Liberalism

User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

David Harvey: Neo-Liberalism

Unread post by rachel »

rachel wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 12:38 pm Capitalism is a cancer, Marx isn't wrong on his assessment.



Compound growth has switched to the 'sickness' market.

David Harvey: The History of Neo-Liberalism & The Pandemic



Part of David I like, but part I hate. He misses the "green" people are destroying the environment.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: Liberalism

Unread post by rachel »

FRANCIS, A POPE OF THE POOR? A POPE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT? OR A POPE OF THE GLOBAL ELITE?
https://winteroak.org.uk/2022/05/30/fra ... bal-elite/

inclusive-capitalism.jpg
Today, nonetheless, an institution that proclaims its universal jurisdiction over Christians is at the same time endeavouring to partner with a technocratic global governance thriving under the aegis of big corporations. Rome sees itself as some kind of ‘spiritual’ partner of the corporate elite aspiring to completely dominate the planet. This affiliation to the global agenda was formally acknowledged when Lynn Forester de Rothschild launched the Council for Inclusive Capitalism with The Vatican, ‘under the guidance’ of pope Bergoglio and Cardinal Turkson. Around the pope, and around the smaller fellowship of the ‘Guardians for Inclusive Capitalism’, the Council gathers the ‘world’s business and public sector leaders’, notably CEOs in search of a ‘sustainable’, ‘resilient’, ‘inclusive’, ‘responsible’, ‘equitable’ and ‘fair’ capitalism (I hope I didn’t miss a catchword), such as the CEOs of Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Bank of America, BP and Bayer-Monsanto (whose ethical and environmental expertise is recognized worldwide). By their side, we find the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations’ chairmen, and the herald of the Net-Zero finance industry, the ubiquitous Mark Carney. The Council “is an historic collaboration of CEOs and global leaders inspired by the moral guidance of His Holiness Pope Francis. Ours is a moral and market imperative to make economies more inclusive and sustainable with a movement of bold, business-led actions that span the economic ecosystem”.

The same narrative—with all its catchwords—is displayed within the documents of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development created in 2016 with the merging of various other Roman commissions, and chaired by the same Cardinal Turkson from the Council of Inclusive Capitalism. “The Dicastery […] expresses the Holy See’s concern for issues of justice and peace, including those related to migration, health, charitable works and the care of creation”. Notably, the Dicastery is asked by the pope “to express the Church’s solicitude and care for the whole human family facing the COVID-19 pandemic”. Indeed, “The COVID-19 pandemic is the defining crisis of this generation”. Thus, the Dicastery’s aim is to supervise “research and studies of the present COVID-19 epidemic and its related issues and to think about a post Covid-19 society and world, especially in areas of ecology, economics, labor, healthcare, politics, communications and security” (vatican-covid-19).
Nothing new, the Papacy partnered with the Banking System of the time to issue Indulgences, which you could purchase to enable you to sin. Carbon offset anyone?
rachel wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:48 am Forget believing in God...

Image
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Ronald Reagan on Liberalism & Fascism

Unread post by rachel »

User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: Liberalism

Unread post by rachel »

Capitalism will literally find a way to monetise and scam anything.



https://signmyrocket.com/

Opera Snapshot_2022-08-20_171946_signmyrocket.com.png
ScreenShot-VideoID-W-8fciqp2nU-TimeS-1831.png
ScreenShot-VideoID-W-8fciqp2nU-TimeS-1649.png
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: Liberalism

Unread post by rachel »

This is a good article. Ever since I started looking at the Neoliberalism trojan horse narrative, leading on to the Brexit vote and why "small c" conservatives and socialists were on the same side wanting the same things, ie, to leave the EU. It became clear Left and Right is a false dichotomy created by Liberals in order to place themselves in the middle "just right" position. And Neoliberalism was a way to deny that "liberalism" which was at its root. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is a liberal construct, and from the very beginning requires slavery. There is no bones about this if you look into the history books.

https://aeon.co/essays/why-the-original ... ed-slavery
It is only in the past few decades that scholars have come to grips with how slavery and capitalism intertwined. But for the 18th-century French thinkers who laid the foundations of laissez-faire capitalism, it made perfect sense to associate the slave trade with free enterprise. Their writings, which inspired the Scottish philosopher Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776), aimed to convince the French monarchy to deregulate key businesses such as the sale of grain and trade with Asia. Only a few specialists read them today. Yet these pamphlets, letters and manuscripts clearly proclaim a powerful message: the birth of modern capitalism depended not only on the labour of enslaved people and the profits of the slave trade, but also on the example of slavery as a deregulated global enterprise.

