• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The birth of Neo-Marxism (Critical Race Theory, Identity Politics, etc.)

Mc_B

Member
Male
Wasn't sure where I should post this, (Marxism is definitely anti-Christian so there's that) but I found it very resourceful. A brief and quick rundown of this video: Marxists around the 60s began to see that capitalism actually works, stabilizes the peasants and working class and allows them to enjoy life and become prosperous (which is bad to them). This means they have to find another group of people to be their revolutionaries, so they indoctrinate middle class white college kids and try to convince what they call the "ghetto populations" to be their cannon fodder and bullet sponges. The guy goes into much deeper detail and I highly recommend listening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yan
This is really good. Helps make sense of the crazy! I look forward to hearing more from him...
 
I can confirm a great deal of what Mr. Lindsay says as someone who was headed fairly deep into those movements in the late 1960s and 1970s. A teacher of mine in high school introduced me to Marcuse, and his thinking was indeed pivotal for a great many people; reading him was one of the primary motivators for heading me straight into being in favor of communism. I worked as a community organizer for Amnesty International and Greenpeace and made some great efforts to push a number of leftist agendas with things like The Dialectic of Enlightment, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radical and articles and books by Piven and Cloward (organizing protests in Pennsylvania against nuclear power plants, for example) before I began to question what I was doing in the late 1970s in the middle of attending grad school at the #1 program in humanistic psychology, entirely rejecting the formal discipline of American Communism by the end of the 1980s, then got turned around as a result of listening to Rush Limbaugh in 1993 as part of research for a novel in which I was basing my protagonist on my internal cartoon caricature of what I believed right wingers were like. I committed myself to listening for 6 weeks to fully absorb Limbaugh's pompously ludicrous philosophies.

By the end of that 6 weeks, I was so hooked I began to see the explanations left and right for a great many things that had never made complete sense to me in regard to my general far-leftist belief systems, especially as I'd been hearing the same things coming out of other people's mouths (for example, I increasingly noticed that almost no one who espoused what I espoused ever made anything out of their lives or formed stable families). In the ensuing 28 years until Rush Limbaugh's death, I probably missed fewer than 10 of his 3-hour shows. No one before (and likely no one to come) has ever been so eloquent at explaining the destructive nature of leftism in a way that anyone willing to listen can comprehend than did Rush Limbaugh.

I do have a recommendation that anyone who is interested in a more comprehensive but a bit less in-depth (if that makes sense) of the genesis of these philosophies and how they've been disseminated, I highly recommend Mark Levin's recent book, American Marxism.
 
I need to add one thing, though, as I'm listening to this podcast, and maybe Mr. Lindsay will get to this: Marcuse and his ilk were truly utopians (I'm not sure about Alinsky; I think he was a soulless opportunist just like his two very famous acolytes, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama).

However, I have to emphasize something that I see more fully dominating the destruction of Western society than the efforts of the utopians. The utopians also have a generally negative viewpoint about their fellow human beings, but what I'm about to say was very evident to me when I was in the movement, even before I fully grokked that the movement itself was destructive: those movements always have within them a significant amount of people who really don't care if the world ever gets any better. The true believers tend to have allegiance to creating a world they assume will be better for everyone, but they were very often even outnumbered by individuals who only fake being true believers -- and those other people share in common with the higher-level people who use the true believers as useful idiots a disdain for most of their fellow human beings that labeling it as hate is a serious understatement. The level of hate for people in general is palpable among such a large portion of the left that one has to grow a very thick skin to be able to ignore or tolerate it. These movements are great hiding places for stone-cold sociopaths, sadists and serial killers. Like Anthony Fauci, they can hide in plain sight, because the true believers are so duped by their own utopianism that cognitive dissonance prevents them from recognizing the soulless among them. Mentally-lazy liberals are thus just about the easiest people in the world to manipulate into compromising their own sense of integrity in order to support 'movement' people who are deemed to be on the correct side (the correct team) no matter how often those people lie, cheat, steal or even murder. One of the organizing principles is what Alinsky pounded into people's skulls: the ends justify the means.

