It feels like people are finally waking up (no pun intended) to the insanity of the woke agenda and the DEI movement within the corporate world. The US government and the private and public education system will take more time. Corporations are driven by profit and are designed to change (relatively) quickly in order to survive and prosper financially. Unfortunately Government and Education does not have the same drivers.
It will take more than a backlash. The left thrives on backlash, pushback, reactions-plans for a backlash and uses it to get more & more attention and power, to continue it's well organized always evolving plan... We will have to get organized, not in the same mold, but will careful thought and wise focus.
So I don't take issue with any of Lindsay's analysis. The intellectual pedigree of wokeism is well documented. But it's urgent that we also realize that most people who fall prey to its demonic idiocy didn't get there by reading Hegel or Marx or even Marcuse. Nor can we blame this all on their college professors who did. Most of these people swallowed the blue pill because society told them it was the nice, compassionate, polite thing to do. And we've done a terrible job of articulating why society's standards are a poor analog for actual morality.
Good points, to add: I'd argue it's the organized and heavily resourced institutions more than the society at large that promulgate wokeism, since most people aren't engaged in wokeism and even fewer are proselytizing. I'd also argue a critical element of becoming woke is material security and comfort, since it seems entirely a belief system held by those who would suffer no consequences from its implementation.
I know at this point that it's an exercise in futility to say this, but socialism has always been about harnessing the politics of envy; once the architects of that have pitted class against class to the point that the 'workers' (almost seems an antiquated term now, doesn't it?) are willing to massacre those they believe to be better off, said architects move in to take control and impose their own sense of order upon their loyal followers. It's been played out numerous times in numerous locales, and it always ends the same; don't believe me? Just look at Cuba, Venezuala or Laos (not to mention the former Soviet Union). No one ever said you had to be particularly bright to be a devoted Marxist...
A half assed lazy intellectual gathers up lazy dummies and teaches them how to steal from productive people and destroy societies for his own power....
this is a misunderstanding of marxism. It talks not about those better off - it talks about those who have means of production in their possession. It is about the contradiction of the collective way of work and the private way of possession of results of work.guys, why do you not read the original source, why do you repeat what the so-called teachers say to you?
@@ludmilaivanova1603If as you say it doesn’t talk about those better off, it sure leads to resentment of those better off and at the end of the day uneducated people that dabble in these dogmas are left to reek havoc on society. They usually take the bits and pieces that suits their agenda and this is the major reasons why it always ends the same. Say what you will but people who use these tools to manipulate the working class is never to the worker’s benefit.
Way off though lol In the occult political sphere ....it's is well known " woke " was started by right wingers as a psyops bomb. Meaning that the "wokies" including the idiots at the alphabet agencies believe wokeism is a leftwing construct....the truth is it's a way for the rightwing to manipulate the left into showing their true colors and to enrage the left into self destruction. It's a virus ...it's infected corporations ...schools ..the body politic and the tards at intelligence agencies.....
The component of religiosity provides the foundation of group think, resulting in cohesion through peer pressure. When you see family members turning against each other, the fear through peer pressure is greater than the fear of the deterioration of said family.
Plato… and then all the other collectivist-obsessed anti-reason- philosophers and prominent firgures after him - some of the main ones, in random (not chronological-) order Meister Eckehard, David Hume, Rousseau, Friedrich Schlegel, Schleiermacher, Schelling, JG Herder, Richard Wagner, Arthur Schopenhauer, Heinrich con Treitschke, Luther, Kant, Hegel, Marx, JGFichte, F Nietzsche, … … all of them, almost inevitably, leading up to the evolution of the socialist-fascist-communist- collectivist horrors of the last century…all perpetrated in the name of the oh-so-über-virtuous doctrine of “ we-know-best-what’s-good-for-you and if you don’t submit we hold the All-Encompassing-Truth which may change from day to day according to our needs and whims, and we hold the All-Encompassing Authority and Power to take you out of the way of our GrandPlans if we so desire to “… by whatever means necessary …
Obviously they don't, or if they do, the answer is always "naaaa." It takes a certain measure of willful blindness to maintain the Marxist/Socialist frame of mind, as the objective lessons of history are well documented down through history to the present day.
