There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. —Soren Kierkegaard. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are considered a more inclusive alternative to the classical scientific method, which is being removed from curricula.
“What we’ve effectively done is handed over a curriculum to the people on the left here, and they have just indoctrinated. Twelve thousand hours hours is about the amount of time a kid spends in school,” John Droz told The Gateway Pundit in an interview.
Droz is a physicist who retired from regular employment at age 34 and has been involved in education for more than 20 years. He applies his skills of scientific inquiry to analyze how the K-12 education system has gone wrong, both in failing students academically and in indoctrinating them into Marxism. In 2012, he spoke on the subject before the U.S. House of Representatives Science and Technology Committee.
“They’re indoctrinated with left-leaning ideology, whether it’s in history, whether it’s in mathematics, whether it’s in English, but particularly in science,” he said, explaining that he believes the ideology has come to dominate not only the social sciences but even the hard sciences and mathematics. He described the current curriculum as teaching liberal ideology that is anti-American and anti-science.
The greatest defense against any ideology is reason, but Droz argues that children are no longer being taught to reason. In fact, the traditional “Scientific Method” (the linear five- to seven-step process often found on classroom posters) is being replaced in many states by a framework called the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Proponents of the NGSS argue that the new “Practices” approach is more inclusive. They believe that by focusing on how students’ own observations and cultural backgrounds relate to science, rather than memorizing a Western-standardized five-step list, they can better engage students from diverse backgrounds.
There is a substantial body of literature coming out of Harvard and other top universities on the concept of scientific racism, which NGSS is meant to counter. Proponents argue that the classical five-step scientific method acts as a “filter.” They claim it prioritizes a specific Western, linear way of documenting results and often ignores Indigenous knowledge or communal observation styles.
They further argue that because it is rooted in a historical tradition associated with the Enlightenment, it can make students from other cultures feel like “guests” in a house they did not build. Some also describe the traditional “Scientific Method” as a “dumbed-down” version of reality.
The formal scientific method dates back approximately 400 to 500 years and has been used in the construction and development of major inventions and innovations, from the steam engine to the moon landing to toaster pastries and Starlink. If it were merely a “dumbed-down” version of something superior, it is reasonable to argue that this would have been demonstrated by now.
Droz refers to NGSS as “Not Good Science.” In reviewing available materials, I was unable to identify a specific invention or innovation developed using NGSS as a methodological framework. No satellite has ever been launched based on inclusion.
He explained that around 2010 a group drafted two documents: the NGSS, which outlined science standards for each grade level, and a 400-page companion document called the Framework, which provided explanations. The Framework introduced “Three-Dimensional Learning” and emphasized a shift toward “Practices.” Inclusion and diversity are discussed in Chapter 11.
Teams consisting of a scientist from the National Academy of Sciences, a representative from an organization called Achieve, and a teacher affiliated with the National Science Teachers Association presented these standards to state boards of education. As of today, 48 states and the District of Columbia have adopted standards based on A Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council 2012).
A 2013 report by the Fordham Institute evaluated the science standards of all 50 states and assigned grades. Fordham rated the NGSS a C and ranked it 23rd among the 50 standards evaluated. Among the criticisms voiced by the Fordham Institute was: “The NGSS’s focus on ‘practices,’ on what students do, too often comes at the expense of what students know… The standards frequently fail to integrate the mathematics that is essential to any serious study of physics and chemistry.” Despite this evaluation, 20 states had standards rated higher than the NGSS but adopted the NGSS anyway.
In conclusion, Droz said that the problems in K-12 education will not be fixed unless someone addresses them. “The universities get most of the attention, and I think a lot of people are overlooking the fact that the schools are the real problem.”
Children are in school all day, five days a week, nine months per year, for twelve years. “We have approximately 4 million graduates a year,” Droz said, arguing that what the left has arranged is that “these people who are graduating are, number one, instilled with a whole extensive amount of Marxist ideology, and number two, they’ve been trained to be non-thinkers, so we have unthinking progressives.”
He said that shortly after graduation, they become voters. “If you just look at the statistics and say, let’s say if we’re adding 3 million Marxist, non-thinking Marxist voters to the voting rolls every year, what are the implications of that to America?”
Jesse Kelly of “The First” talked about the left and how they are always using ops to push forward their communist agenda.
He explained that one of the most important ways they push the communist revolution is by importing as many foreigners as possible. They are losing the battle since the border is closed and President Trump is trying to deport illegals.
So, what to do? They use ops, which include using your own values against you. It’s not that these communists care about anyone, but they know they can try to manipulate good-natured people by pretending to care. Kelly explained that we should not fall for these tactics.
“They are at war. You may not be. You may not want to be. I certainly don’t want to be,” Kelly said.
“They are at war, and in all war, all forms of it, no matter what form it takes, you conduct operations. You plan and plot an operation,” Kelly continued.
“In propaganda wars, political wars. Maybe you have or think you have identified a weakness in the enemy, and you are going to try and exploit that weakness,” Kelly explained.
“There is an op going on right now against the right, against the Trump administration,” Kelly said.
“Republicans are participating in it, knowingly? Probably. Some of them unknowingly, just stupid and naive people, also that’s a probability,” Kelly said.
“So, what is the op going on?” Kelly asked.
“The mass importation of foreigners is the central pillar of the communist revolution in western civilization,” Kelly said.
“Without it, if we stop this importation and deport the barbarians, they cannot possibly win. The communist revolution fails,” Kelly continued.
“Therefore, the deportation of foreigners done currently by the Trump administration has the communist revolution, not just in America, across the globe; it has them mortally, mortally afraid,” Kelly said.
“In their minds, we are going after their everything. That’s why they are fighting the way they are fighting,” Kelly explained.
“They keep running into snags, you see. The American people, in poll after poll, after poll, after poll, continue to say that they want the mass deportation of foreigners,” Kelly said.
“So, what to do, what to do if you are a communist and you are losing that propaganda campaign?” Kelly asked.
“Well, you organize, train, and send out your street animals to get right in the face of ICE,” Kelly said.
“Of course, that is going to end up in bad things happening on camera. We have two dead, communist street animals in recent weeks,” Kelly continued.
“The Trump administration chose to send in Tom Homan and sideline Kristi Noem. I understand why they did it. They are worried about image,” Kelly explained.
“The problem with doing that is the communists interpret that as weakness,” Kelly said.
“This is why they are all over Kristi Noem,” Kelly explained.
He showed a clip of Rep Hakeem Jeffries on MS Now trashing Kristi Noem.
“We have to recognize ops, and we have to choose. You and I have to make a choice to not participate in the op. What’s the Democrat plan? Get Republicans on board,” Kelly continued.
I finished my last essay on American Marxism with the following paragraph:
Marxism via Stalin and Mao killed millions of human beings during the twentieth century, and Marxist Pol Pot in Cambodia systematically murdered about three million of his own people (a quarter of all Cambodians) from 1976 to 1978. Anyone considered an intellectual was targeted for special treatment. Teachers, lawyers, doctors, and clergy were put to death. Pol Pot’s regime of terror even murdered people wearing glasses! One might think that a system so unthinkable would never enter the American system. For the moment, America’s Marxism conceals itself and is generally accepted in its subtle form: Wokism, which I will discuss in my next essay.
As I shuffled around in my endless collection of dossiers, I found a text that dealt with wokism that I had already published, entitled “Wokism: The New Pagan Morality.”[1]
A Post-Christian Culture
We now live in an increasingly post-Christian society. In his book America’s Cultural Revolution: How the Left Conquered Everything,[3] the brilliant young cultural analyst Christopher Rufo traces the origins of CRT/Wokism, showing how America has been quietly taken over by the ideological heirs of 1960s radical neo-Marxists.[4] In his groundbreaking research of contemporary Western culture, Rufo discovered a “hideous face of revolution” that is “a rot spreading through American life. The country’s foundations are starting to shake loose.” If this is true, we all need to know about it.
America is easily seduced by false notions of reality. One recent study found that the median number of people in a Christian congregation in America in 2023 is 60—less than half of what it was twenty years ago, when the number was 137. This steep decline has been called the “Great De-churching” of America.[5] Any respect for or worship of the Creator-Redeemer God is virtually absent.[6]
People cannot live without morals, since God created an ethical universe. Those who reject God’s moral order are now busy normalizing LGBTQ ideology, eliminating the nuclear family, and living according to the moral norms of neo-Marxist wokism. Marxism is thoroughly anti-Christian, denying the being of God and seeing matter as ultimate. It worships the creature rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:25).
Marx had a close friendship with the radical New Testament scholar Bruno Bauer, who claimed that the Christian Gospels were forgeries. Marx himself believed it was necessary to “recognize as the highest divinity the human self-consciousness itself,”[7] thereby dismissing God. Today’s Critical Race Theory is a modern form of atheism derived from Marxism, as we shall show. CRT embraces postmodern “truth,” which does not come from God but is instead an expression of human power.
Many—even Christians[8]—are abandoning their personal faith in the God of Scripture and seeking a new source of morality. Wokism’s false morality plays skillfully on the sensitive conscience of young Americans.
The Marxist Framework of Oppression
White supremacy theory argues, in classic Marxist fashion, that society is always divided into oppressors and the oppressed. In today’s framework, whites are cast as oppressors, and minorities—particularly Blacks, women, illegal aliens, and LGBTQ groups—are cast as the oppressed. Biblical morality is therefore viewed as oppressive, especially its standards of sexual behavior.
As noted in my previous article, Stanley Ridgley has done excellent research on the semi-religious movement of wokism in his book Brutal Minds (2023).[9] The subtitle describes his findings well: The Dark World of Left-Wing Brainwashing in Our Universities. Ridgley documents a deliberate effort by university administrators not only to undermine classical academic thinking, but also to instill a profound sense of ideological—and quasi-religious—guilt.
I have often wondered why the history of the West, and of America in particular, is no longer taught in American universities. Jesse Jackson’s 1987 rallying cry at Stanford University comes to mind: “Hey ho, what d’ya know, Western civ has got to go.” We now see that, indeed, it did.
Wokism as Cultural Control
Wokism is a progressive political program that has infiltrated American culture—government administrations, corporations, and educational institutions—where DEI (“diversity, equity, and inclusion”) officers are empowered to “cancel” anyone who does not comply with the new rules. This “hideous system,” to use Rufo’s term, is dangerous precisely because it presents itself as virtuous, claiming to seek social justice and oppose racism.
Cultural analysts trace its roots to the Sixties Cultural Revolution. Rufo explains that when violent revolutionary movements such as the Black Panthers failed, radical intellectuals turned instead to ideological transformation. They abandoned street violence in favor of “a long march through the institutions,” making cultural revolution a philosophical project developed within universities and bureaucracies.
This strategy originated with the Frankfurt School—German Jewish Marxists who fled Hitler’s Germany and relocated to Columbia University. One of them, Herbert Marcuse, later moved to the West Coast and became highly influential among radical students. Marcuse and Marxist activist Rudi Dutschke (who coined the phrase “the long march through the institutions”) were collaborating as early as 1966. In 1971, Marcuse wrote approvingly to Dutschke:
“Let me tell you this: that I regard your notion of the ‘long march through the institutions’ as the only effective way.”[10]
Marcuse predicted that if Western society could be liberated from capitalist repression, its moral and religious foundations would collapse. Rather than a dictatorship of the proletariat, he proposed “a dictatorship of the intellectuals.” This neo-Marxism is the intellectual foundation of Critical Race Theory.
Marcuse also provided the theoretical basis for modern “cancel culture.” Long before the term existed, he defended “repressive tolerance”—the suppression of dissenting ideas in favor of progressive ones. Liberalism, once rooted in free speech, has lost its footing. As one observer noted, by the 2020s it had become “a marginal belief held by a few college professors at odds with society.”[11]
Marcuse reframed the Marxist revolution around race rather than class, thus transforming racism into a revolutionary ideology. As Rufo documents, this movement has reshaped language, law, and historical interpretation, gaining control of institutions and redefining public orthodoxy.
Race as a Marxist Weapon
Almost by accident, I came across a little-known fact crucial to understanding the modern attacks on white supremacy, white privilege, and white anger.[12] The accusation of racism as a political weapon is not new.
Its origin was documented by African-American eyewitness Manning Johnson in Color, Communism and Common Sense (1958).[13] Johnson described a deliberate effort by Soviet and American communists in the 1930s to undermine American institutions by portraying the nation as irredeemably racist. The goal was to create “a common front against the white oppressors.”
Johnson revealed that Stalin himself devised the strategy in 1928 to use “Negroes as the spearhead” for revolutionary agitation. American communist leaders cynically promoted racial conflict as a “cold-blooded struggle for power.”[14] The objective was simple: make “the white man’s system” responsible for everything.[15]
“Smear is a cardinal technique,” Johnson wrote. “Black rebellion was what Moscow wanted. Bloody racial conflict would split America.”[16]
Ironically, Marxists themselves showed little regard for Black people. Walter Williams noted that Marx dismissed Blacks as closer to the animal kingdom.[17] Robert Robinson, a Black American who lived forty-four years in the Soviet Union, testified that Soviet anti-racism was one of the greatest propaganda myths ever created.[18]
Neo-Marxism Today
Marcuse argued that racial conflict was the new axis of revolution. He rejected free speech and free assembly as dangers to revolutionary justice and promoted “liberating tolerance”—intolerance toward the political Right. Today’s revolution is no longer based on class and economics but on identity and race. Whiteness is portrayed as inherently guilty, while minority identities are defined primarily by oppression.