Anyway, that wasn't the article I was referring to, but it points out where Laissez-Faire Capitalism comes from, and probably why the French sent USA the Statue of Liberty. This is the good article...


Liberalism: the two-faced tyranny of wealth
https://orgrad.wordpress.com/articles/l ... of-wealth/
We have already described how liberalism was built on deceit, how its key concepts like “progress” and “democracy” are there to cloak its real nature.

We have also seen how it has used a fake interpretation of fascism, initially created by fascists, to discredit anti-fascist criticism of liberal capitalism.

It is worth mentioning a few more contemporary examples of the sophisticated fibbing which lies at the heart of liberal rule.

Narrative control. The spectacle normally likes to keep up the appearance of being “open” and “democratic”, so tends to avoid actually banning or overtly controlling sources of news and information. Behind the scenes, however, everything is tightly sewn up. This has long been the case with journalism, publishing and academia, but the information-control process took a big step forward with the development of Wikipedia. Ostensibly a “an open collaboration project by a community of volunteer editors”, and containing vast amounts of genuinely useful information, this is constantly policed, censored and altered by agents of the system (in a cleverly concealed way, in keeping with standard liberal practice) so as to lower the reputation of its enemies and enhance that of its supporters. The “Philip Cross” controversy is very illuminating in this respect.

Strategic character assassination. If a liberal system does not want to expose its authoritarian nature, it cannot be seen to unfairly persecute its political enemies. It therefore prepares the ground for any such attacks by smearing their reputation, particularly among those who might be expected to rally to the defence of the victim. The prime contemporary example of this is the case of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. As Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture pointed out in a German TV documentary: “Of course it is much easier to make an example of someone and to violate all their human rights when it is a person nobody likes…. we absorb it all through the media”.

False labelling. Unlike overt authoritarians or fascists, ostensibly freedom-loving liberals cannot be honest about their reasons for victimising or vilifying opponents. They will not publicly condemn opponents of imperialist wars as “traitors” or “reds” or “the enemy within”, even though that may be the thinking behind closed doors. Instead imperialist liberals will try to give themselves the moral high ground and even place themselves to the “left” of their critics by labelling them apologists for foreign states which they have already packaged as “bad” or “evil”.

Thus anti-war dissidents become “apologists for Putin”, “Assadists” or “campists”. This approach even extends to the judicial realm, with Assange magically transformed from being a whistleblower exposing war crimes (whom liberals ought theoretically to support) into being a practitioner of alleged “espionage”. The hypocrisy in his case is so blatant that it risks permanently damaging the system’s precious illusions. Melzer commented: “If investigative journalism is classified as espionage and can be incriminated around the world, then censorship and tyranny will follow. A murderous system is being created before our very eyes”. And Craig Murray added: “If a single day at Woolwich Crown Court does not convince you the existence of liberal democracy is now a lie, then your mind must be very closed indeed”.

“Anti-semitism”. A recent development in false labelling has been the massive extension of the term “anti-semitism”. Not only has this been misused to criminalise criticism of the Israeli state and to silence Palestinian voices, but it has also been deployed to disallow anti-capitalism, on the absurd basis that an anti-capitalist condemnation of the “one per cent” of the rich elite is somehow inevitably a disguised attack on the Jewish minority. If you talk about bankers and financiers running the world, controlling the media, and cheerleading for war, it is argued, you are really blaming Jewish people or, at the very least, falling into the hands of those who do. As Daniel Finn crucially pointed out in a 2018 article in Jacobin magazine, insinuations of anti-semitism can thus be used, not merely to defame critics of Israel, but “to discredit any radical critique of capitalism or imperialism in the modern world”.

Note that the cleverness of this kind of liberal smearing involves the contamination of the target by means of the accusation alone. Any attempt to dispute the grounds on which this accusation is made will be deliberately interpreted as belittling the significance of the original, and very real, problem. Someone who says the application of “anti-semitism” to anti-capitalism is exaggerated will be treated as if they had said that the threat of anti-semitism as a whole was exaggerated. In the same way, someone who challenges the misuse of climate change concerns to promote a capitalist agenda risks being accused of “climate denial”. Criticism of the capitalist system is ruthlessly shut down, using the gaslighting language of liberalism to paint the victims of its sly censorship as the actual “offenders”.