Just listened to the audiobook. Its an intellectual way to excuse sloth and jealousy. Its quite remarkable to imagine what KM couldve done if he focused his intellect to doing good.
@tomgee8211 sloth doesn't just mean lazy. It's mean distracted and avoiding what needs to be done as well. So if a Marxist busies themselves with nothing but ideology and the revolutionary "work" they ignore what actually needs attending in their personal life/world. It's slothful to reject reality and either condemn or outright ignore goodly responsibility.
@@tomgee8211 people not wanting to work, people "just living their lives" (I've heard that one a lot), just being their creative selves; which translate into policies like wanting to be given a "living wage" so you don't have to work. Lying to the public about how you could live a nice comfortable, upper middle-class lifestyle without ever having to work, if only the "rich" would pay their fair share (spoiler, the "rich" do not have enough $$$ to fund this preposterous notion).
I just remember a spring day in 2016 when a flood of social media was taken over by a group parroting woke slangs. From comments on news pages, movie, comics, fashion, home decor... everything, everywhere all at once. I think we can find the source of woke by looking at social media and finding that day where "woke" was pushed and finding out who was pushing it and finding out where they came from.
Best possible condensed explanation of WOKE THEORY 🤦🏻 Thank James, we absolutely appreciate you bro 🙏 TRUMP 2024 to get the opportunity to READDRESS the nation + world 🌎 as we know it! Happy 4th AMERICA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Which is why the un goals are to put 50% of youngsters through university. And they have to pay for it and they have to contribute to bank profits it's a beautiful thing.
Unfortunately the heritage foundation releasing 2025 project was adding fuel to a fire that was almost going out. Wokeism was fading. But the heritage foundation relit that fire
Another factor I believe is "mental" and habitual. Do not consider myself a pro at all in the mind sciences field. However the principle of unbiased LOGIC I have never battled with. I read a mind sciences study report. Conclusion was that it takes ONLY about 60 days. To develop or abandon habits. Good or bad. Connect the dots????
I think Mr Lindsay is the most un-sung researcher, analyst, cultural whistleblower and Chief Voice in the Wilderness in the world today. In other words he has the clearest view and the clearest expression of the complexity of these ideas but seems to get very little exposure.. Could you please pass a suggestion on to Mr Lindsay? IMHO, I think Mr Lindsay could reach more people if he put out pieces which are closer to the YT attention span - about 10 to 30 minutes. I find myself daunted by his very lengthy lectures; I'm sure others would too. Thanks for having him on - the more we find him all over the place the better - and thank you in advance for passing my suggestion on to Mr Lindsay. Keep 'em flying! Cheers!
Many of the layers of ideas he works in requires either that you're keeping up and doing mostly the same readings as him, so that you can follow along with the conversation, or they require all that time to properly calibrate the audience's mind to understand what he's saying. The real big ideas just can't be unambiguously expressed in short form - medium form content like that to an audience with variable starting points of base knowledge. He does have some shorter form content. Have you been looking for it?
@@Thalanox Oh, I understand how complex this is and how extremely difficult to popularize it and make sense of it for a wider audience considering, as you say, how much history and background material there is. I fully agree with your concerns in that matter. I suppose I was mostly hopefully musing that somehow it could spread more. This ideological machine is something everyone should understand but it is so darn dense. I have seen his short stuff; I was thinking something in between ... like this interview was clear and concise. Thank you for the reply. Very thoughtful of you. Cheers!
