The Church of Marx

I have long observed and warned about the creeping of Marxist rhetoric, masquerading as "Christian" precept, into America's churches. It's gotten so bad I long ago began referring to the modern church as the "spiritual arm of the Socialist party." And Matt Chandler's farcical "sermon," along with others dispensed at the It Takes A Village Church, are but more abject proof of that fact.

There's essentially no acknowledgment of the pious and noble Christian ethos that gave birth to our Republic and freedoms within the vitiated liturgies of modern American churches whatsoever. Quite to the contrary, they often undermine, if not outright rebuke such. The once masculine institution, that inculcated the values of moral enlightenment and liberty, has been supplanted by a matriarchal social club that disseminates a hyper-effeminate theology of interminable capitulation and fatalism. And this is perhaps nowhere better illustrated than Matt Chandler.

I actually called Matt Chandler's church (on the phone) after seeing this video. Naturally, I was unable to speak to him. I spoke to some proxy on staff, who shan't be named (as the purpose of this contribution is not to induce their harassment), but shall henceforth be referred to as Joe. I asked Joe many questions in an effort to procure the church's official position and that of it's staff on "white privilege." And for the better part of half an hour Joe basically assiduously equivocated. Joe, inexplicably, didn't know much of anything about the ideological disposition of his organization, nor was capable of articulating such to any meaningful extent. (An all too typical circumstance.) I asked Joe where Christ's position on "white privilege" could be found in the Bible, and what precisely that position might be, but received no definitive answer. Joe, basically, just told me The Village Church's (TVC) objective was to lead people to Christ. I inquired in what capacity "acknowledging and addressing white privilege" served that purpose, and when exactly combating such became a precept of the Christian religion, but again received no real answer. 

The most I got from Joe, during that nearly half hour of dialogue, was "yes" to the question does white privilege exist. Though, when asked to articulate why he believed that, I was again denied an answer. All Joe did was refer me to a sermon by someone in their church named Beau Hughes. So I looked it up and read it. Beau's sentiments in his sermon, are basically identical to Matt's in the video above, and in a preceding sermon given by Matt.

"In terms of race in the United States, as the majority, we’re going to talk about white transparency, white normativity, and white structural advantage. [....] If you live in America and have grown up in this mainstream culture and subcultures, then, as a white person, you can live your entire life and never really have to think about being white. You don’t need to feel necessarily guilty about that, but you do need to recognize that’s a unique advantage you have as a white person and an advantage that sociologists actually have a name for. That’s called white transparency.  

Korie Edwards, who’s a sociologist at the Ohio State University, wrote a wonderful book our elders are reading right now called The Elusive Dream [...] and she uses this definition of white transparency. She says, Finally, white transparency is "the tendency of whites not to think…about norms, behaviors, experiences, or perspectives that are white-specific." [In other words, white transparency] is a lack of racial consciousness.' [....]

White transparency, then, feeds into the next little category that sociologists call white normativity. Again, I’m going to quote from Edwards. She says, 'White normativity reinforces the normalization of whites’ cultural practices…such that how whites do things [...] Their understandings about life, society, and the world…are accepted as "just how things are."' In other words, when we’re the majority, our practices, preferences, and perspectives don’t feel to us as uniquely anything. [...] If you’re the majority and are walking in transparency, it doesn’t feel like a unique way to look at things or do things. It’s just the way everybody looks at things or does things." - Beau Hughes, Racial Reconciliation. 

Which are themselves flagrant Marxist drivel one can find likewise dispensed by any other number of radical leftists, such as "Standard White: Dismantling White Normativity," by Michael Morris.

"Whiteness serves a normative function by defining the expected or “neutral” range of human attributes and behavior. Other racial categories emerge as deviations from this norm, which places them outside the protection of the law and civil society." [....] Transparency—that is, “the tendency of whites not to think about whiteness, or about norms, behaviors, experiences, or perspectives that are white-specific”—presents a further complication in addressing white normativity. White privilege helps to create transparency. [....] 