According to Marti Gurri, “nothing like the woke DEI ideology has transpired since the conversion of Constantine.” Nearly every major American institution—government,[19] universities, corporations, media, and the military—has adopted DEI ideology. Employees can be fired for challenging its definitions. We see the early formation of a soft fascism uniting state, media, and corporate power.
The failed Disinformation Governance Board demonstrated how close we came to institutionalized speech control. Though premature, such efforts may return.
Angela Davis praised Marcuse as the intellectual leader of the New Left and declared: “We cannot combat racism until we have destroyed the whole system.” This explicitly ties wokist racism to Marxism.
Objective Christian Reality
Political control of speech and behavior marks a critical stage in the advance of cultural Marxism. Though Rufo does not directly address theology, he warns that abandoning Christian morality and constitutional liberalism risks a Weimar-like collapse.[20] To sum up, wokism is the invention of Sixties Western neo-Marxists to undermine American history, especially its Christian elements, by dismissing them as “racist.”
Human beings cannot survive without God’s law. Christians are therefore called to proclaim God as both Creator and Redeemer, as Paul declares in 2 Corinthians 4:6:
For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Though the future may appear bleak, God’s creation still testifies to His glory. Those drawn to the Creator may yet be drawn to the Redeemer, who welcomes all who place their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Footnotes
[1] Jones, Peter, Wokism: The New Pagan Morality, https://truthxchange.com/?s=Wokism
[2] Bond, Paul, Newsweek, “Has Hamas Hastened the Demise of ‘Woke’” (Nov 6, 2023).
[3] Rufo, Christopher, America’s Cultural Revolution: How the Left Conquered Everything (Broadside Books, 2023).
[4] Page references in brackets refer to Rufo’s book.
[5] Henrickson, Charles, “Christ Will Build His Church” (Sermon, Oct 29, 2023).
[6] Doyle, Rob, UnHerd, Aug 2023.
[7] Skousen, W. Cleon, The Naked Communist (2017), 40.
[8] Miles, Lucas, Woke Jesus (2023); Robles, A.D., Social Justice Pharisees (2022).
[9] Ridgley, Stanley, Brutal Minds (2023), x.
[10] Marcuse, Herbert, Collected Papers, vol. 6, 336.
[11] FrontPageMag, “The University States of America.”
[12] Collins & Jun, White Out (2017), 72–73.
[13] Johnson, Manning, Color, Communism and Common Sense (1958).
[14] Johnson, ibid., 37.
[15] Johnson, ibid., 44–54.
[16] Hippolito, Joseph, FrontPageMag, Sep 24, 2020.
[17] News-Herald, Aug 16, 2020.
[18] FrontPageMag, Feb 2021.
[19] RealClearInvestigations, Feb 14, 2023.
[20] Rufo, Christopher, Substack (Oct 21, 2023).
Jesse Kelly of “The First” talked earlier this week about how the Democrat Party has become basically a criminal organization. He explained that they don’t exist as a viable party anymore, but survive through criminal actions, including election fraud, mass importing of illegals, and financial fraud.
Kelly also explained the structure of their operations. The elite communists who have wealth and positions of power use their influence to recruit, train and essentially brainwash people to go into the streets to riot for their revolution. He went on to explain that they find people who are already troubled and feed them with propaganda and give them the tools necessary to go out and become agitators.
“ICE has been surging into Minnesota right now. Minneapolis, other parts of Minnesota. Why? Well, the Somali fraud ring has been exposed. Minnesota is one of these sanctuary, communist run states where foreign barbarians go there and pillage the American taxpayer,” Kelly said.
“They are going to go into these sanctuary places, and they are going to grab people who should not be in this country. They are going to arrest them, and they are going to send them away, as every country should,” Kelly said.
“The Democrat Party in this country, ceases to exist as a viable, political party without taxpayer money. They find a way to swindle it. Without the mass importation of foreign barbarians, and without election fraud,” Kelly said.
“When you understand that, you understand why they fight so hard to keep foreign barbarians here. It could be confusing for normal people,” Kelly continued.
“Why would they organize these protests and these riots. You don’t understand. Their entire existence disappears without the mass importation of foreign barbarians who will be given taxpayer money in various ways and then will vote for Democrats in various ways,” Kelly warned.
“So, ICE surges into Minneapolis, surges into Minnesota. They start scarfing up foreigners. What happens? Here’s what happens,” Kelly said.
“They want to cause disruptions. They want to cause all kinds of disorder out there, but they are of course not going to get their manicured fingers dirty. That’s the elite communists,” Kelly said.
“The street communists. It’s their job to get their fingers dirty. Street communists are generally the true believers almost always broken, miserable, pill addicted criminals,” Kelly said.
“They give them training. They give them equipment. They break their minds with relentless propaganda, and then they send them out like an army to fight for the revolution,” Kelly explained.
Kelly responded to those who send him death threats and explained to them that the people who send them out to fight for the revolution do not care about them.
“You should understand that they don’t care about you. That woman who was just sent out to die today. She died. That revolutionary. You know they will send you tomorrow. And then your daughter the next day, and your son the next day after that, and the people who are breaking your mind and your soul as you consume it on social media and you read New York Times and none of those people will lose a minute of sleep when you die for their cause,” Kelly explained.
Bill Maher recently shared his less-than-optimistic view about the future of the Democrat party, especially following the win of radical socialist Zohran Mamdani as Mayor-elect in New York City. Maher likened the Democrat brand to Kodak, Polaroid, Radio Shack, GE, Atari, RCA, and other brands that have slipped into obscurity or have disappeared altogether.
NYC voters, especially young, white women, voted in droves for Mamdani, many fully embracing his socialist plans for the Big Apple. Maher warns, however, that socialism isn’t quite the utopian fantasy spoiled middle-class hipsters think it is.
During a recent episode of his show, Maher shared a brief history lesson on the realities of socialism.
“Democrats must recognize that Zoran Mamdani is the future of the party.”
“Unfortunately, it’s the Republican Party.”
“We’ve run this experiment many times, and the results are always obvious.”
“Here’s capitalist South Korea at night from space.”
South Korea at night./Video screenshot/Bill Maher Show
“Here’s socialist North Korea.”
North Korea at night/Video screenshot/Bill Maher Show
“Yeah.”
“In 1990, Venezuela was wealthier than Poland. But then Poland, finally free of Soviet-style economics, went all in on capitalism. and now their economy is as big as Japan. And people there have high wages, low inflation, cars, vacations, homes.”
“Meanwhile, Venezuela traded capitalism for Hugo Chávez’s Socialism for the 21st Century, which turned out to be like socialism in the last century or any century, a fu**ing mess.”
“It turned one of Latin America’s richest countries into one of its poorest. Low wages, high inflation, shortages, outages, and 8 million people fleeing.”
“If you think New York can somehow reinvent this wheel, you’re in for a rude awokening.
Socialism fails due to lack of incentives, centralized control, and suppression of innovation.
Historical examples show that socialist systems often lead to economic collapse, shortages, and authoritarianism.
In contrast, capitalism promotes economic freedom, innovation, and higher living standards.
Real-world outcomes demonstrate that capitalist nations experience prosperity, while socialist nations face failures.
Critics argue that socialism misinterprets human nature and undermines personal freedom, leading to a cycle of poverty and dependence.
Estimated reading time: 8 minutes
‘The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.’Margaret Thatcher
Socialism is simple: It Does Not Work. In short, socialism is communism dressed up to go to church. Every country that tried socialism failed. It sounds good and appeals to the Santa Claus in us all. However, when pure historical and logical economic theory is applied to socialism, it has been tried and found wanting. It may get votes but not economic growth.
Free market economics works. Hands down. Logic, history, and capitalism speaks for itself.
Real socialism is unicorns and rainbows. Gumdrops. Denmark used to be the common example but they had an economic collapse and elected a right wing government. The Danish prime minster, in 2015 at the Kennedy School of Government said, “I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some kind of socialism. I would like to make one thing clear, Denmark is a market economy.”
Historian Lee Edwards, Ph.D., states, “What most millennials mean by ‘socialism’ seems to be a mix of our welfare state and what they perceive to be Swedish democratic socialism. Bernie Sanders often used Sweden as the prime economic example. But Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries, including Denmark, favor the free market and are content with private rather than government ownership of their major industries.”
Current progressive politicians such as AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), New York’s newly elected mayor, Zohran Kwame Mamdani, and Bernie Sanders among others advocate for a American shift to socialism. They say capitalism has failed and the “rich keep getting richer.”
Here are ten key reasons — historical, economic, and practical — often cited by economists, historians, and political philosophers to explain why socialism has consistently failed when implemented at scale:
1. Lack of Incentive and Productivity
Without personal or financial incentives, individuals and businesses have little motivation to innovate, work harder, or improve efficiency. In systems where everyone earns roughly the same regardless of effort, productivity declines and mediocrity becomes the norm.
2. Centralized Economic Control
Socialist systems rely on centralized planning rather than market signals. Because no small group can accurately predict or manage the needs of millions of people, this leads to misallocation of resources, shortages of essentials, and surpluses of unwanted goods.
3. Suppression of Innovation
Innovation thrives on competition and risk-taking — both discouraged in socialist economies. Without private ownership or the chance for personal gain, technological and entrepreneurial advancement stagnates.
4. Economic Inefficiency
In socialism, government-run industries lack the feedback mechanisms (like profit and loss) that guide efficient decision-making. As a result, waste, corruption, and bureaucratic bloat increase dramatically.
5. Political Corruption and Authoritarianism
Because socialism concentrates economic power in the state, it inevitably concentrates political power as well. History shows this tends to breed corruption, coercion, and authoritarian regimes (e.g., USSR, Mao’s China, Venezuela).
6. Loss of Personal Freedom
In socialist societies, the government dictates where resources go, what industries can produce, and often what individuals can buy or sell. This economic control spills into personal life, eroding civil liberties and freedom of choice.
7. Misunderstanding of Human Nature
Socialism assumes that people will work equally hard for collective welfare as they do for personal benefit. In reality, humans respond to incentives — and when those incentives vanish, effort and accountability diminish.
The greatest fallacy of Marx’s anthropology lies in his view of human nature, namely, that socioeconomic conditions and not man himself are the cause of “evil.” Marx argues from general to specific rather than from specific to general. He seems to think that economics came before man rather than man before economics. Since man created the initial socioeconomic conditions, an attempt to change these conditions leads simply to a chaotic circle. In short, Marx attempts to solve a human cause with a socioeconomic symptom. Socioeconomic “solutions” does not deal with mankind’s key issue: sin. Redemption, not socialism is the critical solution. No economic model solves the problem of a bent human natures corrupted by sin.
It is precisely “the Eden of Communism without forbidden fruit” that renders it an unworthy and inaccurate anthropology. To deny sin leaves one of four options: (1) rationalization of internal, human wickedness, which leads to superficial solutions through “social means”; (2) the creation of a relative morality that allows the ends to justify the means, thus “defining” away sin and ethical absolutes; (3) total antinomianism, which leads to societal chaos and eventual elimination of law, order, and society; and (4) a “Christianity without tears” attempt at a utopian society (e.g., Huxley’s, Brave New World).
Improving the human environment does not improve the inner human—it merely improves the surroundings in which he or she lives.
8. Unsustainable Redistribution
Redistributing wealth might temporarily reduce inequality, but it also discourages wealth creation. When productive individuals and businesses are heavily taxed, investment and entrepreneurship decline, shrinking the overall economy.
9. Shortages and Decline in Living Standards
From food lines in the Soviet Union to empty grocery shelves in modern Venezuela, socialist economies frequently fail to provide basic goods. Price controls and production quotas destroy the balance between supply and demand.
10. Historical Track Record of Collapse
No major socialist experiment — from the USSR to Cuba, North Korea, or Venezuela — has succeeded in sustaining both prosperity and liberty. They tend to begin with promises of equality and end in economic ruin, repression, and social despair.
Insert Capitalism: Let’s Compare…
Before the modern term, “capitalism” existed, there was free enterprise. Economies for centuries operated on the supply, demand, and the free flow of goods and services needed to meet mankind’s needs. It worked and created strong economic growth across all cultures and geographies.
Here’s a clear, side-by-side contrast showing why capitalism has succeeded where socialism has failed, both in economic performance and human freedom.
1. Core Principle
Capitalism: Based on private ownership and voluntary exchange. Individuals are free to pursue their own economic interests. ➤ Incentives align effort with reward.
Socialism: Based on collective ownership of production, typically managed by the state. ➤ Seeks equality by removing profit motive—but also removes incentive.
2. Economic Efficiency
Capitalism: Uses market prices to signal supply and demand. Businesses must stay efficient to survive. ➤ Competition drives innovation and lower costs.
Socialism: Relies on central planning and government quotas. ➤ Bureaucracy replaces the market, leading to waste, shortages, and misallocation.
3. Innovation and Progress
Capitalism: Encourages innovation through reward. Entrepreneurs, investors, and inventors benefit from risk-taking. ➤ Result: rapid technological progress (e.g., smartphones, medicine, AI).
Socialism: Stifles creativity by eliminating ownership and profit potential. ➤ Result: stagnation and outdated technology in state-run economies.
4. Standard of Living
Capitalism: Historically produces the highest standards of living and greatest wealth creation in human history (U.S., Western Europe, Japan, South Korea). ➤ Poverty declines when markets are open.