@@kaoskronostyche9939 I think that the most major readability gains will likely be made with a recreation of the full dataset. That happens with some cultural discussions. Any time things move to a new medium, or a new major event happens that leads a big group of people to be new to an idea, but not necessarily have known of the prior thought development of that idea, then there's a new colonial phase where the basics of the discussion are being recreated, or repackaged/transcribed into the new medium. This usually makes it become more digestible to the current masses of the day. At this stage, only the willfully informed have even a little bit of the inclination and capacity to understand the underpinnings or the idea of a bigger picture. I think it might just be flat out far too much to put out in a proactive advertisement campaign, but successively compact and organized courses will be made. The good news is that as more people live in the awfulness, the more they'll be able to understand the ideas being described. Few are able to operate in the abstract and need to have a concept physically constructed in their lives through experience. The bad news is that things will probably have to get worse for a while longer before they get better again. See if you can start a local organization / discussion / education group in your area and talk about these things. Without actual curiosity and a special spark, ideas will not disseminate. My biggest issue is that I have no idea what someone who hasn't been keeping at least some sort of eye on these cultural discussions that have been going on for decades knows or what they don't know.
i wish lindsay and his associate peter boghossian had done better in their exchange with marc lamont hill (a virulent marxist and social justice race baiter.) jl & pb sadly got destroyed by hill. it was so strange given all their important work and contribution and commentary around web.
Because JL refuses to believe the current form of political Marxists ARE actively attempting to over throw and abolish capitalism, which they define as private property ownership. JL keeps hoping he can convince these Marxists that they are wrong and to join his side. They will NEVER join our side. They truly believe capitalism causes ALL problems in every society. JL thinks they’re not serious about wanting to over throw and abolish capitalism that they just want the social power. They already have the social power. They already have the institutional power. They can take children from their parents and administer cross sex hormones to the child against the wishes of the parents. Why are they doing this? For 3 reasons. 1 to prove they have the institutional power to do so. 2 to attack parental rights as they view parental rights as a form of private property. 3 to undermine the family to stop the flow of productive workers into the capitalist system. They are collectivists. They do not care if they harm individuals as long as it leads to the greater good of overthrowing and abolishing capitalism. Individual trans ppl may not see it that way but the Marxist organizers and theorists (leaders) do. Individual harm is completely acceptable to them if it serves the collective. That’s why racists and Marxists like Marc Lamont Hill like inciting race hatred. He knows it is damaging to individuals and he does not care about that at all because he believes using identity based politics is an effective tool to install Marxism. JL has the same problem the Marxists theorists have. They’re living in a mental esoteric fantasy while the Marxists organizers and activists ARE ACTIVELY ATTEMPTING TO OVERTHROW AND ABOLISH CAPITALISM!!! That’s why James lost the debate. He’s trying to debate mental opinions instead of the facts as they are actually happening. If the general public was made aware that the public schools are run by Marxists and they plan to destroy the gender binary to attack capitalism through social reproduction theory people would start pulling their children out of public schools and this Marxists madness would stop in a generation. However not even conservative influencers like JL and PB will talk about that because public school IS big business and big business IS capitalism. The contracts for building and maintaining public schools runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars and a lot of powerful conservatives own and run companies that hold those contracts. That’s why you’ll never see Fox News tell their viewers the public schools are run by Marxists and to pull your children out of them immediately.
Marxists are very operational. Activism is their life's work. They publish tips on how to trip up the competition. They're not about leaving people alone to follow their own beliefs. They're IN YOUR FACE. Superior intellect, and actually being right, pale in the face of their assault.
Early Christians did NOT all believe this panopoly of claims. Marcionites, for example, believed that the god of the OT was an evil god, and was not the creator. They believed in an original creator who wanted nothing and needed nothing, and had set up the world the best way possible to create the conditions for life, and for potential human flourishing. They also believed that Christ was the emanation of that God, and had come to free us from those chains. They founded a colony on an island, and lived in peace for many years until they were destroyed by the Orthodox church. They were thrown into the "gnostic" pot by the Orthodox church and branded heretics. They did not harm each other, and practiced cooperative responsibility, without a rigid hierarchy, but with priests and priestesses running the group. Basically, they followed the golden rule, in practice.
Nice try Heretic. Mariocite is just another flavor of the modern attempts to throw away the old Testament despite how important it is to understand the New Testament.