Because society treats whiteness as neutral, the benefits that accrue to whites are taken as givens. Those benefits pass almost unnoticed, because they are simply the way the system is supposed to work. Put another way, the status of whites represents how our social, political, and legal systems are meant to function—and validates that functioning—while the status of other groups represents those systems’ inevitable imperfections. White normativity does much of its work by defining the perspective from which acceptability is judged. [...] In this way, white normativity poses a more insidious threat than overt racism." 

Notice the conspicuous similarities; both have the same philosophical foundation; i.e., are derived from the same ideology. And according to that ideology even when a white person is not being actively racist through oppressive laws, violence, rhetoric, etc., they are still racist due to "lack of racial consciousness," which is even more racist than racist comportment. Basically, you're racist for not making race the transcendent issue in your life and seeing everything through the prism of race. Truly, this is the sort or deranged asinine tripe that only a Marxist mind could conjure. No matter what you do, you're racist, and/or a blight upon the world. The problem is not so much that you're actually "being" racist in any particular way, because even that is racist, conveying that the problem is that you exist at all. 

It's worth noting that the listed "areas of expertise" listed for Korie Edwards on Ohio University's website, are "Gender, Race, & Class." (You know, the sort of things in which radical leftists tend to take interest and/or specialize.) Korie is also listed as a "Social Problems Advisory Editor" by the Society for the Study of Social Problems In Pursuit of Social Justice. 

The "SSSP" publishes an "Agenda for Social Justice." The 2012 Agenda contains these excerpts.

"Target and redistribute goods and resources to people who originate from traditionally excluded, disenfranchised, or other 'disprivileged' groups that have historically been the victims of discrimination." - Agenda for Social Justice: Solutions 2012, Critical Diversity Policy Reform.

Take from those that have and give to those that (allegedly) don't; the quintessential Marxist credo.

"Based on the premise that those who start at the bottom have farther to go in order to make it to the top, educational institutions should select those from disprivileged backgrounds when choosing among equally or near equally qualified applicants according to conventional indicators. [...] In addition, colleges should include in their admissions criteria special consideration for applicants who have endured residential instability (e.g., homelessness, migratory work patterns, etc.) or other residential hardships." - Agenda for Social Justice, ibidem. 

A system based upon favoritism of the "disprivileged" (typically proletarian groups) as opposed to merit. Children living in better circumstances through no fault of their own, should be passed over, for children living in less fortunate circumstances. When two applicants with comparable scores are being considered, choose the illegal immigrant to advance "social justice" under the specious rationale they've suffered more adversity, even if their scores are lower.

"Resist attempts to reverse diversity policies. Diversity has been a governmental issue since people of color, women, members of the LGBT community, and other previously excluded or disadvantaged groups have pressed the government for greater inclusion. [...] It is important to demonstrate to organizational members that diversity is institutionally beneficial. [...] Although such differences may lead to some communication barriers and group conflict, diversity increases the opportunity for creativity and the quality of the product of group work." - Agenda for Social Justice, ibidem.

Again, the inherent stupidity illustrated is remarkable. They promote diversity as "beneficial," and then proceed to concede precisely why it isn't. It causing communication barriers and conflict is precisely why it's not beneficial, in a business environment, or any other. As someone who's had to work with multiple people who speak broken English, not only does it decrease productivity, cause conflict and division, but it's even a safety hazard. Not only is it far more laborious to train such people, but I've experienced several instances in which a coworker who wasn't a native English speaker (perhaps for fear of being thought ignorant), engaged in blatant dissimulation by claiming to understand instruction they did not. Something which, if taken at face value, could have resulted in expensive damage to equipment or worse. Simply look at our country, in which excessive ideological and cultural diversity has produced interminable bickering, conflict, and erosion of the rule of law to see the same thing illustrated on a macro level. "Diversity" hasn't produced unity or wide scale benefit for society. Rather, it produces enervation, foments discord, and acts as sand in the works.

Ultimately, the goal of the SSSP is more diversity, and particularly of the more radical sort. As it says in its Agenda, "Go beyond just celebrating diversity." It overtly supports "homosexuality" and "transgenderism." One of its "featured abstracts," is from yet another leftist Sociologist, Jaime McCauley, entitled "A Family Affair: Reclaiming 'Family Values' as Movement Strategy in Same-Sex Marriage Activism." Within which she promotes profoundly manipulative strategies to advance "gay rights."

