The Age of Normalized Abnormality: The Deconstruction of Civilization
By: H. David Sauls
“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.”
-Saint Anthony the Great
A female Episcopal priest “reconciling” her religious beliefs in order to support abortion rights. A lesbian Methodist minister calling Christ a bigot. The Boy Scouts of America capitulating to the Feminist Arm of Cultural Marxism and extending its membership to girls. All within the span of two weeks.
Mass, socio-psychopathic illness, or deliberate delusion? It is only honest and fair that I acknowledge that I battle with my own personal, moral compromises and demons (and I ask your forgiveness and prayers), but it is the external, blatant, public, and marketed delusions such as those articulated above and below that I wish to attack. These social engineers and their artificial realities admit no wrong and proceed to “reconcile” conditions that, by the laws of moral physics, cannot be reconciled. Their intention is to make them socially acceptable, and slowly introduce them into society as gentle and acceptable modernist reforms.
(Aside: At the very least, in admitting to my own private demons and “compromises”, my hypocrisy is contained to myself, and has no intention of presenting itself as a social condition that is acceptable, unlike the intentions of these overt presentments and deliberate distortions; where I strive to correct my inconsistencies, they strive to both justify and assert theirs as acceptable or unavoidable.)
In the age of the Internet, Facebook, and since the inception of the twenty-four-hour news cycle, society has opened the door to the expression of subjective ideas regarding social structure, gender, and boundaries, and used itself as a bench test, a laboratory, and a launching ground for artificial forms of existence that are contrary to nature. And notice of this contrariness reveals that it opposes as much the atheist as it does the Christian, Muslim, or otherwise. All of these cultural forms acknowledge a natural order and accede to it in their theologies. The current trends in social constructs are weakening the basic tenets that all of these share in common, which centers around, when the theology is removed, an order that occurs, is testable, provable, and is undisputed. Yet they distort it to frame an argument.
These same trend-setters in social modification, who declare that there are regions of human existence of which are not aware and should discover, or that we can “create”, scream bloody murder that mankind is affecting the natural order; something they resist acknowledging in their social ideology, yet use when they make the climate change or global warming argument. The first inconsistency to notice is their endorsement of extra-gender existence while at the same time blaming man for disturbing the environment and blaming man-made elements and emissions for the change in that order. Even they acknowledge the existence of a natural order.
But, wouldn’t their artificially created ideas pose a smiliar threat to the social environment?
These modernist compromises, heresies, and reforms are to society what those who impose them claim greenhouse gasses are to the environment.
“In her new book “Pro-Choice and Christian: Reconciling Faith, Politics, and Justice,” [Episcopal Priest Kira] Schlesinger criticizes churches that “shame” and stigmatize women who abort their unborn babies. She said church congregations should have more open conversations about abortion, and support women who have them.”
Episcopal Priest Kira Schlesinger
In order to understand how these ideologies are inserted as “honest” into the public conversation, how they quietly and slowly assert themselves as an acceptable concession, one must examine the grammar and syntax executed in their diction. Suggesting that “congregations should have a more open conversation” is the subtle language of brainwashing, of softening a message, of panhandling for sympathies. Gentle words that on the surface, bear no threat to the reader. “Okay, I’ll listen…” is the first temptation, and slowly, over time, if repeated enough, coalesces into moral compromise.
By choosing her words carefully and “considerately”, she lulls the reader into the polite seat of audience “participation”. She is inclusive, seemingly accommodating as she concedes something as the lesser of two evils, giving tolerance of her view a subconscious foothold, tempting the reader into both arguing with and considering her point of view, creating confusion. It appears as a safe and docile conversation. She has already presented us with a victim for whom to have sympathy, but it is noted that the circumstances that created the victim are wholly omitted. We are then challenged to “support” the victim, skipping any mitigating circumstances whatsoever. By the time the word “support” is used, the reader has been led to the next point, and overlooked the primary, moral features of unwanted pregnancies: the responsibility of the mother to the child, and the rights of the unborn child. In two swift and subtle strokes, the importance of the institution of motherhood has been made irrelevant, and the child relegated to exist as a non-participant. (Others will argue that the primary feature is the mother alone, and that the child is irrelevant.) Two things are accomplished here: the institutions of marriage and family are weakened, and responsibility discarded as a mere inconvenience, granting license to free-ranging amorality as a public feature.