But it's a mistake to think this is all something that just emerged in the 1950s or 1960s. The Progressives of the late 19th Century are definitively precursors, and they were predominantly eugenicists, so thus Hitler and the Nazis were earlier prototypes as well. But this type of thinking -- that having the correct, acceptable view of what would be utopian -- stretches back through Rousseau, even some of the minor philosophies of those who founded our country, and further back through certain aspects of the creation of the Roman Catholic Church, aspects of the power structure of Judaism (think of the Talmud and its promotion of the legitimacy of lying to Goyim in order to protect the interests of Jews) -- and perhaps the genesis of all of this in our culture was the collective set of philosophies of the circa 6th Century BC Greeks. Many parallels exist between the systematic planning the Greeks engaged in to incrementally overturn the order of the world in order to transfer the allegiance of human beings from their families to the centralized city/nation-state.

I've written more than I intended -- and still haven't fully gotten to my original point, which is that, in many ways, the utopian leftists are the shiny object that those who actually manipulate them are not our most dangerous enemies. Much more dangerous are the people who just truly hate almost all of us. These people have been among us since the dawn of societies, and they believe that almost everyone who exists is almost entirely superfluous, taking up too much space and utilizing too many resources. They would like to somehow exterminate almost everyone, leaving just enough of these deplorable, unsophisticated superfluous losers to perform services for the ruling class that the ruling class doesn't want to have to perform for itself. The proper word for this, when it comes down to it, is serfdom, or maybe even slavery. I've known such people; some of my first wife's best friends (many of whom have high-level public-sector positions) belch out these thoughts every time they have a couple glasses of wine or a line of coke; they're that comfortable with their disdain and murderous hatred. The mirror this puts on the vacuum of where their souls should be is chilling.

And their greatest disdain is reserved for the very people they most visibly claim to want to promote and protect.
 
This is all great!! I don't think I ever listened to Rush, I wasn't even aware of his existed until 2020...unfortunate when he seems to have had such a positive impact on so many people. I've always assumed the elites would want nothing more than serfdom, to play ladies and lords while us normies do their bidding. Most leftists do seem soooo miserable and angry. How would you personally lead someone out of Marxism? In a similar manner?
 
the genesis of all of this in our culture was the collective set of philosophies of the circa 6th Century BC Greeks. Many parallels exist between the systematic planning the Greeks engaged in to incrementally overturn the order of the world in order to transfer the allegiance of human beings from their families to the centralized city/nation-state.
GOLD.

Guess when and where and why monogamy-only was introduced and codified into law?

Yep. Numa's Law, 6th century BC, by the Greeks... and, Aristotle later explained that it was for the benefit of the city-state... (It removed wealth and power block building from the common polygynous man, gave every man utopian access to a wife and free access to divorce as well as sex with zero responsibility with slaves and prostitutes... all while making smaller families more dependent on the state... )

Witte's book, The Western Case for Monogamy Over Polygamy makes this very clear... even the title! Not 'Christian Case' but Western.
 
Last edited:
This is all great!! I don't think I ever listened to Rush, I wasn't even aware of his existed until 2020...unfortunate when he seems to have had such a positive impact on so many people. I've always assumed the elites would want nothing more than serfdom, to play ladies and lords while us normies do their bidding. Most leftists do seem soooo miserable and angry. How would you personally lead someone out of Marxism? In a similar manner?
Michael Savage nailed this even before Rush did: leftism is a religion that features as one of its necessary characteristics certifiable mental illness that insists on denying any truth that contradicts it, and much like destructive addictions, individuals really can't be led out of it. One has to come to one's own conclusions, and generally it has everything to do with hitting rock bottom after a series of unlearned hard lessons that one gets tired of being destroyed by. Those in power who follow it always have lots of other people's money to finance forcing their sickness on the rest of us.
 
GOLD.

Guess when and where and why monogamy-only was introduced and codified into law?