"In the months before a crucial vote on same-sex marriage Massachusetts activists identified legislators who have lesbian or gay family members and arranged for these family members to meet with their politically powerful relatives in hopes to sway their vote in favor of same-sex marriage. This level of political knowledge and access allows the Massachusetts movement to make successful moves in order to advance their rights." 

Thus the SSSP is plainly naught but a cabal of radically leftist/Marxist academics. 

Anyway back to Korie Edwards, whom Beau cites in his sermon, and which he claims the elders of The Village Church are all reading. Korie likewise is going to be a speaker at an upcoming 9Marks event. A quasi-Christian organization the president of which is "progressive" (Marxist) pastor Mark Dever. 

Other speakers at 9Marks include leftist Judy Wu Dominick, who lamented following the election of Donald Trump, that "I stood alone on my deck and wept." The ostensible pervasiveness of white racism seems a recurring motif in Judy's prosaic contributions for various "Christian" publications. She describes how she became a radical leftist, ashamed of becoming Americanized, and "crusaded on social media and at the dinner table" for others she likewise deemed oppressed racial and ethnic minorities. Ultimately, she realized that peddling her insidious racial screed under the banner of Christ (i.e., subverting the church from within) by construing it as "loving" your enemies, was a far more effective means of procuring leftist proselytes.

Who better to help me acquire a "better understanding of whiteness" than an Asian woman? As usual, the audacity of leftist condescension is astounding. Imagine if I were to put on an event called "addressing blackness," for the purpose of helping others achieve a "better understanding" of blackness.

I don't have time to research every single one of these people. But from what I understand, not a single Republican speaker will be participating in (was invited to) this event, and only about 1% of said speakers are white. Superbly illustrating and vindicating my longstanding claim that the term "diversity," when used by leftists, is merely a coded synonym for "anti-white" or "less white." Or less male, Christian, heterosexual, American, Republican, et al., depending on the nature of the organization or situation. Basically whatever is the opposite of the "traditional" demographic or "normative" value system, because as I have long said the goal of "diversity" is reduce the number of all things traditionally American, and supplant them with all things not traditionally American. Typically under the pretext of egalitarianism, fostering "unity," and the myth that diversity for the sake of diversity somehow makes everything inherently better. 

Simply injecting people of all types and from all walks of life into an institution, or a nation for example, is no more beneficial to such than tossing socks of all colors and types into to my sock drawer benefits my sock drawer. All that accomplishes in a best case scenario, is a drawer full of socks you don't need for any particular reason, present merely for the sake of being "different" than the socks you do need. It does effectively displace, extirpate, (and if done long enough ultimately supplant) your regular socks (traditional element) however. That is the real objective. It's not to achieve racial "unity," but to erode and extirpate traditional culture and values, with the ultimate goal of replacing them with the cultures and values of other peoples. It's a form of socio-political ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by the left who, in order to establish a truly Communist state, must first eliminate the extant system of governance, and those who sustain it, or at least marginalize them in power and number to the extent they can no longer obstruct it.

The goal of Matt Chandler and Beau Hughes is to gradually replace white Christians with non-white Marxists. Why else would they all be reading and citing a racist Marxist Sociologist in their sermons? They're conducting leftist social engineering in their church. Because the notion that America is inherently and irreparably racist is a core ideological tenet of Marxist theory.

"Their foremost weapon to maintain their dominance is racism. [....] Institutionalized racism provides billions in extra profits for the capitalists every year due to the unequal pay racially oppressed workers receive for work of comparable value. In every aspect of economic and social life, African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Arabs and Middle Eastern peoples, and other nationally and racially oppressed people experience conditions inferior to that of whites." - Communist Party Platform. 

This is why the SSSP, with which Korie Edwards is affiliated, recommends to "redistribute goods and resources to people who originate from traditionally [...] disprivileged groups," i.e., away from whites, fundamentalist Christians, heterosexuals, men, etc., and to African Americans, Latinos, Arabs, women, Muslims, etc. It's the natural result, in terms of policy, of subscribing to the Marxist platform in principle (depicted above).