@@silverhawkscape2677 incorrect. 1. Read your history. Marcion was born in 49 AD, and his father physically met Christ. 2. I'm not a gnostic and dont follow any of those traditions. I'm just describing what is on the record. Truth is truth.
That's why they are called *heresies* . They were ideas that originated in pagan Greek Platonism and Neo-Platonism, and through the 3rd Century BC into the 3rd Century AD, first Jewish and latter Christian teachers, philosophers, and laymen wrestled with (and in some cases adopted) these views or elements of these Hellenistic Greek views. Even then, some elements of Platonist Gnosticism still ultimately got into Catholic (Universal, as Catholic is the Greek word for Universal) Christian doctrine. Leave it up to the Catholics (and their branch-off Protestants descendants) to assert that the mind and spirit is superior to the body (that Original Sin soiled the flesh or desires of the flesh are inherently dirty/sinful [this is why Monasticism in Christianity swears off concerns of matters of mortal life and rejects things such as marriage for clergy). That is as opposed to Restorationist/Primitivist Christian denominations like my own religion that assert the point of mortality is the acquisition of a physical body, that God the Father has a transfigured/sanctified body of flesh and bone, and that mind, body, and spirit are co-equal necessary components to becoming Exalted like God, and so on and so forth.
@@GreyWolfLeaderTW the idea that there is a one, perfect God is, in fact, a Platonic idea. I appreciate your commentary very much. I'd say be careful what you call "pagan". Abrahamic faiths all come from a Platonic core.
Ironically, Marx was correct that the basic dynamic is oppressed vs. oppressors. Problem is, he misidentified the oppressors, and the mechanism of oppression.
Nope, he did not even get that right. Oppression exists, of course, but it is NOT the primary dynamic in history, especially post-Enlightenment, even if it is an important factor.
@@seankennedy4284 LOL, dude, if you are not aware that Marxists turned to post-modernism, critical theory, and so on, because they figured out the masses were NOT being exploited by the capitalist class, but in fact were benefiting from free exchange dynamics under capitalism, I got nothing for you. Literally everyone knows this by now, and the neo-Marxists (or whatever you want to call them) are the first ones to tell you (the Frankfurt School, for one). Marxism insists that everything is about power, but IRL, it is not. It is also about competence, understanding, charity, religious beliefs, non-zero sum games, civil society, and so on. Wanting to make literally everything political (i.e., about power relations) is strictly speaking insane. Totalitarianism is not the answer.
Equity by praxis? People must become activists so, “The enlightened,” can seize the means of production? Tricked from a profound lack of street smarts and civic awareness.
Clearly man created "god" in his own image. Our founders also did not believe in private property rights. Imagine if we had private property and private business rights. If we did, imagine how easily our “god” given rights could be taken from us. If you had “private property” rights you could insist I not carry my gun in your home or your business violating my "god given" right to carry a gun, that I not swear, that I not hold certain opinions, or at least not exptess them on your property. You could silence my political speech on your “privately owned” online platform. Just imagine how quickly we would lose all of our “god given” rights if “private property” rights existed making the property owner more powerful than “god” himself who gave us those rights. Thank “god” for our constitution that forbids anyone from becoming so powerful that they could squelch our rights in such a way……….. oh wait, shit!
Therefore we in America lost all meaningful work that pays well and have mostly only admin for someone else's vision/ business who resents having to pay us anything. Fun times in marx-land!
A certain minority that was historically disliked by the majority in the countries it inhabited decided that those countries would be better controlled by promoting other disliked minorities
Nice Anti-Semitism there. Especially since some of Marx's (and the entire Leftist movement's) biggest critics have been Jews. From Ludwig von Mises to Milton Friedman and so on. To condemn an ethnic group is to condemn individuals who disagree with a popular (or at least highly visible) position held by some members in it. Would you say all Germans are N@z!s? All English are K'K-K members? (The American South was primarily settled by Englishmen from the Southwest/Cornwall area and the Anglo-Scottish Border regions). This is highly suspect given Fredrick Engles (who was half of the genius behind Marx's philosophy) was pure ethnic German, as was Hegel. Marx was marinated his whole childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood in German society and culture and rejected the religion and culture of his rabbi grandfathers by becoming an atheist and did not observe Kosher, and Vladimir Lenin was at least one-fourth Volga German. So, by the reasoning of ethnic prejudice, is Marxism not a German philosophy and are Germans in general not to be held accountable for its monstrous ideas?