“Conspiracy theories”. The favourite liberal put-down of anyone investigating the crimes and deceit of its system is to dismiss them as a “conspiracy theorist”. The approach was pioneered in the US by Richard Hofstadter in the 1960s and has been used with great success by the liberal system to contaminate and discredit exposure of its crimes. The automatic cry of “conspiracy theorist!” now appears to have dispelled, even in “social justice” or “anarchist” circles, any need to actually read and assess the information involved. The work of researching, collating and presenting detailed and sourced information exposing wrongdoing by the rich and powerful seems today to be regarded by some so-called radicals as, in itself, reprehensible and dangerous. Needless to say, any suggestion that this conditioned response is itself part of a process of manipulation and control will be regarded as further confirmation of the original thought-crime!

Fake dissidents. The biggest lie peddled by the liberal system is that it is democratic, whereas it in fact only tolerates a “democracy” which keeps its structures of control and exploitation intact. Because it has the unlimited resources of the capitalist system at its disposal, and has built structures to hide its activities from public scrutiny, it can allow itself to flood everywhere and everything with its representatives, even milieux that are ostensibly hostile to its politics. It makes little difference whether the individuals concerned are paid directly by the state-corporate complex or indirectly via compromised organisations (including by outside funding), or indeed whether they work for free, having been duped by compromised structures into promoting the system’s views. The bottom line is that the world of “dissent” or “opposition” is riddled with people ultimately acting on behalf of the liberal-capitalist system.

There are no end of fake-left and fake-green journalists and organisers working within a mutually self-reinforcing network of NGOs, campaign groups, publishing houses and other sundry ventures. Where independent groups opposing the system do exist, they are often quickly infiltrated and taken over. Political parties and movements are, needless to say, heavily targeted to ensure there are no nasty outbreaks of real democracy. The ongoing Spycops scandal in the UK has revealed that British police infiltrated more than 1,000 groups in recent decades. But the issue goes much deeper (into territory declared “out of bounds” by the “conspiracy theory” narrative constructed by the system itself!). State agents in political movements are not just there to monitor activity, but to channel it in directions favourable to the system’s interests. Sometimes this might mean simply steering groups away from challenging the core of capitalist power. At other times people can be manipulated into actively promoting capitalist interests – as with the system’s attempt to use the climate movement to launch its “Fourth Industrial Revolution” reboot of the capitalist economy. For more on this see the extensive online Climate Capitalists library.

“Beyond politics”. Liberals like to present themselves as being “moderate” and so close to “the centre” that they are essentially non-political – or “beyond politics” as some like to put it. They paper over the cracks in their exploitative capitalist society by claiming “we are all in it together” and urge us to cast aside divisive ideology that disturbs the social peace. But “professing no ideology is an ideology in itself”, as Robin Ramsay has remarked. The ideology of being “non-political” reinforces the liberal narrative that their capitalist system represents normality, that there is no need for deep analysis that might lead to radical change in the system, merely the obligation to moderately manage it and tweak it as necessary to ensure its continuation. When they need a vague impression of “radicality” to spice up their tired political line, or to disguise its evolution into a more hardline neoliberal form, they market their supposed “novelty”. This repackaging of the same old capitalism as something “new” worked splendidly for Tony Blair in 1997 and Emmanuel Macron in 2017 but not at all for Change UK in 2019.
And...
Opponents of liberalism and the capitalism it protects therefore need to spread awareness of the various points explored above, such as that:
  • Work, property and “The Economy” are all concepts designed to enforce participation in the capitalist system, which serves to further enrich the rich.
  • The use of the term “progress” to describe the intensification of industrial capitalism is deceitful, being deliberately conflated with the idea of social progress in order to depict opposition as “reactionary”.
  • Liberal democracy is a lie. It is carefully constructed to prevent any actual threat to capitalist wealth and property. At times of crisis, when the usual defences are failing, liberals will jettison the democratic facade and resort to sheer violence.
  • Words like “freedom” and “liberation” are purposefully misused by liberals so as to hide the reality of their militarist mercantile imperialism.
  • Fascism was not left-wing, anti-capitalist or green. Liberalism is not a bulwark against fascism. Liberals hide their ideological proximity to historical fascism and use the “fascist” label to attack opponents of their authoritarian capitalist system.
  • Liberal capitalists have created a toolbox of smears to discredit and disqualify their opponents, including “populism”, “extremism” and their all-purpose “conspiracy theory” accusation. Anti-capitalists should not fall for this manipulation or use the language of our oppressors.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: Liberalism

Unread post by rachel »

User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Christianity and Liberalism

Unread post by rachel »

Christianity and Liberalism - the path of Salvation and the path of Negation
A dialectical overview of some key ideas and thinkers in the development of conflict between Christianity and Liberalism.