Socialism: Creates chronic shortages and declining living conditions (USSR, Venezuela, Cuba). ➤ “Equality in misery” replaces prosperity.
5. Freedom and Choice
Capitalism: Economic freedom reinforces political freedom. You choose where to work, what to buy, how to live. ➤ Decentralized decision-making = personal liberty.
Socialism: Centralized power leads to state control over the economy—and eventually over speech, travel, and belief. ➤ Economic dependence breeds political dependence.
6. Human Nature and Motivation
Capitalism: Works with human nature—self-interest can benefit others through trade and innovation. ➤ “Greed, rightly directed, serves the common good.”
Socialism: Attempts to override human nature—assuming people will work equally hard for collective gain. ➤ Leads to apathy, resentment, and corruption.
7. Historical Results
Capitalism:
Built the modern world economy
Lifted over a billion people from poverty in the last 30 years
Correlates with democracy and longevity
Socialism:
Resulted in economic collapse and repression
Over 100 million deaths under 20th-century regimes
Ongoing humanitarian crises where implemented
8. Real-World Examples
Capitalist or Market-Oriented Nations
Outcomes
United States, South Korea, Germany, Japan
Innovation, prosperity, global influence
Socialist or Centrally Planned Nations
Outcomes
USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela
Economic failure, shortages, authoritarianism
Summary Insight
Capitalism’s decentralized, voluntary system allows creativity, competition, and human aspiration to thrive. Socialism’s centralized control and utopian ideals, while well-intentioned, consistently clash with economic reality and human behavior.
Dr. Thomas Sowell’s Analysis of AOC’s Definition of Capitalism:
University of Chicago economist, Thomas Sowell, decimated AOC’s “definition” of capitalism, as she fails to understand basic economic theory. Below is a summary of Sowell’s criticisms of AOC:
Capitalism is about voluntary exchange, not worshiping money.
People trade good and services because both sides benefit.
Apple did not concentrate wealth; they generated it worldwide.
World Bank says global extreme poverty fell from 36% in 1990 to under 10% by 2019.
Socialism does not spread wealth, it spreads misery.
Government cannot eliminate poverty; it only redistributes it.
Workers matter, but without capital and leadership there is no wealth.
Workplace democracy, you do not vote on every product decision.
The threat is not corporations, its bureaucrats with too much power.
The progressive movement consistently harps on violations of “freedom of speech.” Freedom of markets is just as important as freedom of speech, yet they fail to fully understand both.
Socialism does not work and free enterprise capitalism likes to work.
As we shall soon see, New York’s newly elected mayor will run full force into the failures of socialism. It will be a real world test case in what works and what does not work.
Common sense freedom rather than government control and restriction is the solution. May reality soon demonstrate this maxim…
The following is an excerpt from our new special report, The Communist Takeover of the Democratic Party.
For years, unbeknownst to most Americans, the Communist Party has been purposely and diligently chipping away to gain a foothold into our nation. In 1982, the newly formed Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) emerged as the latest vehicle for their Marxist ideologies, packaged for new times. It’s not your father’s communist party! Green. Hip. And with new mouthpieces now carrying water for their repackaged red ideologies.
Has this soft-peddled, mainstream-embraced socialist movement now found their foothold? As an article in CanaryOnline shared, it’s not unlike the methods of the cuckoo bird, who lays its eggs among other birds’ nests, sat on and fed by the attentive host mother birds, When the cuckoos hatch, they destroy the original hatchlings, evicting them from their own nest, now using the host’s nest and broody mother to advance their own cuckoo domination. It’s called “brood parasitism” and it is happening within the Democrat Party.
With the high-profile election of an unapologetic and self-defined Muslim Socialist, Zohran Mamdani, it appears the “eggs” are in process of being pushed out of the Democrat nest. The DSA may now be in control of the Democrat Party.
How did we get here?
When Bernie Sanders 2016 Presidential bid put DSA on the map with everyday Americans, membership surged from 6,000 members to nearly 100,000 in just a few short years. It made Democratic Socialist a palatable handle for the actual socialism behind it.
The DSA began quickly muscling its policies and candidates through the Democrat Party, and has helped elect over 250 officials nationwide with help from socialist darlings such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) who also fronts the movement.
The momentum and growing influence of the DSA in the Democrat Party also has been likened to a hostile takeover. In fact, leaked documents revealed that DSA leaders view the Democrat Party as just a “vehicle” for socialism with some DSA officials stating clearly “we hate the Democratic Party” and navigating “toward insurrection.”
What is the DSA’s long term goal, and how will the party ensure that socialism becomes the law of the land? Learn more about their strategy and how you can pray by downloading our new special report, available here.
IFA President/CEO David Kubal also discussed the DSA on yesterday’s First Friday webcast. You can view that webcast in the embedded player below:
How are you praying about the Democratic Socialists of America? Share your prayers in the comments.
For years, America has been defined by historic landmarks—periods of history that united the people of this land. Now, however, the left is working overtime not just to tear down those landmarks, but to install twisted, divisive landmarks of their own.
Every nation lives by its landmarks. These are not merely dates on a calendar, but signposts dividing history into “before” and “after.” They anchor collective memory and shape how a people understand themselves.
For Americans, the great landmarks have long been clear: 1492, the discovery of the New World; 1776, independence; 1861, the Civil War; 1929, the Great Depression; 1964, the Civil Rights Act. To speak of “before” and “after” these events is to tell the story of a nation striving toward freedom, law, and self-government.
In recent years, however, new landmarks have been imposed by ideological fiat. The most striking is the New York Times’s 1619 Project, which declared that America began not in 1776 but in the year enslaved Africans first arrived in Virginia. With that shift, the axis of history moved: “before and after independence” became “before and after slavery.” Liberty and law were redefined as hypocrisy and oppression. More dividing lines quickly followed: before and after Jim Crow, before and after George Floyd, and so on.
The Daily Wire cites the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as as an example of this sort of historical shift. When the CCP took power, it imposed a single landmark, dividing Chinese history into two broad periods: “before liberation” and “after liberation.” It imposed another landmark after Mao’s disastrous rule of the party, once again dividing its history into “before Reform and Opening-Up” and “after.”
According to the Daily Wire, the CCP demonized everything that came “before” while glorifying everything that came “after.” This extended to people as Chinese people were divided into broad “good” and “bad” classes, such as oppressors and the oppressed. The Daily Wire notes that hatred against the “bad” classes “was not just tolerated but demanded.”
Perhaps most shocking is how the same divisive approach to culture has manifested in America at the hands of the left. The left has set slavery and “white oppression” at its chief landmark, dividing our history accordingly. What is worse is that, according to the left, we are still living in the times of white oppression, and the only was out is to entirely dismantle our society, which they argue is built on “racism, bigotry, and justice.”
The Daily Wire notes that “nations cannot thrive on grievance.” We cannot rewrite our history into a story of oppressors and oppressed. We have to unite around our shared history, however imperfect it may be. And, most important, we must completely reject the left’s attempts to erase our history.
As America approaches its 250th birthday, let’s pray for an end to these attempts to hijack, erase, and rewrite history!
What did you think of this article? Share your thoughts and prayers for America below.
(Excerpt from the Daily Wire. Photo Credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Recently, a watchdog group posted an advertisement exposing the Democratic Socialists of America’s (DSA) plans to destroy our capitalist society. The DSA, however, praised the ad, going so far as to call it a “DSA recruitment ad for communists.”
The Canary Mission’s advertisement included recorded remarks from various leaders of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) describing their opposition to, and in some cases “hatred” of the Democratic Party, which one speaker says must be torn down. The video also shared remarks from DSA leaders describing how the Democratic Party, which one of the socialist speakers in the video referred to as “toxic,” can be used as a “tool” to push forward their aims of destroying the current capitalist society we live in.
At the center of the ad was something Canary Mission referred to as the “cuckoo analogy.”
“In nature, the cuckoo survives by trickery. It lays its egg in another bird’s nest. The unsuspecting parents raise the impostor as their own until the cuckoo grows strong enough to push the true chicks out,” the video’s narrator explains. “The DSA is the cuckoo inside the Democratic Party.”
Fox notes that the Canary Mission’s advertisement didn’t bother the members of the DSA. Rather, the socialists applauded the ad. Nicolás Vargas, a socialist associated with the Central Brooklyn branch of the DSA, said in response to the video, “new DSA recruitment ad for communists just dropped.”
Allan Frasheri, an at-large delegate to the 2023 DSA Convention who spent time as a co-chair of the University of Florida’s DSA chapter, disputed the idea that the DSA is being “deceptive,” saying, “DSA is loud and proud: we are fighting for a worker’s party. Only a party of, by and for working people can bring about a better world. The Democratic Party is ultimately one for the billionaires.”
Lastly, DSA organizer Miko Ludoviko called the video “the best DSA ad [he’s] ever seen.” He later said that the “Democratic Party is a tool we use for local elections, but it remains an enemy of the working class.”
This is especially significant because Zohran Mamdani, the leading candidate for mayor in New York City, is a member of the DSA. We can assume that Mamdani shares their beliefs and will enact destructive socialist policies if enacted. As one DS leader put it, “with Zohran, we’re in basically the best possible position to seize state power that we can be in.”
Today is election day, and the future of New York City hangs in the balance. Let’s pray for God’s will to be done!
How are you praying about the Democratic Socialists of America? Share your prayers and scriptures below.
As students around the country get ready to go back to school, our universities are eagerly awaiting their next round of freshmen. If you’re a parent or student, you will need to know how to find classes that help you become wise and lead a virtuous life. As a professor, I can provide you with some ideas.
First, go to your university’s course schedule and see what is offered. If a class interests you, check out its syllabus. If the professor will not make their syllabus public, that is a bad sign. You can email and request it. What you want to see is the reading list and the kinds of lecture materials that are used. That will tell you if there is bias.
For example, take a look at your university’s Honors College or Gender Studies courses to see if there are classes on left-wing advocacy, left-wing border and immigration theory, LGBTQ+ sex philosophy, and even gender problems for transhumanists. Doesn’t all of that sound delightful! You just know that employers are waiting with bated breath to hire graduates who can discuss transhumanist sex philosophy on the border.
A few of these courses post the books they use, which is where you’ll see thought leaders like Angela Davis—so you know you’re in for some unbiased critical reflection.
Look at that list of accomplishments! Parents, aren’t you excited to pay thousands for your children to learn by reading a feminist Marxist who lived in East Berlin!
When they are accidentally honest about their reading list you see that they are self-described Marxists. Not many syllabi are offered publicly, however. And that is what we need to change. A public university funded by public tax dollars should be required to make the content of its classes public. I’m working on it with the Arizona State Legislature.
Second, ask the professor (in a respectful manner) about their own personal bias and how it affects the class content. Ask if they are aware of their own spin when they interpret a text. Then, ask [if, or] why other voices aren’t included—such as conservatives and Christians.
Third, take note when, during the semester, the professor inserts personal opinions or takes shots at conservatives and Christians. Report this to the state legislature. Or, you can contact me and I’ll give you the contact info. I help many students navigate the leftist bias they encounter.
Fourth, look for any proof that the professor is wise. If you were taking a course on business, you’d want proof that the professor understands business. And so, with a humanities class, do you have any proof that the professor is wise? There are a few ways to do this.
Observe how this professor lives. Does this professor worship and honor God? Does this professor confess their need for Christ? Or does this professor worship an idol, or even a demon—perhaps the gods Eros and Bacchus? If the professor cannot tell the difference between God the Lord and Eros, they won’t be able to help you learn to be wise.
Next, ask the professor which philosophers influenced them. If they say Marx, Freud, Heidegger, or Habermas, then they cannot be wiser than their teachers. Those figures offered self-contradictory philosophies to the secular world. Their philosophies are empty of transcendent meaning and have only led to despair and collapse.
If a professor can’t see that their own beliefs are self-contradictory, and if they haven’t been able to lead a good life directed toward our highest end, then they won’t be able to help you learn [very much]. It is worth your time to do your due diligence and avoid these kinds of classes.
I’ll have more soon as we see syllabi begin to be published for the public . . .
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.
After a slow march through our society’s schools, businesses, and courtrooms, critical Marxists are in retreat, facing political backlash for movements like transgenderism and critical race theory that they inspired.
But political fortune runs in cycles, and Marxist critical theory has sunk roots deep in our institutions; its return may only be an election away. Rather than complacently trust heavy-handed politicians to undo it, conservatives need to continue the hard work of understanding why it has won over so many people, and of answering it.
An excellent place to start is Carl Trueman’s recent book To Change All Worlds: Critical Theory from Marx to Marcuse. Trueman explains not only the logic of this movement that rejects the very notion of truth, but its appeal to the darker emotions of the heart.
From Traditional Marxism . . .
Trueman begins explaining critical Marxism by reviewing the original, “traditional” Marxism of Karl Marx.
Marx learned from philosopher G. W. F. Hegel that “[h]istory was a story of becoming, not being”: there are no unchanging, transcendent truths that all human beings know; rather, “the way people think about the world” develops directly from “the underlying social conditions” in which they live. The aspiration for universal freedom never occurred in pre-twentieth-century China, because China’s people lived in servitude to the emperor; political freedom first developed in the West, where Christianity and economic changes had eroded aristocracy.