Ironically, they would argue that the child is a non-participant, because in the evolutionary natural order, at this stage of development, an embryo is non-sentient, and therefore it bears no rights in and of itself. Yet they must acknowledge the existence of a natural order to make that argument. An order they in the next breath, ignore by asserting the existence of social constructs, declaring that gender is determined socially, not biologically according to a natural order. This is designed to deny that natural order determines the gender in order to suit their gender argument, in which, they must use an entirely opposite mode of argument to prove itself: gender as a matter of environmental influences or even opinion. They will cite numerous, scientifically-psychologically complex articles and studies to prove that gender is socially constructed. Others, trying to be orthodox in their tactics, cite complex biological “evidence” that supports the existence of a chemical abnormality that causes gender dysphoria. These assertions attempt to support the same idea, yet lack unanimity of any sort, except that natural order, appears to exist only where it conveniently serves a particular view.
Jump to a lesbian, Methodist Bishop, Dr. Karen Oliveto:
“As one person put it: ‘Jesus wasn’t a know-it-all, he was also learning God’s will like any human being and finally he changed his mind…if Jesus didn’t have to know it all innately, but rather could grow into new and deeper understanding through an openness to God’s people [even those he formerly discounted], maybe if Jesus could change his mind then maybe so can we!…
“If Jesus can change, if he can give up his bigotries and prejudices, if he can realize that he had made his life too small, and if, in this realization, he grew closer to others and closer to God, than so can we.”
Dr. Karen Oliveto
Apparently, in the Methodist seminaries, they have discarded the Trinitarian Formula altogether. The grammar and syntax here are designed to quietly deny Christ as Logos, to strip Him of His Divinity, and relegate Him to a blasphemous level of existence as anything but the Son of the Living God. “He was just like you and me, trying to make sense of things.” Pardon, no. This blatant heresy, but accomplishes the same objective as our friend, Tennessee Episcopal Priest Kira Schlesinger does in her abortion apology.
While one can understand the overwhelming odds BSA leadership (Randall L. Stephenson, President) faces in the next battle, against artificial ideologies overwhelming its very premise, when the odds are this clear in battle, the captain of the ship knows to set the scuttling charges in order to keep his ship out of enemy hands. That enemy is Cultural Marxism. It is present in all three cases and has infected the American psyche even more nefariously than Nazism and fascism did in the German psyche under the Third Reich.
“The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.”
Max Horkheimer, Marxist Theoretician
Cultural Marxists devised a formula to assert their philosophy covertly; by invading the institutions from within. They termed it “The long march through the institutions (Alfred Willi Rudolf “Rudi” Dutschke, student activist, Germany, 1960’s, describing his strategy for establishing the conditions for revolution: subverting society by infiltrating institutions such as the professions [and churches, schools, organizations, etc.]. The phrase “long march” is a reference to the prolonged struggle of the Chinese communists, which included a physical Long March of their army across China.).
It would behoove everyone to learn and understand what Cultural Marxism is. No doubt most have never heard of it. And it exists in the extremes, median, and mean of all political parties, and now, religions and atheist views. It is by design, intended to deconstruct democracies, traditions, and institutions slowly, using a slow-drip method of injecting socialist, nihilist beliefs into a society by creating false sympathies and victims (one method). These false sympathies and victims allow for the slow expansion of natural boundaries contrary to the natural social order established (by God if you are a believer, by Nature if you are an atheist) and extending boundaries favorable to Critical Theory; a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it (source uncited).
By creating “victims”, they are able to dramatize a non-existent problem into existence (using mass and social media), cast the “victims” as persecuted (or excluded) persons, attach or detach responsibility to or from the institution they mean to deconstruct, and proceed to erect a socialist framework in its place. This has been their aim since the European interwar period (1918–39). Critical of capitalism and Marxism–Leninism as philosophically inflexible systems, the School’s critical theory research indicated alternative paths to realizing the social development of a nation.
“Alternative” paths include the outcome of the attached article. It is entirely probable that they have achieved this objective, and that those who carried it out have never even heard of Cultural Marxism.
That is the key to their success; the anonymous conquest of a society using the very members of that society itself to conquer itself.
 Episcopal Priest Kira Schlesinger; Pro-Choice and Christian: Reconciling Faith, Politics, and Justice. Westminster and John Knox Press, Louisville Kentucky. 2017
 Pulpit and Pen. Published September 30, 2017, ·Updated September 30, 2017 [Dr. Karen Oliveto quote]
 Dalton, Russell (1987), “Generational Change in Elite Political Beliefs: The Growth of Ideological Polarization”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 49 (4): 976–997, doi:10.2307/2130780
 Held, David (1980). Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. University of California Press, p. 14.