a cross-dresser or sodomite because of the impact it might have on their children? Absolutely! To make any other reply to such questions is to seek some form of socialism, whereby the government regulates business. These claims are absolutely ridiculous yet we are beginning to see the fruits of such thought in todays world. In fact, Marxist theory dictates the intermediary stage that describes a proletarian revolution from the capitalist to communist stage is indeed socialistic. Yet, the proletarian in the case of cultural diversity is not simply a member of the working class; he/she is a member of a diverse subgroup that represents some proportion of the total makeup of a society.
Anyway, the point is simply this: given the premise that all religions, lifestyles, perversities, cultures, etc are equal, it seems to me that the economic theories of socialism tend to follow. Thus cultural socialism is broader and typically tends to harbor some modern ideology as opposed to the traditional economic theory. The traditional economic theory seeks only economic equality and strict government statism while the cultural theory seeks equality on every personal front thus facilitating the need for economic equality. The diversity movement requires socialistic autonomy on all fronts in order to flourish, or even exist at that matter. It must exist at the cultural level and, at some point, the economic levels.
Conclusion of Part 1
We have simply taken the time here to define what is meant and to discuss some implications of the general idea of socialism in America. In the next few parts, I shall begin to describe the reasons concerning the existence of a society that begs the government for handouts and a complete eradication of a fixed traditional moral worldview. As implied by this discussion, these people do desire a form of morality; its just a radically different form of morality that I believe is completely inferior and inadequate to preserve liberty and freedom.
After reading much of what Dave Black has written, I too share his desire for the church or anyone with ears to hear to awake from their sleep and stand firm. If we do not, our nation will surely fall and will be swiftly judged by our God. May the Lord grant us ears to hear and eyes to see.
The foolishness of man perverts his way: and his heart fretteth against the Lord. Proverbs 19:3
March 31, 2004
Matt Gamel is a graduate student at Texas A&M and eventually desires to go to seminary to study to be a biblical scholar. He may be reached for comment here.