Hegel also taught Marx that changes in society, and therefore in ideas, issue from a back-and-forth process of conflict or “dialectic”: a social status quo arises, it ossifies, it calls forth an opposing reaction, and a new status quo emerges from the two, out of which new ways of thinking come to be. One man sets himself up as king, his rule becomes rigid and tyrannical, an aristocracy rises up to overthrow him, and the aristocrats conceive more expansive notions of freedom. Over time the aristocracy itself becomes tyrannical, and the process repeats. With each cycle, history gets a little better until, Hegel hopes, society achieves perfect liberation.
Marx added to Hegel’s thought a revolutionary insight: the historical process of change could be accelerated. Men who transcended their circumstances (although it’s not clear how that could be in Marx’s deterministic universe) might imagine a more liberated society of the future and move people to overthrow the status quo now. Indeed, without revolutionary leaders, change could hardly happen in a world where (allegedly) people’s thinking conforms slavishly to their existing social situation: someone has to “think outside the box” for them so they can break the box down.
Marx also drew out the pessimism of Hegel’s historicism: if thought depends radically on social circumstances, it reinforces those circumstances and helps constitute the status quo. If a society’s current situation is oppressive (as it may have been for many factory workers in nineteenth-century Europe), then the moral norms of that society are themselves oppressive, as though designed to keep people in servitude to their masters. Those norms are not truth but “ideology: . . . a set of ideas that hides what is really going on in the material circumstances of the world by a process of what Marx calls ‘mystification.’” Ordinary people are told they should follow civil laws because God commands them to do so; but “God” is just a projection of society’s status quo into a “mystical” concept, as though it were transcendent and deserved complete obedience. To take an instance that might support Marx’s view, in the slave economy of the pre–Civil War American South, “assumptions of racial hierarchies, of the ‘natural’ fact of slavery, even perhaps notions that slavery is good for the slaves” both “reflect[ed] the economic structure, [and] also reinforce[d] and perpetuate[d] it.”
Ideologies are “as though” designed to oppress, because thought, being the product of circumstance, is not “intentional” in Marx’s theoretical universe; it is therefore not the act of an unchanging, transcendent reality like the soul (just the sort of mystical concept that could justify an oppressive theory of unchanging human nature). All people in society, whether oppressors or oppressed, labor under “alienation”—estrangement from their real selves and desires, under the deception or “false consciousness” wrought in them by the ideology of their society. They do not belong to themselves. To escape alienation, and to liberate their minds from ideology, men must be liberated from their circumstances—not guided to “truth,” which is, again, just a tool to reinforce social circumstances. Hence Marx’s famous eleventh thesis on Feuerbach: “The philosophers [up to Hegel] have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” Until politics change, there will be no new, freer ideas, only reformulations of the ideology of the status quo.
. . . To Critical Marxism
Marx may have looked gloomily on society, but he hoped that at least it would inevitably evolve in the right direction, even if it needed to be helped along. Actual events, however, shattered that hope.
Marx never saw the liberated, communist utopia in his lifetime: revolutions happened, but when the dust settled, capitalism was still in place, though softened by more humane labor laws, unions, and social welfare programs. More damningly for classical Marxism, the actual progress of history defied the socialist economic theories that Marx had endorsed in the latter part of his life. According to socialism, Marx’s home country, Germany, with its advanced economy and democratic, bourgeois society, should have been the most ripe for a proletarian revolution as the next step in the dialectical historical process. But the first successful communist revolution occurred in a place of the opposite sort—agrarian, despotic Russia—and it produced a totalitarian dystopia. Still more surprisingly, the regime to which nineteenth-century Germany did give rise was violently opposed to Marxism: the National Socialist Third Reich.
The failures of traditional Marxist theory sent Marxists back to the drawing board. They concluded that Marx had not gone far enough—false consciousness ran far deeper than he supposed. Marx himself remained captured by bourgeois society’s ideology, by his adherence to socialism, with its commitment to a theory of timeless (i.e. transcendent) economic laws. If even he was deceived, one must need to unmask ideology by more thorough psychologizing. This was the project of Critical Marxism.
Critical theorist Karl Korsch, for instance, noted that factory workers resisted Marx’s call to revolution because they wanted to work in the factories, to support their families, and to fight in the state’s armies to serve their country. Mobilizing people for revolution therefore required not just breaking down oppressive economic and legal structures, but showing people the necessary connection of those structures to cultural norms (like family life and patriotism), so that people would shed the norms as well.
But to do that does not mean to “disprove” those norms; that would be to appeal to unchanging truths of human nature and logic—to replace one set of norms with another, setting up a new oppressive status quo. The solution is rather to disrupt the status quo, and keep on disrupting, so that no false consciousness has the chance to harden. Life must become continual revolution in all respects, not just in economics and politics, but in culture, the family, and today in human nature, as contemporary Marxists seek to disrupt the very reality of being male or female.
Critical theorists even aim to disrupt the way people think by writing “disorienting” texts—so difficult to understand that no “dominant idea” could come from them to create a new false consciousness. “Orthodox Marxism,” according to critical theorist George Lukács, is not a set of beliefs, but a “method.” The goal is not to understand but to change, until utopia arrives.
Grains of Truth . . .
As deeply pessimistic and disruptive as Marxism is, Trueman says, its criticisms often contain grains of truth.
Nineteenth-century Marxists helped draw public attention to objectively oppressive economic situations—child labor, unfairly low wages, etc. George Lukács pointed out how laissez-faire capitalists can “reify” “the economy,” treating it as though it existed independently, as an end in itself; they forget that economies are fundamentally relations between people that serve people, not wealth for its own sake. More recently, Marxists have helped raise awareness of the subtle ways in which racial stereotypes can inform people’s thinking.
Critical theory acknowledges the fact that the world is not as it should be. People suffer; sometimes they suffer a great deal, even at each other’s hands. Often their suffering goes unnoticed, even deliberately ignored. As Trueman points out, the founders of critical theory—Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, and many others—suffered as Jews living in Germany under the anti-Semitic Third Reich. The development of their theories, Trueman suggests, cannot be dismissed as mere derangement—it was their (very flawed) attempt to grapple with their people’s terrifying experience.
Many contemporary academics who espouse critical theory have perhaps also suffered a great deal. For others, however, adopting critical theory is simply “a rather useful career move,” or perhaps a rationalization of their darker, selfish desires. In any case, Trueman’s cultural analysis of the original critical theorists shows how complex Marxists’ motives can be. He reminds us that those who (rightly) reject Marxists’ approach should not dismiss Marxists, or those they mislead, as beyond hope. Part of them, buried deep inside, is trying to find truth and peace.
Christians cannot ignore critical theory; it is a mysterious cry for help, from human hearts wounded by evil and searching for answers in the wrong places.
. . . In a Philosophy without Hope
But whatever the inscrutable motives of its adherents might be, critical theory is, objectively, deeply misguided. It is not simply healthy pessimism about the human condition. Despite its apparent hope for a future utopia (which it scarcely defines, perhaps for fear of creating a new ideology), Marxism is a philosophy of despair. By denying agency to the person, and viewing oppression as the default mode of society, Marxism destroys hope: hope in the possibility of being free interiorly even amid exterior oppression; hope that, despite others’ flaws (and our own), there is good in people, and they can repent and be forgiven; hope that evil can be overcome through the power of love; hope that, whatever its past sins may be, the human soul is made for truth. This hopelessness has, tragically, ended up producing violence, like that of the Third Reich, that would have horrified the founders of critical theory—even mutilating children to “liberate” them from the “alienating” constraints of their bodies that contradict their “gender identity.”
Occasionally To Change All Worlds, I think, adopts too much of the critical theorists’ way of thinking. For instance, speaking to Christian readers, Trueman applies critical theory’s term “alienation” to fallen humanity outside the Church. True, sin deeply estranges man from himself and others, but I should think that such estrangement is not complete, as the Marxist meaning of “alienation” would suggest. As long as he lives, man continues to bear the image of God in himself and can experience the goodness of life in communion with others, albeit overshadowed by sin. Notwithstanding this and similar lapses, Trueman recognizes the risks of borrowing terms from Marxism and clearly warns readers against it. The theory is so tightly constructed that, as Joseph Ratzinger once said, to accept one part is to accept the whole.
In any case, Christians would do well to heed Trueman’s warning to take seriously the way their infidelities to God and the Law of Love “damage the church’s plausibility, even if they do not disprove the gospel.” This warning goes especially for those Christians who today openly use Marxists’ own Machiavellian tactics of “disruption” against them, doing evil that good might come about. Such Christians have become, as it were, Marxists of the right, driven not by hope in truth and charity, but by rage born of despair. They only perpetuate the pagan cycle of vengeance that Marxism has brought back to life in the West, and they risk calling forth a severe backlash of the Marxist left in the future.
Christians cannot ignore critical theory; it is a mysterious cry for help, from human hearts wounded by evil and searching for answers in the wrong places. We must try to understand it, refute it—by proclaiming the truth in love, even if it means suffering at the hands of those who misunderstand us —and bring to the broken souls of our times the peace that no worldly liberation can give.
Two years ago, an influential cultural commentator, Dr. James Lindsay, made this stunning statement: “What’s happening in America today is Maoist Marxism with American characteristics. Those American characteristics include identity politics and corporate power as a vehicle.” According to Barna research, 36% of practicing Christians endorse Marxist ideas. I never saw this coming. When I came from England to America in 1964, I thought I had died and gone to heaven: I saw Christian colleges, Christian printing houses, radio and television programs galore, and endless churches. Compared to Europe, America was so Christian! In 1968 I heard Astronaut Frank Borman read Genesis 1:1-3 (a massive statement of biblical Twoism) to the entire planet from his space craft:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Will we ever hear such public and reverent gospel confidence again? The apostle Paul states in Romans 1:25 that there are only two ways to live, one based on the truth and one on the lie:
they exchanged the truth about God for the lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
We either worship the Creator or we worship nature. God the Creator is distinct from nature, which he created. There are only two kinds of beings: the divine and the created. I have called this distinction “Twoism”: two fundamentally different kinds of existence. To worship nature but refuse to acknowledge the Creator blends everything into one, which I have called “Oneism.”
A Cataclysmic Transformation
In my early years of life in the USA, I did not see that a total revolution was beginning. Though heralded in a variety of forms, its most influential was the invasion of Eastern spirituality, dressed in a Western form of Oneism, whose goal was to make us part of God. In 2010, Philip Goldberg, a Western Jewish convert to Hinduism, published American Veda, in which he stated that “large numbers of Americans have arrived at the worldview of Hinduism, where truth is one.” According to Goldberg, “America is engaged in a reconfiguration comparable in power to the Christian great awakening of the 18th century.” He described it as “a cultural cataclysmic transformation” that would shatter the worldview of biblical Christianity.
Goldberg fiercely defends the Hindu notion of “Advaita.” His “non-binary” approach fits perfectly with the non-dogmatic Hindu religion, in which we are a part of God. Although “not two” or the “non-binary” is necessarily in radical opposition to the Christian faith, Goldberg believes that this notion is the “Christian” West’s future spiritual destiny. This is not a new idea. Ancient Hermeticism, a variant of Gnosticism, sought: “to completely transcend duality.” In other words, they wanted to get rid of the uniqueness of God as Creator.
De Tocqueville, centuries ago, saw the implications of this subtle rejection of God as a distinct being.
Not content with the discovery that there is nothing in the world but a creation and a Creator, man is still embarrassed by this primary division of things and seeks to simplify this conception by including God and the universe in one great whole.
Already in the Sixties, many in the Christian West were toying with Oneism. The “sexual revolution” was accompanied by the “New Spirituality,” as was seen in the Woodstock phenomenon. Sociologists called this religious side of things the “Spiritual Revolution,” which brought to the West New Age mysticism in all its forms. Satan is clever in merging sex and spirituality. Just as the courts began to accept homosexual relations and trans rights, so the culture began to deny the spiritual distinction between God and the creation. The Oneism of sexuality merged with the Oneism of pagan spirituality.
Marxism
I have already dealt with Marxism but here I want to show that it is a classic case of theological Oneism. While proposing to be irreligious, it nevertheless becomes religious by claiming absolute human authority. Famously rejecting the Christian religion as “the opiate of the people,” Marx nevertheless proposed the drug of absolute materialism. Marx may have been motivated by the valid concern to eliminate human injustice in the Western world at the end of the nineteenth century. He saw that the working class (the proletariat) in Britain (and elsewhere) was being exploited by the ruling class (the bourgeoisie). Alas, his “just” solution was a Oneist denial of biblical Twoism. Like Freud of the same era, Marx was an apostate Jew. In other words, this system, like Gnosticism, has all the marks of radical and emotive rebellion against the God of creation, and thus denies the biological and cultural realities that are “natural” to the human condition.
Marx’s materialism is impersonal. Islam and Marxism have a lot in common. Radical Islam treats human life with untold cruelty, which derives from an impersonal Allah, which has no trinity. Lacking any sense of the personhood of God, Marxism cared not a whit about the millions that Stalin murdered or starved to death. (See the Ukrainian Holodomor — “death by starvation”). At the hands of cruel dictators like Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao, human beings the world over were put to death by the millions.
Marx’s view of humanity is egalitarian. Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological, Twoist functions for Capitalism by expressing a certain independence over against the all-powerful state, which is the only form of family allow Moreover, families also pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.