Liberalism in this instance, refers to its popular American usage denoting a left-wing progressive movement.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

The Marxist dialectic

Unread post by rachel »

The cult many are in but don’t realize

This video explains the cult of the dialectic embraced by Marxists, Fascists and National Socialists. This includes an explanation of Dialectic Materialism and Historical Materialism using primary and secondary sources.

This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.

Worth a watch, TIK explains the dialectic of Marxism. This grab is quite telling when it comes to considering what Tony Blair's Third Way actually is, the Public Private Partnership.

The Third Way = Fascism
The Third Way = Fascism

I've taken a brief look at Marx previously here and I found some quite interesting time related links.
rachel wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 10:26 am The next section gets into the occult of it, and how it was possible. Remember we have Karl Marx in 1843 writing, "RELIGION IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE." and in 1844 we have a young merchant, who we are told was brought up by his uncle after his father's death, declaring he is a messianic figure and performing ritual magic to annul the laws of God.

The quote is from 'Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right' written in 1843, its introduction actually finished in January 1844. I've only read the introduction and it is a dialectic word salad.
Even historically, theoretical emancipation has specific practical significance for Germany. For Germany’s revolutionary past is theoretical, it is the Reformation. As the revolution then began in the brain of the monk, so now it begins in the brain of the philosopher.

Luther, we grant, overcame bondage out of devotion by replacing it by bondage out of conviction. He shattered faith in authority because he restored the authority of faith. He turned priests into laymen because he turned laymen into priests. He freed man from outer religiosity because he made religiosity the inner man. He freed the body from chains because he enchained the heart.

But, if Protestantism was not the true solution of the problem, it was at least the true setting of it. It was no longer a case of the layman’s struggle against the priest outside himself but of his struggle against his own priest inside himself, his priestly nature. And if the Protestant transformation of the German layman into priests emancipated the lay popes, the princes, with the whole of their priestly clique, the privileged and philistines, the philosophical transformation of priestly Germans into men will emancipate the people. But, secularization will not stop at the confiscation of church estates set in motion mainly by hypocritical Prussia any more than emancipation stops at princes. The Peasant War, the most radical fact of German history, came to grief because of theology. Today, when theology itself has come to grief, the most unfree fact of German history, our status quo, will be shattered against philosophy. On the eve of the Reformation, official Germany was the most unconditional slave of Rome. On the eve of its revolution, it is the unconditional slave of less than Rome, of Prussia and Austria, of country junkers and philistines.

I find that last bit quite interesting, because if we are talking about a "Great Reset", it most certainly began in 1844, the start date selected for a new calendar was March 21 (sundown of 20 March 1844). This is 1 BE. We are currently in year 180 BE. And talking about 'The Great Reset', we have Klaus Schwab, who I've stated before, has an uncanny look of Jean-Claude Juncker - a country junker?

The unending Synthesis of Thesis
The unending Synthesis of Thesis

rachel wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:01 pm The Dialectic: Fostering Revolution
The concept of dialectic has been around for a long time. It is simply the concept of opposing positions: The thesis (position) versus antithesis (opposite position). In traditional logic, if my thesis is true, then all other positions are, by definition, false. For example, if my thesis is that 2+2=4, then all other answers (antitheses) are false. George WF Hegel, the 19th century German philosopher, turned this concept on its head by equating the thesis with the antithesis. All things become relative. There is no absolute truth to be found anywhere. Instead, "truth" is found in synthesis, a compromise between thesis and antithesis. This is the essence of the consensus process.

This is diametrically opposed to the Judeo-Christian worldview prevalent in the Western world for nearly two thousand years, which holds that God exists, that He exists outside of material creation, and that man has a moral obligation to Him and His laws. As God was seen as transcendent, truth was considered absolute and transcendent, beyond our ability to manipulate it. That all changed with Hegel, and modern man was born. Man could now challenge any authority and position, even God. As there is no such absolute truth, "my truth" is as good as "your truth", so don't tell me what to think or how to behave. Like Nietzsche, the "God is dead" philosopher would later say, "There are absolutely no absolutes." Now 2+2 could equal 5, or 17, or whatever you think is right. (Hint: This is why our schools fail. All teachers are certified based on the work of Benjamin Bloom. He said "...we recognize the view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no very rigid rules that exist at all times and in all places").