Most of this stuff came out of the Frankfurt School. What do Marx and The members of the Frankfurt school have in common? People like this guy will never say it.
There are aspects of this discussion that concern me. Human beings either have agency or they don't. Lindsay seems to be trying too hard to equate Marx to the basic human desire to have agency. Marxism has clearly had a negative net influence on society, but it is intellectually dishonest to imply this is no different than people desiring or taking pride in their own accomplishments. Marx's error was in thinking that tearing down one hierarchy-based system wouldn't give rise to another equally unfair and oppressive system, just one that didn't worship deities. The original problem before Marx yet remains.
If you erase God then your insatiable hedonism has no limits, degenerates fear the punishment God might place on them, so they gravitate to ideologies that allow them to think they can become their own god...
@@JackHaveman52 I basically stated it. Human civilization has historically functioned with a strict hierarchy, either with a ruling class or a deity at the top. The problem with a deity-based system is that the deity cannot be fully known or understood, and therefore the deity cannot be challenged even in times of crisis. The problem with a more secular ruling class is that men are corruptable and can shield themselves from criticism by claiming a monopoly on facts. As I understand it, Marx believed that the act of tearing down a hierarchy would cause the revolutionaries to adopt a more enlightened view. But when confronted by reality (how do we put food on the table, defend ourselves, etc) , no one can figure out what that enlightened view should be. No two people think alike. The result is one hierarchy simply replacing the other, and over time the new hierarchy becomes just as corrupt and unchallengeable as the one it replaced. In short, the original problem is human nature, and the fact there has to be leadership in order to get anything done. In relation to my original argument, a deity-based system denies or rejects human agency almost completely, so winding back the clock to embrace deity leadership as a way of combating the current social order would have the effect of making human life meaningless. People would rebel against this, just as they did centuries ago, and nothing would be accomplished. Apologies if this response seems rambling. This is a difficult subject, and I'm not wise enough to know the correct way forward, I just know what an incorrect way is when I see it.
@@Lennis01 The American system isn't deity driven. Organised religion has great influence but, at this moment, political ideology has become more influential than religion, in the form of radical socialism. Notice how the left are always talking about the "threat to our democracy" and are focused more on that than on the Constitution. The Constitution allows for religious beliefs but does not allow for the dominance of one religion to be the driving force of government. The right to vote for our representatives is central to the American system, just like all the other rights protected in the Constitution. It's what's supposed to keep the democratic process into devolving into mob rule. It's why the US broke away from Britain. The founding fathers believed in taxation through representation. A Deity driven society is known as a Theocracy and the US is far from that. A lot of the Islamic countries are Theocracies, in which Islamic law is the law of the land. In the US, Christianity has influence, a strong influence, but isn't central to American law. "No religious test" is covered in Article 6 of the Constitution. Your religion can influence your voting but it cannot violate the Constitution. However, there is no way to fully rid society of a hierarchical progression. It will always happen, just as it did in every Socialist regime in history, a system which advocates for the end of the class structure and has morphed into the identity politics that we see today. Don't worry about the long comment. It's the only way to explain your point of view and it didn't bother me one bit to read it all.
@@JackHaveman52 Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the American system is deity-driven. Not anymore. Rather, some people would like to return to a deity-driven system as the best way to combat the existing neo-liberal social order. Even if they should succeed in doing this (not likely), it would just be rewinding the clock in a way that wouldn't be beneficial to society in the long run. In essence, it would be Marxism in reverse. The core philosophy may be different, but it wouldn't lead to any better of an outcome.
@@AndyJarman Wrong. Careful about reading leftists BS. They are always at their termite like work of trying to dismantle and destroy the good strong & true.
