Conglomerate of Evil: The Connection between Atheism and Communism

Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism.

– Vladimir Lenin

Religious, as indeed any other, ideas being born out of the soil of the material conditions of life and above all the soil of class contradictions, only gradually clear themselves away and then live on by the force of conservatism longer than the needs that gave birth to them and disappear completely only after the effects of serious social shocks and crises.

– Leon Trotsky

 If I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.

– Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

 

One of the more low-brow treatises I’ve read on philosophy was Phillip Bloom’s A Wicked Company, the equivalent of a survey level course on Enlightenment philosophers. One thing the book does well, is illustrate the personal lives of many ‘great philosophers’ post-Renaissance that are required reading to grasp the roots of today’s zeitgeist. Between bizarre and antisocial sexual proclivities and simply the humanistic approach of ‘eat, drink and desecrate everything,’ one gets a glimpse of the secondary and tertiary effects this belief system creates. Rousseau and the Jacobins attempted to codify this god-less worldview with the expected results. Fast-forward a hundred years and a more coherent political system was born, as the seeds sown during the Enlightenment had begun to bear fruit in European society.

I believe we are seeing a similar trend in the US, particularly among the millennials. I do not bear atheists ill will, in fact I work with more than a few and have generally good relationships with them. Despite that, the honest ones will acknowledge the same, and the very few truly honest ones will admit their answers to most practical questions either come from the dominant culture or religious praxis. The political extension of atheism en masse is a communist nightmare. As atheism expands, it brings with it disturbing and incompatible political and social solutions…just ask the French and Russians.

One of the reasons Jacobins and their intellectual heirs, Marxists, are so antagonistic toward the existence of any higher power, is the implied existence of a higher authority. Particularly in Europe’s case, the Catholic and Protestant churches were implicit that the end, most definitely did not justify the means. If the ultimate good means Holdomore or 90 million odd ‘enemies of the state’ need to be liquidated, then so be it. Within an atheistic moral framework, that is the most ethical thing they could have done. A few must die for the benefit of the many.

One can see this in action on a modern scale with the one child policy in China, and the CRISPR experiments being done on children. Marxism relies on the permission granted by an absence of a higher power to shift the proletariat from unskilled workers and overeducated indigents into people capable of murdering 17,000 of their fellow countrymen by guillotine. If we are genetic cousins with livestock, then it is their duty to butcher those who stand in the way of progress just as much as it is that which stands in the way of a sated appetite.

Similarly, for Communism to work, a tabula rasa must exist among people before they can become acolytes. Devoutly religious people do not become Communists. One of the reasons you see no appreciable Communism in Islamic countries is because there is an incompatible worldview, a major component of which is religious. Contrary to the belief that atheism is a lack of belief in a higher power, in actuality it elevates man to the highest power. That worship of man, the worship of self, requires structure and rites.

It is precisely this reason that the humanist left and it’s varying degrees of communism make much more sense when viewed through the lens of a religion rather than political movements. Rather than baptism or marriage, there is a devotion to abortion and sodomy. Rather than a Pope or an Ecumenical Patriarch, there exists Marx, Clinton, Bezos and Soros. This deification of man politically and socially cannot happen until the field is swept clean of competing beliefs. The Communist Party of China is not atheist by accident. Stalin did not purge Christians by chance. Marx and Engels both recognized that the purging of any and all religion must happen to allow for their replacement of it by atheistic materialism and its natural political state of communism. Just ask Lenin:

A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could.’

The practical application of this is in regards to the people and relationships you cultivate, as well as who you take counsel from. An atheist is not a conservative. The term has been watered down to mean little more than a political ideology, but the roots of conservatism are not political. I will not participate in the Grand Lie and debase myself by calling something that which it is not. At our core, conservatives acknowledge there is a Higher Power that we are accountable and absolute truth exists. Not nonsense about natural law, not some Theory of Everything that man can discover, but actual, literal precepts for life from the Divine. The abandonment by the liberals masquerading as the right today is precisely why no one on the political stage and exceedingly few in the patriot movement can even articulate a sane vision for the future.

Are there atheists that have political overlap with me? Possibly. Yet that is as far as the relationship can go: a surface level. On a deeper level, I simply cannot bring myself to truly trust the judgment of a person with the level of narcissism required to place themselves in the position of the divine…and neither should you.

Spread the love
        1       
1
Share

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author: admin

27 Comments

  1. Warpig February 11, 2019 at 10:48

    Short, concise, well-constructed. By far the best of your work I have read.

    You have to keep an atheist within your sphere of influence if you want to lead him to Christ.