Marxism is not only theoretical. Ironically, its final expression claims adherence to its own truth. In the end, absolute materialism becomes a de facto religious confession, a statement of faith, for no one, including materialistic Marxists, can get beyond the human scene to observe the whole of reality. Without God, all attempts at putting the world together are merely subjective opinion, an expression of non-objective belief. What is worse, the human claim to political infallibility can allow no breach, no other opinion. It is ideological totalitarianism. Everyone is required to have total faith in the fallible humans who control and oversee the reigning political and cultural Oneist “orthodoxy.” There are, thus, no limitations on human power.
“American Marxism” seems an improbable subject. After all, the USA is considered to be the very heartbeat of successful Capitalism and the very center of free-market civilization. Communism has entered America. I was no doubt right in seeing the effects of the Sixties Revolution and the invasion of Eastern paganism in the form of the New Age Movement. I have sought for many years to show that such beliefs are the very opposite of biblical spirituality. But I failed to see the presence in America of genuine Marxism. I saw progressive socialists, but not convinced Marxists.
Marxism via Stalin and Mao killed millions of human beings during the twentieth century and Marxist Pol Pot in Cambodia systematically murdered about three million of his own people (a quarter of all Cambodians), from 1976 to 1978. Anyone considered an intellectual was targeted for special treatment. Teachers, lawyers, doctors, and clergy were put to death. Pol Pot’s regime of terror even murdered people wearing glasses! One might think that a system so unthinkable would never enter the American system. For the moment, America’s Marxism conceals itself and is generally accepted in its subtle form: Wokism, which I will discuss in my next essay.
It’s a question that eventually rings forth from every generation. “What’s the world coming to?” More specifically, they ask, “What’s wrong with these kids today?” Many deride all such concerns because they are common to all generations. But is that a reason to dismiss such worries? Look at the history of the world and of humanity. You see an almost continuous story of war, subjugation, and pain. Maybe each generation of elders had good reason for concern.
The “last days” generation will be a mess. Here are a few of the many descriptions found in 2 Timothy 3:2-3. They will be selfish, materialistic, pretentious, and proud. They will speak evil of sacred things. They will not appreciate the gifts they have received. Lacking self-control, they will be brutal. They will embrace evil and despise good.
According to the Bible, all generations sin. But that does not mean all generations are the same. Things can get better, and they can get worse. The morals of individuals and of societies can improve or deteriorate. Choices have meaning and consequences.
We may be seeing the 2 Timothy 3 generation right now. That makes it ironic when older people of our time question the validity of their own concerns. They think it may mean little or nothing, like their memories of adults worrying about Elvis, the Beatles, and other early rock stars. “We turned out okay,” they say. “Maybe our concerns are an overreaction.”
They push aside apprehensions about obscene and destructive song lyrics because they eventually learned that “Puff the Magic Dragon” was not about marijuana. They give all musicians a pass because Elvis’s swiveling hips did not bring down the nation. In fact, he turned out to be a nice person. Rock music has not destroyed America. The flag still waves, the crops grow, and the Washington Monument shows no cracks.
Still, all is not as it should be. Cracks in monuments can be repaired, but the restoration of broken moral foundations can be difficult, especially when moral blindness keeps them from being seen. I’m not criticizing Elvis Presley. I was a fan, too. But his critics were not fools. Maybe they were wrong about Elvis as a person, but they saw a sexual revolution coming — one that would cause terrible pain for millions. And they were right. The sexual morals of the nation fell apart in the years that followed. And, as his defenders point out, what Elvis did was mild compared to what was coming.
In another example, Americans 70 years ago were deeply concerned about communist ideology infiltrating government, institutions of higher learning, and the media. In the decades that followed, their worries became the butt of thousands of jokes. But today, communist ideology has gone beyond secretly infiltrating government. It is openly espoused in various forms by high-ranking politicians and other officials. It has taken over the thinking in institutions of higher learning. And it lives openly in the media. They may not always call it communism, but that’s what it is. And it’s here now. Our elders’ concerns were valid.
Communism has always followed certain patterns. And those patterns fit the biblical end-time scenario of central control of human lives. But now that control can happen at a level that was unimaginable until the advent of artificial intelligence. Communist revolutions also fit with the end-times pattern of scaring people in ways that will make them malleable, then providing what will seem to be the only way to peace and safety.
We live in dangerous times, but Jesus is still “the good Shepherd.” Stay close to Him. And have confidence in what you know to be true. Speak out in love.
I have already discussed the new book by Os Guinness: Our Civilizational Moment: The Waning of the West and the War of the Worlds (Kildare, 2024). This important volume by the Christian intellectual and social commentator is quite significant indeed. In it he argues that Western civilisation is clearly a crossroads. Early on he defines what this entails:
A civilizational moment is a critical transition phase in the rise, course, and decline of a civilization when a civilization loses its decisive connection with the dynamic that inspired it. Such a moment must then issue in one of three broad options: a renewal of the dynamic that inspired the civilization in the first place, a successful replacement of the original dynamic by another, or the decline of the civilization and perhaps the birth of a new and different civilization later in time and elsewhere in the world. In sum, the issue for a civilization in a civilizational moment is its vision of ultimate reality: Is the civilization in living touch with the ideas, ideals, and inspiration that created it in the first place and chat it needs no to continue to flourish? Or, with its roots severed, is it destined to decline and die? (p. 30)
He offers four key flashpoints where this is occurring:
The Red Wave: Radical Marxism The Rainbow Wave: The Sexual Revolution The Black Wave: Radical Islamism The Gold Wave: Corrupt Elitism
I have previously penned pieces on his chapters about Islam and Marxism:
Chapter 5 on the sexual revolution is worth looking at more closely and quoting from as well. He begins by saying this:
The Rainbow Wave is the broad combination of trends that make up the sexual revolution, and the different elements that presently comprise the ever-expanding and increasingly self-contradictory “LGBTQ+” movement. Many people think that the sexual revolution is recent, and simply about the long overdue liberation from the supposedly uptight sexual and moral traditions of the past. They see it as the result of the sexual “Big Bang” of the 1960s, and therefore the child of Hugh Hefner, Playboy magazine, the Pill, and permissive sex. It certainly includes all of that, but in fact, the roots of the sexual revolution lie much deeper in the ferment of the French Revolution. The roots are ideological rather than technological, and their endgame is far more radical. In essence, the sexual revolution presents a vision of human life and society that is nothing less than the ancient and impossible dream of complete human autonomy, the total liberation of human desire, and a celebration of sexual freedom in all its forms and with no limits. Thus, the sexual revolution represents the deliberate subversion of 3000 years of civilization and its constraints. (p. 109)
As to the overall theme of the book, Guinness writes: “In terms of our civilizational moment, the sexual revolution is an open assault on the Bible’s view of sexuality, which replaced the pagan view that had been dominant before the rise of the West.” (p. 111)
He looks in some detail at those warring against biblical anthropology and sexuality, and discusses how so many intellectuals and influential leaders ran with the mantra that sexual libertinism was somehow the royal road to freedom. He assesses some of the leading figures here, such as Wilhelm Reich, Alfred Kinsey, Herbert Marcuse and Michel Foucault.
They all wanted a world without limits, especially when it comes to all things sexual. Ethical, legal and natural limits were spurned, and the push was on for open slather with any and all forms of sexuality. Pursuing pleasure at all costs was the rallying cry, and forget about personal responsibility and self-control.
As Guinness explains:
The notion of social construction and deconstruction rules out creation and means the elimination of all God-given distinctions, demarcations and limits. For Jews and Christians, creation-based distinctions mean limits, limits mean both the fulfilment within the limits and the possibility of transgression through flouting the limits, and transgression means freedom in the short-term, but chaos and loss of freedom in the long term. For the sexual revolution, in open contrast, there are no created distinctions, as all is constructed and not created. So, there are no inherent limits, there is no transgression where there are no limits to be transgressed, in the short-term result is undreamed of freedom of all kinds. As Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote in The Brothers Karamazov, if God is dead, everything is permitted. You can be as free as you desire to be. The only limits are the limits of your own thinking. (p. 118)
That is the stuff of dreamland. Hedonism and sexual anarchy might sound neat, but they can never go far in the real world. Things always get messy. That is why unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, countless abortions, broken families, and fractured societies are now the norm throughout the West.
Our Civilizational Moment: The Waning of the West and the War of the Worlds by Guinness, Os (Author)
And the boundaries – at least the few of them that are still left – keep being challenged:
Inevitably, the outcome of these liberation movements grows increasingly illiberal, both in terms of the movements themselves and in terms of the ever-greater aggression towards any who disagree with them. The dissent starts slowly but gathers speed. At first, all that each movement asks for is toleration and acceptance, but then a forced celebration of its new lifestyle, and in the end, legal penalties for those whose faith and conscience see things differently from them. This old strategy is now being harnessed to promote pedophilia. Few people notice when the opening cry is for “children’s liberation” and then for a crusade for “international children’s rights.” Isn’t everything a matter of liberation and rights today, so why not children too? But somehow, the proposed liberation includes the right to certain “sexual freedoms,” and then to the lowering of the age of consent across the world. (pp. 120-121)
He explains this sad regression in terms of these five downward steps:
First, legal admissibility… Second, moral acceptance… Third, social aggression… Fourth, global affirmation Finally, and fatefully, global authoritarianism… (p. 121-123)
He carefully looks at each step, and then goes on to say:
When the lone individual is the primary concern, the goal of revolutionary liberation is the elimination of all limiting ties that restrict the newly autonomous individual – whether ties of religion, tradition, family, associations, social expectations, and prohibition such as limits on abortion. All limits must go. All mediating institutions can be dispensed with. The autonomous individual must be liberated and left unhampered. (p. 131)
Yes, and the endgame of all this is the total eradication of the Judeo-Christian worldview, replaced by autonomous, decadent and utterly unrestrained mankind:
Yet this smashing of the categories is not the ultimate goal of the sexual revolution. Its spiritual elite have a higher goal in mind: to strive towards ultimate human harmony beyond all categories. In aiming for this state, the elite revolutionaries are attempting to return both paganism and sexual androgyny to their primitive pedestal and to license every possible type of sexuality as an expression of freedom – with polyamory now half in the door and pedophilia and zoophilia (or bestiality) well on the way. Starting by elevating androgyny and unisex, and by erasing all differences between the male and female as socially constructed, and then all other inherited distinctions, the revolutionaries released sexual options to be as free, fluid, and infinitely variable as individuals might choose, so Freud’s “polymorphous perversity” with a vengeance, and homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, polyamory, transgenderism, trans-speciesism, cross-dressing, drag queen culture, puppy play, and the like. This is how, Reich said, the sexual revolutionaries were out to subvert thousands of years of “patriarchal” societies (including the four thousand years of both the Jewish roots and the Christian flowering). (p. 133)
He continues:
At its deepest, this vision is religious and not secular, as many gurus have made clear. It looks far beyond immediate sexual freedom. Its supreme goal is to erase all distinction and fuse all opposites, especially between male and female, in order to attain the primordial cosmic wholeness and unity that has long been sought by pagan priests and shamans. Sexual androgyny is the key to this quest for both the religious and the secular….
The revolutionaries knew, of course, that to win, they would have to win by overcoming all who prized the differences between male and female—above all, three major enemies: the patriarchal family and the Jewish and Christian faiths—and therefore enforced the rigid straightjacket of sexual stereotypes (“gender fundamentalism”). The revolutionaries would sideline parents, for instance, by introducing sex education, drag queen shows, a general sexualization of women, and sexual grooming of children at the earliest age, making an end run around parents and parental responsibilities. “We’re coming for your children,” as the drag queen shows now boast. And in more and more areas, the idea grew that the state, not parents, should be the authority over children, with schools now hiding critical information from parents. (pp. 133-134)
The full-on sexualisation of children, the assault on marriage, the radical homosexual and trans agendas, the ready access to porn in all its forms, and the reductionism that says we are all really just animals, are all working together to destroy Judaism and Christianity. And in the end, it will mean the destruction of what it means to be human – and of the West itself.
The sexual revolutionaries have a lot to answer for. And we can be grateful for voices like that of Guinness for sounding the alarm.
We must not be complacent about communist and woke ideology:
Marxism and related ideologies are still very much with us. The Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall may have come crashing down some 35 years ago, but the pernicious threat that is Communism and godless Socialism remain. They are found throughout Western institutions, be it the media, academia, or the political and cultural arenas.