Yep. Numa's Law, 6th century BC, by the Greeks... and, Aristotle later explained that it was for the benefit of the city-state... (It removed wealth and power block building from the common polygynous man, gave every man utopian access to a wife and free access to divorce as well as sex with zero responsibility with slaves and prostitutes... all while making smaller families more dependent on the state... )

Witte's book, The Western Case for Monogamy Over Polygamy makes this very clear... even the title! Not 'Christian Case' but Western.

Thanks, Pete. I know you know I know all this, but I love it every time you repeat your references to Witte's book.

We are living within a paradox, which is that what we call Western Civilization was designed from the very start to destroy itself. If you read even Plato or the reflections of Socrates or Aristotle, it's easy enough to read between the lines that they could predict and even made plans for such groups as our modern-day conservatives to be the strongest defenders of exactly that which would destroy family. Every time a conservative staunchly defends the canard of "marriage has always been between one man and one woman" is among the strongest examples of this. Monogamy was intended from the start to destroy and demonize tribe. Discovery of this a decade or so ago was revolutionary for me. Even Rush Limbaugh never grokked this; it was one of his blind spots. Levin perpetuates some of the same things. Every time I hear a commentator deriding tribalism I cringe; they just don't get that the nuclear family simply isn't representative of the ideal in strength of family; its purpose was to break us all up into tiny little units that could much more easily be coerced into fealty to the State.

Many of the tempests in teapots we conservatives get embroiled in are very purposefully designed to be distractions. Instead of, for example, recognizing that the insanity of parents cheerleading for their children to change their genders is something that will be self-limiting (most especially as a result of how it advertises its own ludiocrisy) and will never directly affect a significant enough portion of the population to seriously affect our trajectories, we are prone to beating our chests about it -- not realizing that the Adversary isn't promoting it for its own sake but to distract us from standing tall against much more destructive trends such as the one that has caused men to cower under their skirts in the face of their women dominating them.

This is all by design, and it's essential that we be vigilant to avoid perversely becoming pawns in our own destruction.

There is a wokeness that transcends the temporarily-trendy wokeness.
 
they just don't get that the nuclear family simply isn't representative of the ideal in strength of family; its purpose was to break us all up into tiny little units that could much more easily be coerced into fealty to the State.

What makes people submissive to the state or any authority is to be completely dependent on supermarkets. Most people don't grow their own food and don't even know how to do it.

Varg Vikernes and his wife, Marie Cachet, are monogamous and are not submissive to the state. Because they are independent. They raise chicken, they grow food, they raise their children at home.

Revelation 13
16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,
17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
 
Aristotle later explained that it was for the benefit of the city-state... (It removed wealth and power block building from the common polygynous man, gave every man utopian access to a wife and free access to divorce as well as sex with zero responsibility with slaves and prostitutes... all while making smaller families more dependent on the state... )

I forgot to respond to this part of your message when you first posted it, @PeteR, but you mentioned something even more important than Aristotle's justification for forcing monogamy: his numerous known instances of entirely justifying slavery, his philosophy basically being that a slave should just suck it up, cupcake.
 
What makes people submissive to the state or any authority is to be completely dependent on supermarkets. Most people don't grow their own food and don't even know how to do it.

You don't need to grow your own food. In Latvia (I think) unvaxxed can't go food shooping. Solution: buy food from seller on parking loot, lay with cash. People find a way when thete is will.

Also state can always send soldiers to beat you on farm.

Real issue is "Are we standing together?". Clan society was historical yes answer. Today is living with like minded people.
 
What makes people submissive to the state or any authority is to be completely dependent on supermarkets. Most people don't grow their own food and don't even know how to do it.

Varg Vikernes and his wife, Marie Cachet, are monogamous and are not submissive to the state. Because they are independent. They raise chicken, they grow food, they raise their children at home.

Revelation 13
16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,
17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
That Varg is an interesting character but he rejects Christianity and ascribes to views many people describe as racist.

The racist label gets thrown around a lot so I’m always a little cautious when I hear it. I haven’t watched enough of his videos to know for myself so I won’t accuse him of it but it’s something to keep in mind.
 
Back
Top