    • Deborah February 12, 2019 at 11:32

      For the atheists/democrats: yes. you must keep talking and keeping them within your sphere of influence so they can see and experience the difference a relationship with Jesus Christ makes. I’ve known an 86 year old life long democrat who sends donations to the national democratic party and reads the “friendly atheist” for years and now reads a Christian Bible and we talk. There is hope and prayers.

  2. Tom February 11, 2019 at 12:12

    One definition of hell is to be separated from God.
    This absolutely made my day. The best you’ve wrote. Thank you and God bless you.

    -bibleater

  3. Derek February 11, 2019 at 12:48

    The vast majority of the atheists that i have met have not been so much atheist but anti-christian. Full of hate for something that happened while they were in the institution of religion that have actually to do with the substance of belief. The type that got upset because they asked God to keep their mom from dying and he did not so therefore there is not God kind of thing.

    I have met very few of what I can call an honest atheist that just do not believe in the existence of God. All the while they acknowledge that for some reason there is something that seems hardwired within us to believe in something greater than ourselves.

  4. Anonymous February 11, 2019 at 12:57

    4

  5. Devin S February 11, 2019 at 19:49

    Jesse, great article, I agree. I wouldn’t necessarily throw out Natural Law as atheist though, I know it’s been used much, but Natural Law could be God created law, which you do see in the Ten Commandments. Even if you claim Natural Law is atheist, you can’t escape when atheists can’t escape when you follow the logic, that is Natural Law originates from morality, which in turn said morality must originate from an external source, aka God. I don’t mean to argue semantics, but I think Natural Law is just God’s law, and by God I mean the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ the KING of Kings and LORD of Lords. But it’s a small contention. ? I hear you about atheists “friends” it is hard to trust them entirely, and I think atheists are liars in that atheism can not ever be true since none of us are omnipresent to know God can’t be found anywhere, agnostic at best. Also they changed the definition of atheism a couple decades ago, the new “lack of belief” version is laughable.

  6. Commander_Zero February 11, 2019 at 20:28

    I suppose that’s one way to look at it. I’d imagine that atheists, same as religious folks, have some that take their beliefs (or non beliefs) to ridiculous levels, and there are some that just don’t see it as being a big deal. Both sides have their rather extreme devotees and zealots. By and large, the majority on each side seem to pretty much just want to be left alone.

  7. Kaycee February 11, 2019 at 21:09

    Clear. Concise. On track. I like it.

    I don’t know what our future holds. It looks bumpy. Soon. And a lot.

    The old order is dying. This is no love lost for my part. I hate it to the center of my soul. As state supremesism and bureaucratism totter at the brink, I honestly think any few dozen of us could do away with it next month. The problem is……… What comes next?

    No good replacement has been built yet. It could be. It ought to have been. It needs to be. It hasn’t. There is, as yet, no consensus on the right, or amonsgst conservatives, or even between believers. As long as the Church is divided between warring parties, as long as husbands and wives and families are split like dry kindling, the left and the state will rule. Forever. And more day by day.

    I think that only a thoroughly renewed and revitalized and moral Christian society will prove to be an improvement on the wreck we’re all watching now.

    Mad Max or 1984…… Or spiritual and moral renewal. Choose.

    • Reasonable Rascal February 11, 2019 at 22:19

      Excellent article, and the response as well.

      “Mad Max or 1984…… Or spiritual and moral renewal. Choose.”

      I am not one for mentally disturbed wasteland outlaws nor dominant pigs up in the big house.

      There is no choice so far as I am concerned. I know where I stand.

  8. rented mule February 11, 2019 at 23:42

    well said.
    I cannot fathom atheism, the existence of the creator seems as obvious to me as the sun in your eyes, the rain on your head, the mud on your boots and the nose on your face. anything else is ego, arrogance, stubbornness and must be rooted in stupidity especially to admit it.

  9. Anonymous February 12, 2019 at 01:08

    3.5

  10. Andy February 12, 2019 at 07:39

    I’m not sure I follow this.

    • Mongoose February 18, 2019 at 21:48

      Andy, if you don’t follow the article, then I encourage you to read and ask lots of questions from people like those on this site. Read, read a lot. It isn’t that difficult but uncluttering your mind from what might already is already there can be a big job.

  11. sam tronk February 12, 2019 at 11:27

    ” in actuality it elevates man to the highest power”

    …and thus allows them to do whatever they want with no repercussions (in their twisted logic).

  12. Anonymous February 12, 2019 at 14:21

    5

  13. ApoloDoc February 12, 2019 at 14:35

    Jesse, thanks for a coherent article that addresses points I have tried to make over the years in various comments. Without God there is no objective standard for morality, and this makes “team” difficult with non-believers. But there is a much greater problem in all of this, that is the clarity of Scripture about the worsening conditions of humanity over time. Go read Paul explaining to Timothy what to expect in the last days! How quickly have we blown past a Biblical understanding of marriage, past same-sex unions (calling it “marriage” does not make it so), and into the current idiocy of “gender” issues?!

