Unwitting dupes to Marxism? Speculative theory on candidates

Recently I remembered some mention of a scandal in pop music in which a certain religious school system had been surreptitiously using its schoolchildren and young adults to write melodies and create song concepts which the school system would then turn around and sell to artists who were loyal to their denomination’s cause.

I thought I even remembered some big-name politician, but I could be wrong, responding to a criticism of the amount public schools spend vs. the denomination’s school system, and responding along the lines of she thought they had alternate revenue streams we didn’t know about.

The ‘90s music fans showed up to my now deleted thread and didn’t know what I meant, leading me to think I had made the whole thing up. I asked to pull the thread.

Then I realized liberalism would have hushed it up if there were a movement to liberalize a religious denomination by making it look like the kids are so able they get by on 1/5 the funding of public schools, and by creating music relevant to the Sexual Revolution which was for them and would let them form sinful psychic rapports which let them share test answers. Because they like the concept of DEI. So it basically proves nothing that the liberals are not talking about any such scandal, if indeed there was one.

The following are questions, not accusations.
Recalling the issue led me to think of J.D. Vance and Peter Thiel, both dedicated members of a Christian denomination. If the MSM is to be believed, then Thiel may have led J.D. out of a law career and into three different positions in tech finance which may have ended badly, then funded his senate run. I don’t have the details to justify if Thiel ruined Vance’s careers in order to have him under Thiel’s thumb but it seems possible. Thiel is also one of Trump’s major patrons and without any basis, sometimes it still seems disturbingly like someone bailed Trump out of bankruptcy in exchange for some sort of control or favors.

It occurred to me to think that an organization bent on Marxist subversion could use wealthy, powerful champions. What if someone like Thiel had been made a multibillionaire tech financier with the assistance of a system not unlike the one which may have been creating pop music. Suppose they had people at tech firms which could tell him when firms were going to make a major move. He would know when to invest. Their overall goal may be Marxist but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t use a champion who was rich and powerful and perhaps not fully informed of the main goal which is Marxism. Communist writers said if you can’t conquer a nation by force then you do a “march through the institutions” to subvert them.

From Bing: The “Long March through the Institutions” is a phrase coined by Italian communist Antonio Gramsci and then popularized by Marxist student activist Rudi Dutschke in the 1960s. The phrase describes a strategy for establishing the conditions for revolution by subverting capitalist domination of society through entering institutions such as the professions2. By co-opting society’s chief institutions—schools, universities, courts, corporations, media and political parties—dedicated leftists could effect revolutionary change.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Pope says Christianity and Marxism Share a Common Mission"

a reply to: Solvedit

Pope says Christianity and Marxism Share a Common Mission

To understand what they have in common, you must remember that when Marx began formulating his philosophy, monarchism and authoritarianism were the principal forms of government in the world. The only exception was the United States of America, where a very limited form of democracy (restricted to free white adult males) had been introduced. But America, across the Atlantic, was not yet a very important country or even a very civilized one, certainly not when compared to the great powers of Europe; and nowhere else -- nowhere else in the world -- were the people (and not even all the people) free to enjoy 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' under a government they had chosen for themselves. Marx, in fact, had great hopes for the USA; he saw the triumph of capitalism as a necessary stage in the social evolution which, according to his theory, would finally end in a universal dictatorship of the proletariat. Of course, he abhorred slavery, so it wasn't until the rise of Lincoln that he felt this hope might someday be realised.

But all that, to him, was in the far future, and America, besides, was a distant, unimportant place. More immediately evident to Marx were the hunger, disease, repression, squalor and desperation he saw in every European city. This was the evil he set himself to oppose. In his concern for the poor and the oppressed, for the desperate wage-slaves of the Industrial Revolution and the helpless cannon-fodder sacrificed in capitalist-imperialist wars, Marx was no different from any concerned, practising Christian. He wished to free and uplift the starving and the suffering, and to take surplus wealth from those who had more than they needed and share it, as Jesus did, with the poor. Have you not read the Sermon on the Mount, or the parable of the rich man and the poor man in Chapter 16 of Luke? The parallels are exact. This is what Pope Francis meant: Christianity and Marxism do have a common mission. Deny it all you like; it will still be true.