At about the same time that Hegel left the scene, Karl Marx caught the revolutionary fever. He drew heavily on Hegel (dialectic) and Feuerbach (materialism). He picked up where the other philosophers left off, but with a difference. He contemptuously declared, "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." CHANGING THE WORLD was to become the purpose of Marxism. In the Marxist interpretation of reality, God has been abandoned. Alone in his universe, man should fill the vacuum left by religion with materialism. Religion was the enemy of all progress. As he wrote in 1843, "Religion is the opium of the people." No longer trapped in a relationship with its Creator, the social relationship of "man with man" became the principle of Marx's theory. It follows that these social relationships, which necessarily involve CONFLICT, produce the changes in human progress.

As the opening words of the Communist Manifesto announce: "The history of all societies that have existed until our day has been the history of class struggles." Note the dialectical reasoning: the clash of opposites produces synthesis and change. Man, freed from religious restrictions, will carry the revolution (transformation via conflict) forward until all are equal in a utopia created by men on Earth. To that end, the Manifesto concludes, "Proletarians of all countries, unite!"

In short, Marxism:
  • Is Dialectical Materialism, or, in simpler terms: a human-oriented reasoning process, excluding God.
  • REVOLUTION is its goal, "to change the world", Marx said.
  • The CHANGE is from a Theistic (Old World Order) worldview to a Humanistic (New World Order) worldview. The term New World Order has been a popular euphemism for world communism for years. The conspiracy freaks didn't invent it. When it started to take on negative connotations, it was switched to a better-sounding label, GLOBAL GOVERNANCE.
  • The change must occur through CONFLICT, (Crisis/Problems/Disputes).
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: The Marxist dialectic

Unread post by rachel »

The James Lindsay videos mentioned by TIK in the last video.


The Dialectical Faith of Leftism

The Theology of Marxism, Session 1 of 3
Marxism is a theology, and its religion is Communism. That we have failed to understand this fact over the 175 years since Marx wrote the early drafts of what he originally called the Communist Confession of Faith and published in by the title The Communist Manifesto is indisputably one of the most damaging analytical errors in human history, if not the single worst. It’s time to set the record straight. Marx laid out an evil theology, and the practice of his religion is a liturgy of death and destruction.

To understand the Marxist theology, we have to understand its theological antecedent, which was laid down by the German systematic theologian, speculative idealist, and Hermetic alchemist Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. His theology is a dialectical one, the father of what Marx turned into dialectical materialism, and it is the combination of two mystery religions. Hegel, building on Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Father of Leftism), Immanuel Kant, and others dialectically synthesized Hermetic alchemy and Gnosticism, hammered it into a Christianity-based metaphysical framework, and mislabeled it a “system of science.” Thus we arrive at what has been variously called “Scientific Gnosticism,” “Gnosticism in the Modern Era,” and “Dialectical Leftism,” which outlines a broad system of faith in man’s necessary role as a transformer of reality into its utopian idealized state at the End of History.

In this deep-diving presentation from Sovereign Nations's conference, The Theology of Marxism, New Discourses Founder James Lindsay explains for the first time in decades and in unprecedented clarity how Rousseau and Hegel architected the seeds of a broad Dialectical Faith of Leftism that Marx codified into his own anti-human theology.

Marx’s Ontology of Man and the Telos of History

The Theology of Marxism, Session 2 of 3
In this session of Sovereign Nations’s “The Theology of Marxism” conference, James Lindsay addresses the titular theme of the conference: The Theology of Marxism.

For a century and a half, people have failed to recognize Marxism for what it is, a theology. Marx’s emphasis on Atheism and strict materialism in all things have obscured from view what Marxism really is. Well, it is not a social theory. It is not an economic theory. It is a theology that sees economic and related social conditions as that which shapes human lives and, if born again into the faith, compels them to seize those means of human production and repurpose them to achieve the Marxian eschatology. That eschatology goes by a few names, but the most identifiable are “Communism,” “Liberation,” and “Social Justice.”