    Other articles in my perusal today relate in a very practical sense. I have commented in a couple of places about the issue of properly understood Biblical Christian principles of government, response to aggression, and war. I am clearly not supportive of an idea of Christian pacifism (especially when it springs from poor exegesis of Jesus describing a response to a slap).

  14. ApoloDoc February 12, 2019 at 14:41

    To finish….

    Other articles in my perusal today relate in a very practical sense. I have commented in a couple of places about the issue of properly understood Biblical Christian principles of government, response to aggression, and war. I am clearly not supportive of an idea of Christian pacifism (especially when it springs from poor exegesis of Jesus describing a response to a backhanded slap). Responding to aggression in defense of the innocent is clear in an immediate threat. Taking a step back to a threat, just as serious, but removed somewhat in time and space, how do we respond? At what point are we embarking upon on an evil course by preemptive attacks?

    As I commented elsewhere, it is time to do more reading from the past. As I have grown through reading Puritan theologians, I need to seek out some writings from Christians who were leaders during the revolution and who actually knew and understood Scripture.

    And I finally realized Unseen is broken!

  15. Dan in Ohio February 12, 2019 at 16:19

    I became an Atheist when I had questions that my Christian Preacher(s) could not answer. I think you have the wrong take on this Atheist.

    I’ve been married to the same women over 33 years, raised 4 kids, Honorably discharged Veteran, and a Skilled Tradesman at a local factory. Eagle Scout in my youth. Life Member of the NRA and GOA, Service Rifle competitor.
    I don’t use ANY drugs, including drug alcohol.

    I guess I’m the type of person you “cannot bring myself to truly trust the judgment of a person with the level of narcissism required to place themselves in the position of the divine…and neither should you.”

    I believe I’m in good company with Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, being fellow Atheists.

    Your post sounds like Baptists demonizing Catholics , Or Jews belittling “goyim”.

    Wow. Great way to divide your forces.

  16. Joe. February 13, 2019 at 14:12

    The term and concept of Natural Law, from my understanding, came from Cicero, who stated that Natural Law was God’s law. And that it should be the same in Athens as in Rome and at any place and time.

  17. merlin February 13, 2019 at 19:13

    ” CONGLOMERATE OF EVIL ” should have included islam.

  18. A Freeman February 16, 2019 at 20:31

    Vox Day was stating on a recent podcast how we are now past yet another theory, Neo-darwinism in favor of genetic drift, but even that is already crumbling. Something to remember about those who believe in evolution, they have great faith, and no issues serving their god. Christians are the biggest excuse to not believe in our own faith. Well, the Devil doesn’t waste time tripping his own. I feel we live in great darkness, but thought is shining brighter. Don’t hide your light, oh no.

  19. Deplorable_Teacher February 19, 2019 at 22:54

    “not some nonsense about natural law.”

    Please explain that to me.

    • Jesse James February 20, 2019 at 01:46

      Natural law is an Enlightenment concept designed to rip a Higher Power out of the foundation of law. Bentham, Mills and Austin all adhered to the natural law theory of morality, which if you’ve studied utilitarianism at all says enough. No serious person can at this point agree there is some universal jurisprudence patently obvious to all. If anything there is a banality of evil and lack of human empathy throughout the world that showcases our impressive capacity for murder and devaluation of human life. Law is not an evolutionary construct or some type of invention we stumbled upon like the wheel or airplane. If it is to have any legitimate authority over me, or you, it has to be couched in rightful Authority, or it is just geriatric idiots in black robes directing men with guns to lock people in cages or take their money. Which is precisely where we are now. Thanks to the wonderful godless Enlightenment foundation we based this country on. Speaking as someone who spend half a decade defending natural law theory to adherents of positivism, critical legal theory and law and legal realism, all rest on the presumption that I, as a professional, was equipped to play god with the law. I am not. Neither is Scalia, Posner, or Ginsberg. I do not recognize their moral authority, only the fact that for short time longer I must bide my time until the issue can be properly rectified. Law absent a Law Giver is nonsense, and I’ve lost all ability to pretend to believe in the farcical arguments I made for three years to get a sheepskin with my name on it. I hope this helps. While the response is a tad salty, I do appreciate the question.

      • Deplorable_Teacher February 25, 2019 at 22:43

        I do not believe that comment boards are very friendly to some of us when we ask questions, but while your statement is erudite and polite, what little I know about this is not easily shaken by your fine comment; but what I’ve always understood as the natural law is connected to Jefferson’s “Nature’s God,” which refers to “the creator.”

        http://founding.com/natures-god/.