But Marx was no friend of Christianity, not because he disapproved of Jesus's teachings -- far from it -- but because he saw how, in Europe, the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches were hand in glove with the exploitative monarchs and aristocrats of Europe, reinforcing their power and taking their own cut from the royal and noble parasites who sucked the people dry. He also saw how the comforts of religious ritual and the sermons of the priests helped to dissipate the justified anger and indignation of the people, so that they rarely grew fed up enough to rebel against their masters. That is what he meant by that famous remark about the ‘opium of the people.’ Here it is, quoted in context:

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

-- Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

When I visit Above Top Secret, a place where economically or educationally disadvantaged white Americans find an outlet for public (if anonymous) self-expression, what I find, most of the time, are thoughts and feelings of a very Marxist kind: anti-authoritarian, distrustful of conventional expertise, full of false (but understandable) theories about elite conspiracies and a firm conviction that they are being exploited and bamboozled for the benefit of their social superiors. Of course, the folk expressing these thoughts have been brainwashed by their capitalist masters to fear and loathe Marx and Communism, and are as ignorant about Marxism as Catholics are about Buddhism, so they don't realize how Marxist the things they keep saying really are. Perhaps Marx was right after all, and what we are seeing today is the beginning of the final revolution that will end in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. If so, how deliciously ironic that Donald Trump, the idol of ATS, should become the avatar of a Communist New Age!

I assume you're referring to Lazarus and the Rich Man.

Modern Lithuanian speech is said to be as ancient as Biblical Greek or Hebrew. It is also said to have similarities to ancient Persian.

As I have stated on other threads, 'dalint' means 'to distribute.' Dalina means he or she distributes. "Magija Dalina" or "she distributes magic" may have been truncated into "Mag-dalina." Some say Mary Magdalene's name means "of the town of Magdala" but their basis is no better than mine. She may have been a Persian woman who was trapped in Israel to help the poor. It could be that one of the first disciples whom the Lord saved was being forced to do as the Communists want, or distribute magical examples to people who couldn't do for themselves. For it she got both rich and possessed by seven demons.

Lazarus may have been blacklisted because he did not want to get involved in "magijos dalinimas." The KJV has the Lord saying to the rich man, "you have been handed good things, and Lazarus has been handed poor things." This may imply society held Lazarus back.

The point of the societies described in Acts in which Annias and Sephira lived may not be Communism. Does it actually say they were for everyone or for the poor? It could be they were a place where the blacklisted like Lazarus could go to try to regain a prayer life and get a respectable job. The intention may have been to fund the communities with the money which had been earned by those who caved in to the mob and did "magijos dalinimas," but then heard the Word of god and wanted to regain their sold souls. They had the chance to do penance by donating their ill-gotten gains to help others get over being blacklisted. Perhaps Annias and Sephira held back some of the money from the sale of their souls?

They may have been meant to fall away as society became more prayerful and less mob-oriented.

Can it be Rome fell because it had been dependent on "magijos dalinimas," and the spread of Christianity freed the slaves?

Can it be the Lord's advice to the young rich man was to simply follow Judaism? Then he demanded a guarantee. Can it be the meaning of the Lord's answer was to say that if he wanted a guarantee of salvation, then there was no royal road or shortcut, and he was just going to have to renounce anything which would tempt him to lose his soul? Can it be the message to communists is not that the goods of the rich should be theirs? Can it be the message is that they should not covet to live their best life so much that they want to put people in gulags? I.e. renounce the stumbling block?

You talk of Marx's day and it probably was that bad. But social justice has made strides.

Can it be Communists suppress religion because they want to enslave people for knowledge just like Genesis 19? Can it be it's not just about sharing goods? Can it be the main thing they want to redistribute is peoples' souls because that's the real means of production?

Can it be that there are different reasons people find themselves disadvantaged? Perhaps these are intelligent people who could be professionals if they had spiritual health? Many of the people on here may be poor because they don't know how to care for the health of their souls. They may have been tricked into praying for other people without permission. They may not have had the sacraments for a long time. They may not realize liberals deliberately offend them so they'd hate them.

Can it be Vance and his patron may owe their success to the redistribution of souls? I have found their church believes the priest can cancel the saving power of any individual's sacraments if the individual doesn't meet conditions that the priest can set at their own discretion, like adherence to Marxism. See Baltimore Catechism no.3, Q.585, 613. And they don't have to tell you. The other faithful sometimes take an "if you die we're splitting up your gear" approach.

No, no, no, you're dead wrong. The mission of Christianity is the salvation of souls and spiritual health.

Rather than subscribing to Marxism, they'd probably be better served getting a Protestant baptism from a non-Marxist denomination and reading a Protestant-published Bible (which is intended to be used to pray for salvation) and praying to the Father for the saving grace of Christ.