The Role of Consciousness and the Evolution of the Gospel of Marxism

The Theology of Marxism, Session 3 of 3
In that Marxism is a theology that gives birth to a religion of Communism, it has to also have a process of conversion. That process was not well-developed under Karl Marx, but it grew over the intervening century and a half and came to be known as "conscientization." As Marxism entered its cultural turn in the 1920s, Theorists like Gyorgy Lukacs recognized that "class consciousness" unfolds in stages and is educable, though the last steps remained elusive and mysterious. By the 1980s, Theorists like Paulo Freire developed the process of conscientization further into a critical and even utopian consciousness that can be used to mobilize converts to transform the world. As we learn from the United Nations and its Agenda 2030, however, the next phase in transformation is to mobilize this utopian consciousness to create a sustained regime branded as a "sustainable and inclusive future." Thus, they forward 17 Sustainable Development Goals “to transform our world” and are beginning to gear conscientization in that direction.

In this session of @SovereignNations’s "The Theology of Marxism" conference in Phoenix, Arizona, in June 2022, Dr. James Lindsay discusses the process of rebirth in the theology of Marxism, "conscientization," and the next turn of the Leftist Dialectic, "Sustainability."
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: The Marxist dialectic

Unread post by rachel »

I'm currently on the second lecture above, 36 minutes in, it's talking about Marxism as a religion...it is the anti-religion...and James Lindsay brings up an image. Before I post it, just a reminder, quoted in the TIK video post earlier.
rachel wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 10:26 am The next section gets into the occult of it, and how it was possible. Remember we have Karl Marx in 1843 writing, "RELIGION IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE." and in 1844 we have a young merchant, who we are told was brought up by his uncle after his father's death, declaring he is a messianic figure and performing ritual magic to annul the laws of God.

I twigged where the 200 year history idea comes from. It comes from nearly 200 years ago...

The Great Disappointment
The Great Disappointment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment
The Great Disappointment in the Millerite movement was the reaction that followed Baptist preacher William Miller's proclamation that Jesus Christ would return to the Earth by 1844, which he called the Second Advent. His study of the Daniel 8 prophecy during the Second Great Awakening led him to conclude that Daniel's "cleansing of the sanctuary" was cleansing the world from sin when Christ would come, and he and many others prepared. When Jesus did not appear by October 22, 1844, Miller and his followers were disappointed.

These events paved the way for the Adventists who formed the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They contended that what had happened on October 22 was not Jesus's return, as Miller had thought, but the start of Jesus's final work of atonement, the cleansing in the heavenly sanctuary, leading up to the Second Coming.

There is something mystical about 1844; but is it the Bab or is it Marx?

The "cleansing in the heavenly sanctuary" comes from Hebrews 9. The tabernacle is a shadow, in it is a veil, behind the veil is the Most Holy.

Hebrews 9 KJV - https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Hebrews-9-kjv/
Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Paul tells us the world ended at the Cross, the veil was rent from top to bottom and an opening was made manifest. I won't go into that, the point is to see where Hegel and Marx are getting their dialectical references. The veil and the mirror would appear to be the same thing, except when Man looks into the mirror he sees himself as God. According to Hegel we are all shards of that mirror, so the point of the Dialectic seems to be to bring us back to ONENESS.

Is that to sew up the tear in the veil, close the breach?

Rose and the Doctor Are Separated Forever | Doomsday | Doctor Who


Back to the James Lindsay slide. The Baha'i calendar starts at sundown on the 20 March 1844, the Spring Equinox, thus 21st March 1844. This is the beginning of the Baha'i Era, 1 BE. And like the switch from BC to AD, there is no year zero, meaning 1 BC goes straight to 1 AD. When working out lengths of time, when the Bahai' calendar was one year old it is 2 BE. On the 21st March 1944 centenary it was actually 101 BE; and likewise, on the 21st March 2044 bicentenary, it will be year 201 BE.

I don't know where the two hundred year history comes from, but this is the concept that seems to go with mudflood. If we take the declared END OF THE WORLD of 1843, we see the Baha'i Era starting in 1844. Then if we add two hundred years we get to 2044, which is 201 BE... EVENT 201?

Image

I know @anounceofsaltperday thinks we are in the short time before the end. I don't believe Jesus has returned yet, but there is something interesting about the 200 years, particularly when James Lindsay presents this slide...

James Lindsay's slide
James Lindsay's slide
Post Reply