In a recent piece I examined a new book by the important Christian thinker Os Guinness: Our Civilizational Moment: The Waning of the West and the War of the Worlds (Kildare, 2024). In it he argues that there are four major harmful waves that are crashing over the West:
The Red Wave: Radical Marxism
The Rainbow Wave: The Sexual Revolution
The Black Wave: Radical Islamism
The Gold Wave: Corrupt Elitism
Here I want to look at the Red Wave which he discusses in Chapter 4. He explains it this way:
The Red Wave is the combination of radical and revolutionary political movements that have flowed down from the French Revolution in 1789. Along with the Enlightenment, the French Revolution is a watershed event in the breakdown of Western Civilization, and its ever-evolving influence is now global and spreading. With deadly accuracy, the great revolution and the revolutions it has spawned, all aim at the heart of the evils and weaknesses of the West, and the West has never recovered from the forces of its eruption. In the shape of its current formulations, the French Revolution is now undermining even the American Revolution and calling the ideas and ideals of the American republic into question. (p. 89)
Guinness looks at the traditional revolutionary movements and the earlier emphasis on economics, and then notes how the cultural has become the new form of Marxism:
Below the major shifts from economic to cultural Marxism, the underlying revolutionary algorithm applied to all of life, is the same. The power differential between “oppressor and oppressed” is not only political; it can be found everywhere – in families, in schools, in businesses, in relationships of every kind; in fact, everywhere, with no exception (including, of course, themselves). This means, logically, that there is not a single relationship and no human situation absolutely anywhere that is not vulnerable to revolutionary accusations. The shifts from classical to cultural Marxism are therefore significant, but the foundational analyses of the two types of Marxism both proceed in broadly the same way: the radicals’ task is to analyse the difference between the “majority” and the “marginal minority,” the “normal” and the “abnormal” or “queer,” the “powerful” and the “powerless,” and above all, to discover the “oppressors” and the “victims.” (p. 96)
He goes on the say this:
One major problem arises from the fact that the Marxist tactic of elevating and exploiting “victims” and “victimhood” is emotionally explosive, as it appeals directly to resentment. The revolution stirs up relational emotions that are personal, and then inflates and blends them with justice that should be objective and impersonal. The resentment stirred against “the haves” by “the have-nots” is bad enough, but the endless, indulgent probing of victimhood from every other possible angle of “intersectionality” serves to stoke feelings of hurt, resentment, bitterness, revenge, and hate that prove impossible to be assuaged. The politics of cultural Marxism is essentially destructive because it focuses on the subjective, personal emotions at the expense of objective, impersonal justice for all. That is why, traditionally, Lady Justice is blindfolded with scales tipped by neither fear nor favor. The radicals fixate on victimhood as a matter of the past rather than the present, and on hurts rather than healing, so the result is a perpetual stirring of rage and hate rather than any striving towards justice. (p. 97)
Our Civilizational Moment: The Waning of the West and the War of the Worlds by Guinness, Os (Author)
He examines cultural Marxism and the ‘long march through the institutions’ in more detail, discussing figures like Lukacs, Gramsci and Marcuse. He notes how successful it has been in taking over the universities, the media, politics, and even business. The woke takeover of society involves everything from woke education to woke finance.
Guinness says this about what it all entails:
It is a serious mistake to think that “wokeism” is a purely political problem that can be solved by purely political solutions. At its core, wokeism is cultural, and a cultural revolution, but it is also a cultural and educational revolution with openly religious overtones. The term “New Faith” is apt, for wokeism is a pseudo-religion like so many of the avowedly secularist ideologies that flowed from the French Revolution. Far more than progressive against conservative, let alone Democrat against Republican, the new faith is cosmic and apocalyptic – a total war of the oppressed against the oppressors, with all of humanity on one side or the other, in a fight to the death over reality, truth, words, authorities, and boundaries. (p. 104)
Looking further at the scene in the West, and especially in America, Guinness rounds off the chapter with these ominous words:
At the end of the line, the worst-case scenario for America would be a merger between two movements: cultural Marxism (or wokeism), the revolutionary ideology at the radical left; and progressivism, the ideology of the ruling elites of the managerial regime. As each party seeks to co-opt the other for its own purposes, they would together create an almost irresistible trend towards oligarchic one-party politics and a centralized and administrative state that could grow into a woke Leviathan. . . . The result would be a one-party state and a perfect match for Benito Mussolini’s infamous formulation of his own fascist government: “Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. His fascist regime is said to have been the first to declare itself totalitarian.
Were this dread specter of a society totally engineered by the state to materialize further, a newly radicalized America would take its place next to a long-radicalized China, and together, these two autocracies, one soft and one hard, would tower over humanity and the world as a two-headed superpower despotism, the likes of which the world has not seen in the modern era – as if Stalin and Hitler had won at the same time and formed a lasting alliance of dictators.
God forbid. But long before such a dire result, the impact of cultural Marxism in the form of variance such as Critical Race Theory, represents a disaster for the American republic. In the words of James Lindsay’s searing book Race Marxism, cultural Marxism, in the form of the Red Wave overall, is a “one-hundred-year-long spear that is being thrust into the side of Western civilization.” (pp. 106-107)
Worrying times indeed. But Guinness does not just leave us with bleak prospects for the future. In a forthcoming piece I will look at his closing words in the book and what he says we can do about resisting these menaces and help turn things around.
During the Cold War, Soviet communists reportedly referred to American liberals as “useful idiots.”
Although the origin of the quote has been challenged (and attributed to both Lenin and Stalin), it captured many of the adherents of communism after World War II. From higher education to Hollywood, dilettantes on the left embraced Marxism with little real understanding of the philosophy or its implications.
We are now seeing the rise of a new generation of armchair revolutionaries who are calling for everything from the overthrow of the U.S. government to the seizure of factories and homes.
Democratic New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani personifies this new movement of young people lacking any memory of the failure of socialist and communist systems in the 20th Century.
Mamdani is perfect for this rising movement of Latte Leninists and trust-fund baby Trotskyites. The privileged son of a radical Columbia professor and a Hollywood producer, Mamdani went to the elite Bowdoin College, which charges over $70,000 annually in tuition. He is part of the “radical chic” of American higher education, where extreme views are fully mainstream.
Mamdani shows the appeal of mouthing Marxist manifestos as manifest truths. It is Marxism-lite — promises of everything from rent control to making “Halal eight bucks again.”
In one speech before the Young Democratic Socialists of America conference, Mamdani even stated matter-of-factly how one of the goals is to “seize the means of production” in America.
“Right now, if we’re talking about the cancellation of student debt, if we’re talking about Medicare for all, you know, these are issues which have the groundswell of popular support across this country,” he said.
“But then there are also other issues that we firmly believe in, whether it’s [boycott-divestment-sanctions against Israel] or whether it is the end goal of seizing the means of production, where we do not have the same level of support at this very moment.”
Mamdani offers few details of what it would mean to seize all industry in this country or how such a system would work in the United States after failing in literally every nation where it has been attempted.
He has also called for the seizure of unoccupied luxury condos in New York to turn over to the homeless.
With pledges of state-run grocery stores and other proposals, many are thrilled by the prospect of Marxism coming to America.
Polls show increasing support among young people for socialism and even communism. That is reflected in the New York primary, where Mamdani received significant support from wealthy and young college-educated voters.
Like Mamdani, these young voters have no inkling of what life was like under socialist and communist governments. They were not alive when radical shifts to socialism in Great Britain and France destroyed their economies and had to be reversed. They did not see the collapse of the Soviet Union or the move toward capitalism by China to avoid economic meltdowns.
Yet, as Mamdani stated, the radical left has to wait to seize such powers until it has “the same level of support at this very moment.” Unfortunately, socialist programs can produce the very dire conditions that lead to even greater consolidation of state controls and power.
Notably, most of Mamdani’s proposals would violate the Constitution or bankrupt the city. For example, efforts to seize multimillion-dollar luxury condos would constitute unconstitutional takings unless he was prepared to buy the units at their market value — a virtually impossible proposition.
Such considerations are rarely raised, let alone resolved, in radical conferences.
Earlier this month, University of Minnesota liberal arts professor Melanie Yazzie joined others for a “teach-in” in which she delighted the audience with calls for the overthrow of the country by “people who come from nations who are under occupation by the United States government.”
She added, “it’s our responsibility as people who are within the United States to go as hard as possible to decolonize this place because that will reverberate all across the world. Because the U.S. is the greatest predator empire that has ever existed.”
That includes forcing “[the] U.S. out of everywhere,” including “Turtle Island” (the Native American name used to describe North America). Yazzie insisted that “the goal is to dismantle the settler project that is the United States for the freedom and the future of all life on this planet. It very much depends on that.”
Yazzie is an example of how most faculties in this country now run from the left to the far left. Applicants who espouse center-right viewpoints are often rejected as lacking “intellectual rigor” or depth. However, you cannot be too far left to secure a position in many departments that do not have a single Republican or conservative.
Take University of Chicago Assistant Professor Eman Abdelhadi, who used her recent appearance at the Socialism 2025 conference to denounce the University of Chicago as an “evil” and “colonialist” institution. Nevertheless, she insisted that she wanted to remain at the evil institution — not for its intellectual community, but to “organize” and “leverage” to build a political coalition.
Keep in mind that the faculty not only decided that Abdelhadi was worthy of a faculty position in the university’s Department of Comparative Human Development, but then also made her the Director of Graduate Studies.
For some, the calls of professors like Yazzie to “dismantle” the U.S. constitute the ultimate virtue signal. Like demands to seize factories and homes, the willingness to burn down the system is a cheap and easy way to establish your bona fides as one of the enlightened — something to brag about with your other 20-something fellow travelers as you order your $7 latte on the way to your Hyrox workout.
Lenin once mocked many in the West as idiots who would “transform themselves into men who are deaf, dumb and blind [and] toil to prepare their own suicide.” What he never imagined was how some would still be transforming themselves decades after the revolution failed.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of “The Indispensable Right.”
After writing about the upset election win of socialist Zohran Mamdani in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary, a reader sent me an angry email, telling me that Mamdani was a “democratic socialist,” and that Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez were “social democrats.” The sender apparently wanted me to believe that all they wanted was to make New York and the United States into Denmark.
After all, isn’t Denmark one of the world’s happiest countries? Doesn’t it have a $22 minimum wage? (Actually, it has no federal minimum wage). Doesn’t it have wonderful welfare benefits along with lots of personal freedom? So, if we can just elect the kind of politicians that want to turn the US into Denmark, then we should do it.
There are some issues, of course.
For one, Denmark is far from a socialist country and it certainly does not have a socialist planned economy. This is an important point, because AOC, Sanders, and Mamdani all have called for substantial government planning and ownership and Mamdani has gone even further. The socialist online magazineJacobin recently praised Mamdani precisely because he does call for the full socialist economy:
No one should be surprised that Zohran Mamdani supports democratic control over the economy, the end goal of socialism. But he won because he combined socialist politics with practical solutions to the cost-of-living crisis facing working people.
At a 2021 conference of the Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA), Zohran Mamdani discussed various short-term reforms favored by the organization. But alongside offering his thoughts on the groups’ immediate aims, he also had something to say about “end goal” of socialist politics: “seizing the means of production.”
In the last week, the clip resurfaced on right-wing social media, where it’s been treated as a damning discovery about Mamdani, who just won a primary to become the Democratic nominee for mayor in New York City.
National Review ran a brief item on the clip under the headline “Uh, That’s Literal Communism!” On CNN, Scott Jennings concurred, saying that Mamdani was “using the language of the Bolsheviks.” Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) said that this was “the scariest thing Mamdani has said” and that it was “straight out of Karl Marx’s Communist playbook.”
It’s unclear why these remarks about the end goal of socialist politics are supposed to be shocking.
There is much to process in this short passage, and it speaks volumes about so-called democratic socialists. For that matter, that socialists would want to identify with the Jacobins speaks volumes to their intentions, given that the Jacobins were the first political party to organize and carry out political terror complete with mass executions during the French Revolution. Second, by claiming that “democratic control over the economy” means the state “seizing the means of production,” they speak to the totalitarian and violent nature of their “democratic” beliefs. One does not “seize” anything without coercion. As Jacobin editor Bhaskar Sunkara bragged in a recent interview, “We were not trying to hide Marxism.”
Lest anyone doubt the coercive and violent nature of American socialists, the recent Socialism 2025 conference in Chicago featured speaker after speaker calling for outright totalitarian control of all of American life. Among the proposals from speakers and delegates (all of whom were required to wear N-95 or K95 masks as part of the uniform) were taken from “democratic” socialist movements like the Bolshevik Revolution and Pol Pot’s Cambodian terror, and included:
Replacing the family unit with communes (reminiscent of a scene from “The Killing Fields” in which the Khmer Rouge overseers show their subjects a drawing with a family X’d out);
Using public schools to “radicalize” young people before they get to college;
Continue to use higher education as a tool to undermine the universities and society;
Dismantle the current United States but replace it with a “democratic socialist,” centralized entity where the state has complete control over everything.
The overarching belief is clear: America’s systems – capitalism, policing, meritocracy, marriage – are all inherently oppressive and must be torn down and replaced with something “equitable.”
Although Mamdani has not publicly commented on the recent Socialism conference, he himself has called for ending private home ownership and replacing private dwellings with communal living. He also claims that private ownership of housing and profit-seeking by home builders is the main cause of homelessness. (One is reminded of the scene in the 1965 film “Dr. Zhivago” where Yuri comes home from the war after the Revolution to a house that has been divided up for different families).
Since Mamdani has openly called for the state to seize the methods of production along with private housing, there is little if any difference between his worldview and that of the most radical collectivists. That Bernie Sanders and AOC have endorsed him also speaks volumes about their own beliefs. We are supposed to believe that all they want to do is to make the US a little more like Denmark. One should wonder if the people cheering at their “Fighting Oligarchy” rallies understand just how their lives would change—and not for the better—if Sanders, Mamdani, and AOC get the “Democratic Socialism” that they want.
But what about the rest of the Democratic Party that doesn’t support Mamdani and so-called Democratic Socialism? To a certain extent, many of them are dependent upon a system of intervention that allows them to gain personal wealth from regulated capitalism and they realize that they would be left in the cold if the US really were to go fully socialist, as the left wing of the Democratic Party would like to do. Thus, we understand their resistance to the Mamdani campaign.