Some say you should never bother the King. Some dare suggest the Lord was a slave but I don't think so. Instead, conscientious kings sometimes consider themselves the slaves of the people.

Can it be the horrible assignment of being the Savior fell to the House of David because they had previously allowed the poor of Israel to become so lax and unruly that they enslaved foreigners so they could be "Magija Dalina" or Mag-dalina? Just like Genesis 19?

a reply to: Solvedit

Modern Lithuanian speech is said to be as ancient as Biblical Greek or Hebrew. It is also said to have similarities to ancient Persian.

Common antiquity does not imply a common origin. Lithuanian and Farsi (Persian) do have a common Indo-European origin, which Hebrew does not share; it forms part of a different language group, the Indo-Semitic.

In any case the word is not Hebrew. The Gospels were all written in Greek and the source texts were in Aramaic, not Hebrew. Jesus spoke Aramaic.

No scholar would accept your etymological speculations as valid, so neither, I'm afraid, can I. Etymology of ‘Magdalene’

Can it be Rome fell because it had been dependent on "magijos dalinimas," and the spread of Christianity freed the slaves?

The reasons for the fall of Rome are many and various, but the abolition of slavery was never one of them. Christianity did not, in any case, free any slaves, though Jews (and only Jews) were forbidden to own Christian slaves. Christian households and enterprises in the Roman Empire used slaves just as pagan ones did, and no Christian emperor ever proclaimed a general decree of manumission. On the contrary, the New Testament is full of admonitions from St Paul and others to slaves, advising them to obey their masters and not to rebel.

You speculate freely on a Christian 'message to communists'. I don't believe there ever was any such message, because communism did not last very long among the early Christians. It never does, because human nature prevents it. Still, you are quite right to say that Christian teaching (appropriated from Judaism) forbids the faithful to covet their neighbours' goods. Of course that is quite irrelevant to Communism, which holds that all ownership is illegitimate; people in Communist societies may have the use of things, even for their entire lifetimes, but they cannot claim exclusive possession of anything.

Can it be Communists suppress religion because they want to enslave people for knowledge just like Genesis 19?

What does that mean, to 'enslave people for knowledge'? There are no slaves in Communist theory -- all persons are free and equal. In practice, of course, regimes that called themselves Communist have often been totalitarian -- enslaving all their citizens, even the most privileged among them -- but these regimes are not really Communist, they are despotisms of one sort or another: autocracies, oligarchies. You can't blame Marx (or his collaborator in the development of Communist theory, Engels) for the way others later twisted and corrupted their ideas. Stalinism and Maoism were not Communism.

Can it be that there are different reasons people find themselves disadvantaged?

Of course there are. A Marxist would acknowledge that, just as I would; but they would say that the causes should be irrelevant to us; our duty is simply to help them do better. And a good Christian would do and say exactly the same.

A bad Christian might call on Calvinist sophistry, Jesuit casuistry or the so-called 'prosperity Gospel' to justify their selfishness and inhumanity towards the less fortunate. A bad Communist might twist the ideas of Marx to justify their conduct in exactly the same way.

Perhaps these are intelligent people who could be professionals if they had spiritual health? Many of the people on here may be poor because they don't know how to care for the health of their souls. They may have been tricked into praying for other people without permission. They may not have had the sacraments for a long time.

Are these things you believe in? If so, how do you account for the legions of professionals who do not share what you describe as 'spiritual health'? I am a successful professional myself, despite being quite irreligious. As for 'caring for the health of their souls,' I don't even believe that souls exist.

Where on earth did you get the idea that one needs permission to pray for someone else? Permission from whom? From the intended beneficiary of your prayers? From God? From some church or spiritual leader? You had better explain, because right now, to me, that statement sounds completely ridiculous. As for believing in the efficacy of sacraments, I am afraid you're on your own there too. I accept the social and psychological benefits of prayer and ritual, but that's as far as I go. I've never heard anyone claim that observing Christian sacraments is a formula for professional success!

They may not realize liberals deliberately offend them so they'd hate them.

Do you think liberals and Communists are related? You are quite wrong. Liberalism is the enemy of Communism. The Free World, a Cold War coinage, is a group of countries that follow a principle of government known as liberal democracy. The United States is one of those countries -- some would say the most liberal and democratic of them all. Some right-wing American ideologues try to make out that republicanism and democracy are mutually exclusive; they are ignorant and wrong. A republic can be democratic, like France or the USA, or despotic, like Plato's original (and fictional, thank goodness) Republic, or like any modern 'banana republic' you care to name.