There is perhaps no more quintessential tool of Classical Marxism than class warfare, which advancing the notion of "white privilege" serves to foment, by dividing Americans into racial classes; thereby turning "privileged" whites into a racial bourgeois, if you will, and the non-privileged people of other races into non-white proletariat. A socio-political rift, and form of class enmity, that's similar in function and purpose to the traditional Marxist strategy of inciting the poor (proletariat) to hate the rich (bourgeois). 

It should also be understood that incessantly elevating every other culture and people, is merely an indirect way of demoting and deprecating white culture and whites, which will without question foment division and resentment among whites. Exposing the notion its proponents are seeking "unity" fallacious. The reality is they want whites to be the object of derision, and to confiscate their wealth and redistribute it to themselves, because they're profoundly envious and malicious human beings. (And because that's what Socialists do.) Indeed, "white privilege" is naught but a synonym for envy, in much the same manner the proletariat of old was easily inveigled because it was envious of the bourgeois. 

Frankly, this shouldn't even require research. It's pretty much a given that the vast preponderance of academics are Marxists, particularly in the Sociology department, and yet Matt Chandler and Beau Hughes are apparently completely oblivious to this and peddling the works of such subversives on par with sacred writ from their pulpits. Or they do know, and are doing it deliberately, because they agree. (As Joe said he believes in white privilege.) Those, as is so often the case, are the only two options. Ignorance or complicity. They're either lucid subversives, advancing the Marxists agenda of their own volition, or their "useful idiots."

So what we're seeing is the same process that's been occurring for decades in politics. The slow and gradual subversion of the state is being mirrored in the church, as vacuous leftist demagogues have ascended to (and monopolized) positions of prominence within the church just as they have the state, the message of both being largely identical in substance. The language has merely been modified to be more palatable in and to a church setting and audience. Which frankly takes little more than talking about "love" and mentioning "Jesus" a lot. Pastors are encouraging congregations to place "unity" over principle, and therefore to embrace as equal adherents those who support infanticide, under the pretext that God cares more about unity than stopping genocide. God, who obliterated two whole cities for the practice of sodomy, wills you to embrace those that openly and actively support, or even unrepentantly practice that same behavior, because church "unity" is of paramount importance. 

As Beau Hughes states in his sermon.

"Our Father cares deeply about racial diversity and unity, and as His sons and daughters, we should care deeply, too." - Beau Hughes, ibidem.

Sounds like a perfectly "Christian" disposition. Right?

"The Communist Party seeks to build broad unity to achieve the strategic and tactical goals of the working class. The major obstacle to working class unity is capitalist class-promoted racism, which must be fought by all. Full unity will only be built when substantial numbers of white workers participate in the fight for full equality and against racism, based on an understanding of their self-interest in class unity. [....] The problems of exploitation, oppression, and survival facing humankind can only be solved, ultimately, by the elimination of the exploitative system of capitalism. Our survival depends on a transformation to socialism. [...] That means building unity for peace, for protecting and expanding democracy, for living-wage jobs, for universal health care, for real equality for all those who are nationally or racially oppressed and women, for an end to the political control of the ultra-right over our political institutions. - Communist Party Platform, ibidem.

See, "unity" is very important to Communists also. It appears in their platform about 80 times. Conversely it appears in The Bible (KJV) 3 times. Now, "unity" in and of itself is not a Marxist concept, but the notion it requires "addressing" or "dismantling" "white privilege" absolutely is.  

Now go back to the beginning of this contribution and watch Matt Chandler's video again. How many people do you think, without juxtaposition against its Marxist origins and inspiration, would recognize it for what it actually is? Virtually none. Because just as in the political arena the modus operandi of Marxists is the Trojan Horse. They conceal their ideology within other, accepted belief systems and principles, to prevent people from realizing they're being indoctrinated into another ideology at all. And thus Beau simply construes the Communist Party's platform as God's agenda, inducing the misconception that Christianity and Communism are aligned, ultimately resulting in their conflation among the ignorant. 

In closing, these men are not pastors, they are (either by ignorance or design) Marxist subversives. Anyone resting his ass upon the pews of their humanist "church" (as Marxism is a secular ideology) is imbibing a racist, anti-white, subversive ideology pretending to be Christianity. And as such I advise you not only leave, but knock the dirt off your shoes as you do so.