The Democrats were in this same place more than 90 years ago. The socialist writer Upton Sinclair in a huge electoral upset won the California Democratic Party primary for governor in 1934, running on a platform to “abolish poverty.” As Steven F. Hayward wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal:
Sinclair ran on a radical platform known by the acronym EPIC, for End Poverty in California. EPIC proposed universal old-age pensions (before Social Security), Soviet-style collective farms, state-run industries that would “produce for use, not for profit,” and perhaps property confiscation.
(Note that Mamdani has not called for the creation of collective farms in New York, which should not be surprising, given there are no farms in the city. However, in 1934, many Americans were enamored by the so-called Soviet Experiment in communism, which was much more highly regarded in the US than it would be later during the Cold War.)
President Franklin Roosevelt was not pleased with the result, as he worried that Sinclair’s radical campaign might turn people against his New Deal plans. While incumbent Republican Gov. Frank Merriam was unpopular, many Democrats and Republicans looked to run an “independent” candidate, Raymond Haight, as a foil to the other candidates.
Ultimately, Hollywood (which at that time had not been politically radicalized) turned up the rhetorical and broadcasting heat against Sinclair, and that proved to be the difference. Merriam won the election, and the socialists had to look elsewhere for electoral success.
Like the Mamdani platform and the socialist “vision” given in Chicago, Sinclair’s political promises could only be accomplished through coercion and propaganda. As Ludwig von Mises wrote more than a century ago in Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, socialism cannot work the way its promoters claim. As we have seen from the Bolshevik Revolution to modern times, socialists had absolute power to direct both labor and resources to whatever purposes they wished, yet their attempts failed miserably.
However, socialists continue to press on and now they seem to be enjoying political success. And while they throw in the word “democratic” to soften the blow, one cannot implement socialism without violence and threats of violence, since it requires confiscation of the property of others and seizes resources to change economic outcomes. In the end, it becomes yet another form of totalitarianism.
I am picking up a subject about which I have already written in an article entitled “Wokism: The New Pagan Morality.”[1] We now live in an increasingly post-Christian society. Interestingly, 56% of American voters deemed the term “woke” to be positive, associated with being informed and educated, while just 39% deemed it negative, likening it to censorship and being overly politically correct.[2] In his book, America’s Cultural Revolution: How the Left Conquered Everything,[3] Christopher Rufo traces the origins of CRT/Wokism, showing how America has been quietly taken over by the ideological heirs of 1960s radical neo-Marxists.[4] In his ground-breaking research of contemporary Western culture, he discovered a “hideous face of revolution” that is “a rot spreading through American life. The country’s foundations are starting to shake loose”. If this is true, we all need to know about it.
We now live in an increasingly post-Christian society, easily seduced by false notions of reality. One recent study found that the median number of people in a Christian congregation in America in 2023 is 60. That’s less than half of what it was 20 years ago, when the number was 137. This steep decline has been called the “Great De-churching” of America.[5]Any respect for or worship of the Creator/Redeemer God is virtually absent.[6] People cannot live without morals, since God created an ethical universe. Those who do not want to respect God’s morals are busy normalizing the LGBTQ philosophy, eliminating the nuclear family and living according to the moral norms of neo-Marxist Wokism. Marxism is thoroughly anti-Christian, denying the being of God and seeing matter as ultimate. It worships the creature (matter) rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25). Marx had a close friendship with the radical New Testament scholar, Bruno Bauer, who claimed that the Christian gospels were forgeries. Marx himself believed that it was necessary to “recognize as the highest divinity the human self-consciousness itself,”[7] thereby dismissing God. Today’s Critical Race Theory is a modern form of atheism that derives from Marxism, as we shall show. CRT believes in the Postmodern “truth,” which does not come from God but is rather an expression of human power. Many, even Christians,[8] are abandoning their personal faith in the God of Scripture and seeking a new source of morality. Wokism’s false morality plays on the sensitive conscience of young Americans.
White supremacy argues, in Marxist fashion, that society is always divided into oppressors (owners) and the oppressed (workers). In today’s context, whites are the oppressors and minorities are the oppressed (particularly Blacks, women, illegal aliens, and LGBTQ). Biblical morality is seen as oppressive because of its standards of sexual behavior.
As noted in my previous article, Stanley Ridgley has done an excellent job researching the semi-religious movement of Wokism in his book, Brutal Minds (2023).[9]His subtitle describes what he has seen: The Dark World of Left-Wing Brainwashing in Our Universities. He saw the decided intention of university administrators not only to undermine a student’s ability to engage in classical academic thinking but to give them a serious case of “religious” guilt. I have often wondered why the history of the West and of America in particular are not taught in American universities. Jesse Jackson’s 1987 rallying cry at Stanford University springs to mind: “Hey ho, what d’ya know, Western civ has got to go.” We see now that, indeed, it got up and went!
Wokism is a progressive political program that has infiltrated our American culture in its government administrations, its companies and its educational facilities, where “diversity officers” of DEI (“diversity, equity and inclusion”) will “cancel” anyone who does not follow the new rules. This “hideous system,” to use Rufo’s term, is dangerous because it proposes itself as good, seeking social justice and opposing racism.
Authors who seek to understand present-day culture find its roots in the Sixties Cultural Revolution. Rufo points out that in the Sixties, some radical intellectuals turned away from the violent actions of racial groups like the Black Panthers and attempted to change the culture ideologically. They abandoned racist violence in the streets in favor of “a long march through the institutions,” that would make cultural revolution an attractive philosophical novelty, to be developed in the universities and bureaucracies. This was the original work of the Frankfurt School of German Jewish Marxists, who, seeking to escape Hitler’s Germany, moved to Columbia University, where they pursued their study of contemporary neo-Marxism. One of them, Herbert Marcuse, moved to the West Coast, and exercised great influence on the radical students of the Sixties. Marcuse and Marxist radical Rudi Dutschke (who invented that phrase— “the long march through the institutions”) worked together as early as 1966. Marcuse wrote to Dutschke in 1971 agreeing with this strategy: “Let me tell you this: that I regard your notion of the ‘long march through the institutions’ as the only effective way.”[10]
The modern Left is currently fulfilling Marcuse’s prophesy that if Western society could be liberated from capitalist repression, the “oppressive” moral and religious foundations of the West would collapse and the populace would discover true freedom. Rather than proposing a dictatorship of the proletariat (in the old Marxist style), he proposed “a dictatorship of the intellectuals”. This neo-Marxism is the origin of Critical Race Theory.
Herbert Marcuse is also the source of contemporary “cancel culture,” the denial of free speech. Before that term was invented, he defended the notion of “repressive tolerance,” that is, the notion that the free expression of ideas ought to be repressed. Only tolerance for progressive (Marxist) ideas should be allowed—which is classic one-sided expression of Marxism. Liberalism, which respects free speech, has lost its way. It was challenged in the Sixties by “Boomer radicals…. By the eighties it was meaningless, by the ‘noughts’ (2000s) no one believed it, and by twenty-twenties, it’s a marginal belief held by a few college professors at odds with society.”[11]The Marxist Marcuse decided that the new proletariat should use race rather than class to overturn society”. Thus racism as a revolutionary ideology was born and has moved from the margins to the center. As Rufo shows, they have sought to change the language, the law and the historical discourse. They have succeeded in controlling the institutions and redefining public orthodoxy.
Almost by accident, I came across a little known fact that is crucial for understanding the attacks on white supremacy, white privilege and white anger.[12]It shows that CRT is a Marxist plot, and the accusation of racism is a classic Marxist idea. Read on!
The origin of white racism was described, not by Rufo, but by an African-American first-hand eye witness, Manning Johnson, in his book Color, Communism and Common Sense (1958). He describes a broad and deliberate attempt by Soviet and American communists in 1934–35 to undermine faith in American institutions through a massive program that would expose America as deeply racist. The goal was to create “a common front against the white oppressors.”[13] Johnson documents that the plot to use “Negroes as the [expendable] spearhead” to undermine America was created by Stalin in 1928, ten years after the creation of the Comintern (the World Organization of Communism), whose goal was to wipe out Western civilization. This tactic was employed also by “the top white US communist leaders” hypocritically promoting the idea of racial conflict in “a cold- blooded struggle for power” to “advance the cause of Communism” in America.[14]
The goal was “to make the white man’s system, the white man’s government, responsible for everything.” He noted: “Smear is a cardinal technique,” seeking to “divide America” that can only be called “a propaganda hoax.”[15]“Black rebellion was what Moscow wanted. Bloody racial conflict would split America. During the confusion, demoralization and panic would set in.”[16] At the same time, apparently, the anti-racists had little time for black people. According to the recently deceased Walter Williams, Marx dismissed the black race as much closer to the animal kingdom.[17]Robert Robinson, Black on Red: My 44 Years Inside the Soviet Union, observed: “I can say as an expert that one of the greatest myths ever launched by the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus is that Soviet society is free from racism.”[18]
The New Marxists
It is little wonder that the Marxist Marcuse “suggested a new axis for revolution: ‘racial conflict.’” He believed class conflict and cultural revolution could be produced by such racial conflict. “He saw the black militant movement as a viable means of breaking the Establishment’s stranglehold on language and culture”. He saw the liberal democratic notion of tolerance as an illusion (see above), and proposed a new regime of liberating tolerance” (intolerance against movements of the Right). Free speech and free assembly were “a clear and present danger”. The revolution for justice today is not based on social class and economic values (as in the old Marxism) but on human identity and racial justice. This is the “neo” side of Marxism. Wokists define white identity as soaked in guilt due to its oppression, thus setting an antithesis to black identity, which is deeply oppressed. Neo-Marxism insists that whiteness is a malevolent invisible force that produces cultural sickness.
In 1972, Marcuse argued that the only path to liberation was a socialist regime, the end of which was traditional Marxism. According to Marti Gurri, a former CIA analyst who studies media and politics, “nothing like the woke DEI ideology has transpired since the conversion of Constantine.” Nearly every major American institution—including federal, state, and local governments,[19]universities and public schools, hospitals, insurance, media and technology companies and major retail brands—has accepted the DEI social justice, which pedals a false morality based on hatred and revenge. The driving ideology claims that such an infrastructure is essential to the nation’s proper health and function. Most leading companies and the universities have bought into the ideology that claims moral power by rejecting white racism while supporting minority groups such as LGBTQ movements and women’s reproductive rights (abortion). From Amazon to Walmart, most major corporations have created and staffed DEI offices within their human resources bureaucracy. So have sanitation departments, police departments, the military, and government departments of agriculture, commerce, defense, education and energy. Employees can be instantly fired if they dare to challenge the DEI definition of equity. We see the beginning of fascism that joins state, media and business. Last year, a proposal was made to put in place a Disinformation Governance Board that would have the power to “cancel” the speech of ill-informed citizens. The Board failed miserably since the person in charge of judging speech, Nina Jankowicz, came under relentless attack for her partisan and biased opinions. The political attempt to control speech came too early—but, if things continue as they now are, we may see such a board return in the future to “cancel” free speech.
“Everything we have seen in the Soviet Union will inspire us in our own struggle…”, said the radical racist, Angela Davis. She hailed Marcuse as “the intellectual leader of the new Left’s revolution and stated: ‘We cannot combat racism until we have destroyed the whole system’”. What we need is a “total and complete change in the structures of society” —thus tying wokist racism to Marxism.
Political control of behavior and speech (the goal of CRT/Wokism) is a significant stage in the arrival of full-blown cultural Marxism. Though Rufo does not consider religious issues in his book, he states on his substack page that the future of America concerns the rejection of both religion (Christian morals) and of political liberalism (that is, constitutional law): “The problem I see is that abandoning a Christian moral framework and a liberal political framework means abandoning the United States as a whole….[it]would mean that we are in a Weimar scenario, with radical movements across the political spectrum vying for the regime”[20]. In Germany, the Weimar Republic led to the Hitler regime.
To survive in God’s world, human beings need at least a knowledge of God’s law, so it is the responsibility of Christian believers to make God known both as Creator and Redeemer, to preach the Gospel, yes, but also the law, as the Apostle Paul says so eloquently in 2 Cor. 4:6:
For God (the Creator), who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (the Redeemer).
We may feel extremely discouraged as we see the direction of our country, and we are not promised peace and tranquility. Yet the stunning intricacy of God’s creation still makes thoughtful people sit up and take notice. Those who are ready to acknowledge the Creator may well be drawn to the beauty, power, and love of God the Redeemer, who receives anyone who puts faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
[7] Skousen, W.Cleon, The Naked Communist: Exposing Communism and Restoring Freedom (Izzard Ink, 2017), 40.
[8] Miles, Lucas, Woke Jesus: The False Messiah Destroying Christianity (Humanix Books, 2023) and Robles, A. D., Social Justice Pharisees (MJ Nashville, 2022).
[9] Ridgley, Stanley, Brutal Minds: The Dark World of Left-Wing Brainwashing in Our Universities (Humanix Books, 2023), x.
[10] Marcuse, Herbert, Marxism, Revolution and Utopia: Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse, vol 6, (Routledge, 2014), 336.
Recently, one astute analyst of South African news went beyond the usual reporting to identify competing ideologies. Since our national crime and violence have been recently exposed on a global stage, what’s at the root of such ugly fruits?
Turns out that a 1961 book still exerts an enormous influence on the Ramaphosas and Malemas of our day (just as it did on the Gaddafis, Mugabes and many other tyrants), a kind of Marxist ‘Bible’ for many – entitled, The Wretched of the Earth, by French psychiatrist, Frantz Fanon.