        Are you proposing a theocracy? This life falls short of the next life, which is a weak summarization of St. Augustine. I mean, Satanic minds long ago found a way to weaken the U.S. Constitution. It seems destined to fail, but why? Natural law? We have lost virtue as a society and even though we think of ourselves as Christians, we may not be living that way. I’m a product of Adam Smith, and I am not sorry about it, but I’ve noticed that my being a Christian is secondary to my concern for self preservation….and I am running out of characters so thanks for replying. I’ll stick around and read.

        • Jesse James February 26, 2019 at 01:30

          While it may seem as if I’m splitting hairs, there is a distinction I believe with what Jefferson was referring to in the Declaration and what the majority of Natural law thinkers/philosophers have put forth. I do believe there is a valid point that Jefferson and others hinted at, that being God’s law is written into the very fabric of nature and human nature (our ‘better angels’). Where I take issue is that this is some type of separate entity than God’s law, rather than it being a feature of it wholly subject to revealed truth. Natural law underwent a ‘reformation’ of sorts away from what Jefferson was saying and toward an evolutionary standpoint of essentially arbitrary laws man came up with because they work pretty good and we can keep large groups of people relatively non-violent and provide stable areas for complex economic structures develop. It’s not punishing evil so much as a proto law and economics jurisprudence with a smattering of Rousseau-esque primitivism. The core of law is that mankind has inherent worth because he is a reflection of the Divine, and he must answer to a Higher Authority for his actions in this life. When that is ripped away you see the degradation of not only society but law and order. It is my firm belief that the Enlightenment was perhaps the single greatest and most successful attack against Western Civilization and Christianity, and will ultimately be successful in the case of the former. History will look back and point to that era as the point when we died as a culture.

          I’m not proposing a theocracy, though I am politically a proponent of a laissez faire monarchy. However I don’t believe failure is an excuse for not attempting to apply absolute truth as closely as possible to a legal system. The Bible is a manual for life, containing relevant principles, very rarely rote instructions for every possible legal situation. The penalty for murder is certainly clear, but what about speeding laws or copyright violations? I think we will always fail at the perfect application of those principles but the principles themselves are generally crystal clear and non-negotiable. The abandonment of that results in no guiding light or baseline to judge the rightness of a thing. That concept is precisely the reason Augustine stated an unjust law is no law at all. Absent absolute truth one cannot even provide a definition of justice.

          My condolences on your affinity for Smith. While a free market is essential, I also blame Smith and Co’s. economic structure for the destruction of the social oligarchy and rise of the economic oligarchy. The latter places a premium on amorality and an utter detachment from your country, state and local community. Profit uber alles is how you get George Soros and the insanity of 2008 indictments. Remember them? Oh wait, there was that junior broker who went to jail while the people who had a lifetime of wealth stolen bailed out the thieves. I was you when it came to economics for a great period of my life, so I don’t expect you to entirely agree. What did open my eyes was reading Marxists. There was very early on a realization that capitalism was an intricate part of implementing communism. Marx recognized the classification of people by strictly economic means destroyed social cohesion, as well as the fact that it was entirely compatible with communism as a political ideology. China is living proof of this fact. A large part of the reason we are seeing the middle class and upper blue collar class entirely disappear in the midwest and whole industries disappear here in the US (steel, textiles ect.) is precisely because we are reaching the end state of capitalism. A small class of sociopaths controlling the economy, and in turn the faux democracy, and acting in financially beneficial but socially and morally disastrous ways to perpetuate their status. Lawmakers don’t stifle innovation, industry giants stifle innovation to protect their market share using political means. Why is it we went to the moon inside of a decade and we are using cars running on 100 year old IC engines? Why did Wal-Mart actually succeed? Who actually benefitted from removing access of any and all small and medium businesses to precursors for things like clothing and shoes. Cui bono? Point being, I’m far from proposing a controlled market, but I do think you’ll find Marxist’s discussions of the role of capitalism enlightening if you haven’t read them. No promises about what you’ll find at the other end of that rabbit hole. Thanks for the comment.

          • Deplorable_Teacher February 26, 2019 at 07:12

            Thanks for the reply. In the 20th century, the Marxist could not succeed in toppling America and the West economically, so they went to war with the culture and all of our institutions, which has now set them up for the kill shot. As to the rest of what you wrote, I can’t say that I disagree. Please recommend three books, in addition to the Bible.

  20. Anonymous April 2, 2019 at 07:00

    4.5

Comments are closed.

GUNS N GEAR

Categories

Archives

Spread the love
        1       
1
Share