But all this is nothing beside your claim that liberals want people to hate them. How very odd. Could you explain what advantage one gains by making others hate you? Liberalism is based on two principles: that of individual freedom and collective responsibility. These (unlike Communism) cannot be imposed on individuals by some dictatorial apparat; they can only be disseminated through persuasion. It is therefore in the interest of liberals to be thought well of, not to be hated. I am quite curious to know how you came to the conclusion that liberals want to be hated.

***

As you may or may not have concluded from this exchange, I am no Marxist. Neither am I a Socialist. You may call me a liberal social democrat, or a social-democratic liberal, but to tell the truth I am not terribly interested in politics. My fascination is for the strange psychological twists and turns that gradually divorce intelligent people from logic, causing them to believe things that are not true and, moreover, defend them as if their lives depended on them. That is what brings me to ATS: being a conspiracy-theory website, it has many members who have travelled that road.

I don't suppose this conversation will remain intellectual for much longer. You don't really want to debate, do you? You want to be accepted as right. I am not so dogmatic. But you should take some time to learn what Marxism really is. You would be able to oppose it more effectively then. Of course, you might not want to oppose it afterwards -- because, in truth, it is very different from the people-eating bogeyman Americans used to be taught to hate and fear.

originally posted by: Kallipygywiggy
a reply to: Solvedit
Common antiquity does not imply a common origin. Lithuanian and Farsi (Persian) do have a common Indo-European origin...

Farsi is modern Iranian speech. "Common antiquity" is not a basis I used, and it would not apply to a modern, recent language like Farsi.

In any case the word is not Hebrew. The Gospels were all written in Greek and the source texts were in Aramaic, not Hebrew. Jesus spoke Aramaic.

The place names, however, are Hebrew. The Greek place name of Magdala is Tarichaea. So much for your scholarship.

No scholar would accept your etymological speculations as valid...

How on earth do you know?

The reasons for the fall of Rome are many and various, but the abolition of slavery was never one of them.

I never said they abolished slavery. Perhaps by practicing authentic Christianity, some of the slaves loosened the grip of their masters on their soul and managed to obtain what respect they could in a slavery context.

You speculate freely on a Christian 'message to communists'. I don't believe there ever was any such message...

Of course there is, present tense. Communists are here, and Christianity is here.

What does that mean, to 'enslave people for knowledge'? There are no slaves in Communist theory --

So do you want to have to share everything you know just because you have the ability? Is that not slavery?

Of course there are [different reasons people find themselves disadvantaged-ed.]. A Marxist would acknowledge that, just as I would; but they would say that the causes should be irrelevant to us; our duty is simply to help them do better. And a good Christian would do and say exactly the same.

I don't have time to finish this now but I noticed later on in your reply, you said you don't believe people have souls. So you probably would leap to the conclusion that the Gospels aren't about religion but economics.

What is the fascination people on the left have for fascists and communists?

Is it ignorance of the past, or just being easily manipulated by fear?

Either way, I can't understand why anyone in their right mind, would today, want any thing to do with a communist society.

The only thing commies have done well is genocide.
So unless you approve of genocide and want to join the ranks of those who " murdered approximately 168,759,000 people from 1900 to 1987." I suggest doing some serious reading.

As the tables indicate, mass murders are perpetrated by dictatorial regimes of various stripes. Communist regimes are far away the most murderous. The tables list 17 communist regimes that murdered at least 100,000 people. Overall, the communists murdered approximately 168,759,000 from 1900 to 1987.

On the whole, the most-murderous fascist regimes proved to be less durable than their communist counterparts, so their killing sprees did not last as long. The 1900-87 murder count by fascist regimes was 27,848,000.

Fascist regimes are those that were explicitly aligned with the political theories of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini.

Mass Murder & Genocide of the 20th Century

FYI
Capitalism is not a form of government mkay, and even if it was, has not committed genocide or mass murder anywhere where near that of commies.

People have been fooled, because they're lazy and choose ignorance.

a reply to: Solvedit

Farsi is modern Iranian speech.

Farsi is Persian for Persian.

The Greek place name of Magdala is Tarichaea.

I did not say the origin of the word was Greek. Didn't read the link, did you? Tut-tut.

So much for your scholarship'

Says the comparative linguist who doesn't even know that Persian and Farsi are one and the same.