Thanks to Fanon’s influence, hate and crime (or utterly failed policies like BEE or Eskom) can be justified as long as they are done in the name of liberation. Instead of believing that mankind is universally evil and needing to be civilised, we’re told man is basically good but oppressed, so Western civilisation must be deconstructed and rebuilt by the liberators.
Ideas have consequences, and it helps to know what our rulers are reading. Show me your favourite books and I know what you’ll do when you have power. Marxism has been one of the bloodiest, most deadly ideas in human history (some 94 million deaths in the 20th c.) – fueling violent revolutions across Africa and beyond.
If Christians proclaim the lordship of Christ over all of life, we must recognise and refute godless philosophies, “taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” through biblically renewed minds (2 Cor. 10:3-5; Rom. 12:2).
If our churches are called to be “the pillar and support of the truth”, and if overseers are called to “refute those who contradict”, that includes warning our people about deceptive philosophies that hold people captive (1 Tim. 3:15; Tit. 1:9; Col. 2:8). Here then are four major lies of Marxism.
(1) Lies about God & Creation
The Bible says God created all things and made man in His image (Gen. 1). But Marx says Darwin was right. There is no supernatural realm, no God, and nothing unique or sacred about human dignity. Mankind is just a higher species of animal. It’s the law of the jungle, ‘might makes right’, survival of the fittest. Religion and morality are merely tools of the oppressors.
Marx wrote, “…I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above: I shall build my throne high overhead….” As Solzhenitsyn warned, “The world has never before known a godlessness as organised, militarised and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. …Hatred of God is the principle driving force…militant atheism is the central pivot.”
No wonder that even pastors in communist Venezuela were heard praying, “Our Chavez who art in Heaven”!
(2) Lies about the Fall & History
Here’s how Marx introduces his Communist Manifesto: “All history has been a history of class struggles, of struggles between exploited and exploiting.” This is the Hegelian view of history as a series of struggles between oppressors (the bourgeois) and the oppressed (the proletariat), where wealth is created at the expense of the poor.
But the Word of God shows that history is a struggle between God and the Serpent, between good and evil, not fundamentally between rich and poor, or strong and weak (Gen. 3:15; Rev. 12). Economic and power struggles are but symptoms of human depravity (Rom. 1-3). Our root problem is spiritual, not economic.
No amount of military coups or state control will change the heart of man. While socialism says man is oppressed and can be saved by revolt, Scripture says man is a sinner and can be saved by grace alone.
(3) Lies about the Future
If Marx was wrong about the past and the present, he was also wrong about the future. He claimed history was moving inevitably toward the utopia of an ever-increasing proletariat (working class). They would eventually take over, and a new, classless order would emerge, with no more oppression. All wealth would finally be used for the good of all.
But the Bible declares that only the return of our Lord Jesus Christ to set up His kingdom upon the earth will bring in true righteousness and lasting peace (Isa. 9:1-7; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 19:11-21). Man cannot achieve utopia; only King Jesus will bring it.
(4) Lies about Economics & Government
Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people’s money.” Socialism is legalised theft, institutionalised envy (think, ‘Expropriation Without Compensation’). Socialists are parasites who consume what others have earned by hard work and ingenuity. There is a world of difference between voluntary Christian generosity and compulsory confiscation.
Private ownership of property and of the means of production is biblical. Both the 8th and 10th Commandments require a concept of private property (Exod. 20:15,17). Marx was wrong about economics at every level – about consumer demand, about buyer preferences, and about owner profits.
Marx was also wrong about God’s design for human incentive in labour. Coercion kills motivation and productivity. In a communist state, everyone is forced to work, so why innovate, why work harder? Yet the Bible is clear, “If a man doesn’t work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). For those unable to work, like widows and orphans, Scripture commands charity (Jm. 1:26-27; 1 Tim. 5:3-16).
Christianity unlocked the forces of charity and mercy in history. Christ taught the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:25-37). Says one economist and historian, “There has not been one real-world success story under the communist banner.” Revolutionary slogans about ‘power to the people’ only bring power to the dictator and bondage to the people.
As Jesus taught, “You will know them by their fruits”, and the nasty fruits of Marxism are undeniable (Matt. 7:16).
Conclusion
R.C. Sproul said, “The fundamental thesis of Marxism is irreconcilable with historical Judeo-Christianity.” D. James Kennedy states, “While socialism proclaims Paradise to those who try it, in reality it only delivers one nightmare after another. …Any system that tries to dethrone God and undermine the biblical truth about human nature is destined to fail.”
Yet I see Christian leaders openly identifying with violent, thieving political parties?! “Let those who name the name of the Lord depart from wickedness” (2 Tim. 2:19).
May our God raise up an army of discerning believers who will refute Marxist lies, champion a biblical worldview, and be salt and light in our society for the glory of His name.
There is nothing more dangerous than an incomplete picture of history. A hundred years from now, if the powers-that-be have their way, the few children still allowed to be born (due to carbon controls) will be regaled with school lessons about the “Dark Ages of Nationalism” – When humanity was divided into warring states and divided societies that refused to embrace multiculturalism “to the detriment of all”.
They will say that a “great movement” for globalism and wokeness arose and that the courageous revolutionaries fought evil conservative fascists using any means necessary. The political left will be painted as heroes fighting, not for freedom, but for equity and the “greater good”. Western culture, Christianity, meritocracy, moral objectivity, personal liberty and appeals to reason will be demonized as relics of the old world – Monstrous constructs that prevented civilization from attaining true “oneness”.
None of this will be true, of course. The majority of wars are triggered by globalist interests, not nationalists, and the political left is a gaggle of insane zealots hellbent on destroying the west. But, as they say, history is written by the victors.
Many conservatives and liberty advocates still don’t understand that we are in the middle of a 4th Generation conflict. It’s not a political or ideological disagreement, it’s a war; a guerrilla war in which the enemy hides behind civilian status and the legal apparatus.
They use our moral code and our constitutional provisions against us. They find loopholes in the governmental structure and exploit those weaknesses. They turn our society into a living suicide bomb, all while claiming they hold a position of ethical superiority. It has happened before…
If you get the chance I highly recommend readers check out the in-depth investigative analysis of professor and economist Antony Sutton; specifically his book ‘Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution’. In it he describes the historical timeline of how Trotsky and Lenin were funded and aided by the elites of the era. The key leaders of the Marxist takeover of Russia could not have done what they did without the help of American and European globalists.
The greater takeaway from Sutton’s revelation is not so much what happened in the past, but what is happening NOW and how it is similar.
The reality of a hidden hand behind the Bolshevik Revolution might sound rather familiar – Today’s DOGE audits have exposed massive bureaucratic manipulation schemes through agencies like USAID to instigate political and social change in America and in foreign nations. These schemes involve vast sums of taxpayer subsidies cycling through globalist controlled NGOs that then use the free cash to push multiculturalism, LGBT propaganda and color revolution.
The agenda to create a one world system and erase traditional western principles is ongoing, handed down from one generation of globalists to the next in a parasitic lineage. The people behind it are moral relativists and Luciferians (they worship themselves and desire to become godlike). They pursue their goals with the fervor of a religious cult. They believe in what they are doing utterly; with as much conviction as you or I hold in our fight for freedom and accountability.
In America the process is beginning to parallel the leftist movements that ended with Marxist terrorism in Europe and the eventual rise of fascism.
After WWI, leftists engaged in a hurricane of disruption tactics including industrial sabotage, mob intimidation, politically motivated worker strikes, terror attacks, bombings, assassinations, etc. Modern day academics try to paint these tactics as heroic, or at the very least they claim that the actions of Marxists had nothing to do with the European embrace of fascism. This is a lie.
It was, in fact, the constant psychological attacks, economic attacks and direct attacks by far-left groups that made fascism so appealing to common Europeans. Ernst Thalmann, the Stalin-backed leader of the far-left during the last days of Weimar Germany, came to the conclusion that the moderate left was a greater threat than the Nazis. The communists viewed centrist liberals as an impediment to their efforts, much like the woke leftist of today treat moderates as heretics instead of allies. They alienated everybody and made everyone want to work with the fascists.
Of course, Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini BOTH openly venerated Karl Marx and his socialist system of governance. Fascism was nothing more than a different flavor of leftist tyranny posing as a solution to leftist tyranny. But for Europeans tired after years of societal division and constant unrest, the fascist message of order was enticing.
Antony Sutton outlines this dichotomy and how globalists helped the Nazis rise to power in his book ‘Wall Street And The Rise Of The Third Reich’.
In other words, the globalists created a Marxist terror campaign across Europe and then used it to drive the public into the arms of another socialist empire in the form of The Third Reich.
In Germany, people supported fascism because they sought to drive out and eliminate the social rot created by Bolshevik relativism (very similar to the rot we see in America today). For instance, sexual degeneracy was rampant in Germany after WWI. The very first transgender clinic was founded in Berlin in 1919. The Marxists lobbied for the legalization of abortion in order to garner more female support.
The rise of the “sexual reformation” was initiated and the 1920s equivalent of the “Gay Pride” movement was born. Pedophiles began to creep out of the woodwork – The concept of underage prostitution and “rent boys” was a notable problem in Berlin.
Questions of personal liberty are fair to argue. But without moderation, psycho-sexual obsessions embraced on a large scale can trigger social collapse. The true intent of any sexual reformation is to normalize cultural and psychological outliers. Weimar Germany in the 1920s was very much like America in the 2020s in this way.
Then there was hyperinflation, economic hardship and vying political factions that drove fear into common Germans. The fascists offered a clear vision, they offered economic prosperity, they offered domestic peace, they offered an end to the morally bankrupt madness of the left, and the public jumped at the chance. It was not a good choice, but it was better to them than allowing a communist takeover.
The globalists have a tendency to attack a target population from two sides, using chaos they control, and then order they control. Marxism plays the role of chaos, and fascism plays the role of order.
Most of us are familiar with the idea of the Hegelian Dialectic. However, I would argue that the situation is much more complex today than it has ever been. There is only one true option; order is the obvious choice. Leftists and globalists must be removed from power.
But how do we avoid doing what the Germans did? How do we remove the leftist threat without diving headfirst into our own brand of totalitarianism? It might not be possible.
There’s the judicial overreach by activist judges to thwart any cuts to the bureaucracy, and the attempts to stop deportations of illegals. There’s steady online threats of assassination and calls for alliances with foreign adversaries and terror groups. Just be ready for bombings, shootings and the rampaging mobs because that’s all coming this summer, I have no doubt.
The risk of martial law being declared is very high if things go the way I suspect they will go, and a majority of the US public will applaud the idea. Donald Trump has taken measures to follow through on every one of his campaign promises so far and I believe that this has earned him the benefit of the doubt. However, if he did call for martial law under the circumstances I describe to expedite matters, conservatives would be falling into a classic government power trap.
Once that door is opened it will be hard to reverse matters, and there’s no guarantee that the right wing will be in control of the machine as it shifts from checks and balances into a streamlined top down autocracy. We almost fell off that cliff under the Biden Administration during covid and it’s a miracle the country is still in one piece.
The scary thing is, beyond the hypothetical risks involved, it’s difficult to argue that martial law is unreasonable. The leftists are making it very hard for us to want to fight for their liberty, and frankly most conservatives would not care if they were shipped off to an isolated island somewhere to cannibalize each other. If you examine how these activists rationalize their violence on social media, one can only conclude that they need to be locked up or booted out of the country. They’re not redeemable.
Their actions are designed to elicit a call of force from conservatives. Then the activists rush to to the global stage and scream “You see! The right wingers really are the fascists we said they were!” The mere act of applying law and order becomes “tyranny” by the definition of the progressives.
In the meantime, a lot of libertarians are still out there in the wilderness searching for a perfect solution in which no one’s rights are stepped on and all viewpoints are respected. I’ve accepted that this is not going to happen. There is no silver bullet, no magically pure society in which everyone leaves everyone else alone. In a war, someone’s rights are going out the window.
It’s a zero sum game for conservatives because the more we accommodate the political left and treat them like fellow citizens rather than an enemy insurgency, the more the US will degrade into chaos. If we respond to them as enemies, crushing them like the bugs they are, then we become the bad guys and potentially welcome in a level of government power that could hurt us all in the end.
My solution is an ugly one and it’s something that most conservative commentators don’t want to touch with a ten foot pole: Instead of relying on government power to stop the political left and the globalists, common Americans should organize and handle the problem independently. This removes the danger of government overreach and constitutional trespass.
The average American is not limited by the constitution, the government is. We don’t have to respect the legal rights of NGOs. We don’t have to give leeway to leftist rioters because we’re afraid of political optics. We don’t have to let globalists operate in the US with impunity and without fear. Keep in mind that the US was NOT founded as a libertine nation where anything goes.
The Founders believed in revolution against tyranny, not revolution against morality. They believed in freedom, as long as it’s freedom WITH responsibility. They believed in rules and order, not anarchy. There’s no way on Earth they would have tolerated leftist and globalist machinations. Neither should we.
When we do act, we have to make sure we don’t create a governmental Golem that ultimately turns on us.
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
As central banks continue unprecedented money creation, protecting your purchasing power becomes critical for retirement security. Physical gold IRAs offer a tax-advantaged solution, allowing you to hold tangible precious metals with intrinsic value independent of currency fluctuations. To learn more about how physical gold could help protect your retirement portfolio, click here to get your FREE info kit on Gold IRAs from Birch Gold Group.
Truth2Freedom's Blog 