Perhaps by practicing authentic Christianity, some of the slaves loosened the grip of their masters on their soul and managed to obtain what respect they could in a slavery context.

If you can find a shred of evidence for this bizarre and fabulous idea, do please share. Scholarly journal publication, please, preferably peer-reviewed.

The rest of your post is too incoherent to respond to, and there would be no point in any case. You are beyond the reach of reason and persuasion. Nice talking to you; have a nice thread.

originally posted by: Kallipygywiggy
a reply to: Solvedit

Farsi is modern Iranian speech.

Farsi is Persian for Persian.

Of course it is; Persia became Iran. But contemporary Farsi is a modern language. You can't prove it didn't once share more words with the language which almost all the languages of Europe and West Asia sprang from. Besides, people in the Gospels need not have been from Israel or Persia. And, though you conflated it with it being my whole point, I did prove the word I used was old enough, be it Persian or not.

I did not say the origin of the word was Greek. Didn't read the link, did you? Tut-tut.

Then what does this mean:

In any case the word is not Hebrew. The Gospels were all written in Greek and the source texts were in Aramaic, not Hebrew. Jesus spoke Aramaic.

No scholar would accept your etymological speculations as valid, so neither, I'm afraid, can I. Etymology of ‘Magdalene’

Says the comparative linguist who doesn't even know that Persian and Farsi are one and the same.

Show me where. You want to imply it without having a basis. You're conflating modern Farsi with ancient Persian. It might have been a part of Persian, and the word I cited need not even be a part of ancient Persian. It's definitely old enough even if my speculation of where it's from is wrong.

Perhaps by practicing authentic Christianity, some of the slaves loosened the grip of their masters on their soul and managed to obtain what respect they could in a slavery context.

If you can find a shred of evidence for this bizarre and fabulous idea, do please share. Scholarly journal publication, please, preferably peer-reviewed.

The rest of your post is too incoherent to respond to, and there would be no point in any case. You are beyond the reach of reason and persuasion. Nice talking to you; have a nice thread.

Do you understand that I am positing a spiritual reason for the fall of Rome? You're free to deny it and not believe in it if you like.

Your confusion comes from wanting to dismiss the Gospels as being mainly about economics when, at the same time, this is your attitude:

I am a successful professional myself, despite being quite irreligious. As for 'caring for the health of their souls,' I don't even believe that souls exist.

originally posted by: ADVISOR
What is the fascination people on the left have for fascists and communists?

They're marching through the institutions.

"Communist" is often taken to mean "one who wants to share their mind."

Basically the left today wants to elevate itself by controlling spirituality and making it socially unacceptable not to be participating in "life" which is their word for dating a bunch of people or going to a lot of concerts.

The more of society they control, the more they'll be able to rig things so intelligent people have fewer recourses than to join their system.

The thread has gotten sidetracked into a discussion on religion but I do think it belongs here.

I speculate what some of the ultra-rich may want is to ensure the less profitable parts of the country become more profitable. It is the same to them if it's Kamala or Trump.

If Kamala will win, they may figure they'll be able to get more conscientious, literate work from the inner city.

Or, if left alone under Trump, places where white supremacy has entrenched itself or certain churches have grown corrupt, will continue to build and practice "Antebellum Equity and Inclusion" as a matter of tradition as his administration keeps its hands off.

IMHO one of the worst developments in Civil Rights is the way some minority advocacy seems to have become corrupted by white supremacy and no longer want equal rights. They want their own enclave where their rules fly even if it exists only as quotas on paper.

I am not happy with either side but am toying with the notion of supporting Trump because at least it won't lead to an expansion of places where policies are entrenched which force intelligent people into lives of entertainment so the poor could learn by feel what it's like to be conscientious. I have noticed she bears a resemblance to Meyer Lansky, Alfonse Capone, and Deela from the original "Star Trek" episode "Wink of an Eye."

It's probably mentioned in a lot of songs but one clear example which can be grasped with the sound muted is the video for "Holy Diver" by Ronnie James Dio. The hero walks through a wasteland with ruined churches and encounters an armed leper whom he slays with his sharp sword. Then, he has the sword worked on by a masked figure in a dungeon. The sword is often a symbol of intellect. "Holy Diver, you're the star of the masquerade, no need to look so afraid."

My theory would explain why Barbershop suddenly got popular again in the 1960s. Students may have been obliged to like it.

This is just a guess. I definitely wasn't in Southern California or the 1960s.