Where’s Kant in your political, philosophical, religious fantasies and logic theories? Total contemporary of all the left and right wing ideology musings in Napoleon IV’s reign
Kant's metaphysics were the inspiration for Hegel's metaphysics, but there's nothing remotely political in it. Kant inspired all 19th c. philosophers; he was hugely influential. Everybody is inspired by something else. Kant was inspired by Hume, and so on.
Once again distorting Marx He advocated for abolishing the wages and profit system. It is not a philosophy. People can misinterpret his works as did lenin mao and the jordan Petersons of this work. What other failings of Capitalism are you going to blame on a guy whos been dead for nearly 150 years .
First draft of Communist Manifesto was called The Communist Confession of Faith, which should make clear Marxism is not an economic theory. Marxists know economic (aka vulgar) Marxism/socialism doesn't work so the framework was applied to cultural and social capital instead. And guess what, it's just as destructive there also. But then again, it is so BY DESIGN.
Problem Is capitalism isnt going to go away. And left and liberals have given up talking about class, wages and income inequality. Fighting for better wages I agree with it. Discussing ethical capitalism (besides don't shop at shein or temu) are conversations that should be had. The "woke" POV Is wait for communism to save us. You may as well as wait for a letter from Hogwarts to save you
Go visit Cuba or China for a few months. See how that works for you. What I don't understand stand if people want that way of living. Then, move away instead of trying to push those beliefs on everyone else.
There it is 9:30 seconds, he can't help himself. What a goon. He's on the right track but then takes a left turn at Albuquerque because he only understands gnosticism from the writings of early church critics and not the Bag Hamadi text which are the ACTUAL gnostic gospels. What a GOON.
Two problems: Firstly, Lyndsay is overly verbose and his adversaries are not as intelligent as he believes them to be. Secondly, Lyndsay openly refused to acknowledge that liberalism and modernity has failed because both liberalism and modernity are the cause of the emergent managerial state as well as the current and past ideological conflicts. In reality, Lyndsay is no less an ideologue possessed by ideobabble than his leftist adversaries, and his insistence on picking and choosing his particular flavor of leftist ideas is both incoherent and incongruent with reality. Lyndsay is done for and true Americans must move past this academic towards true solutions (Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior united underneath the banner of Orthodoxy and Western spiritual tradition).
Even as an atheist I can't wholly disagree. Though I think Lyndsay is VERY smart and it does nobody any good to dismiss him from the discourse when he's slowly arriving at the conclusion you just described. Marxism is the Luciferian intellect manifested. James, ironically, opened my once-closed atheist mind to the idea that thought-forms and the spirit are the same thing, allowing me to process Christianity in the way, I think, it was intended to be interpreted.
What exactly in what he has said do you disagree with? You cannot possibly expect him to take on & destroy liberalism & modernity before he can have any credibility. Nothing he said is counter to Jesus Christ or your religious beliefs. He provided an analysis, not an answer or final conclusion.
Do you think there is a concerted backlash against wokeness?
For more liberty clips, subscribe to my channel and click the bell!
Indeed like a great awakening :)
Nope. Backlash is Not concerted. The wokism is concerted.
It feels like people are finally waking up (no pun intended) to the insanity of the woke agenda and the DEI movement within the corporate world. The US government and the private and public education system will take more time. Corporations are driven by profit and are designed to change (relatively) quickly in order to survive and prosper financially. Unfortunately Government and Education does not have the same drivers.
No, more like white men have been called racist, sexist, homophobe so many times over nothing that we just no longer care.
It will take more than a backlash. The left thrives on backlash, pushback, reactions-plans for a backlash and uses it to get more & more attention and power, to continue it's well organized always evolving plan... We will have to get organized, not in the same mold, but will careful thought and wise focus.
So I don't take issue with any of Lindsay's analysis. The intellectual pedigree of wokeism is well documented. But it's urgent that we also realize that most people who fall prey to its demonic idiocy didn't get there by reading Hegel or Marx or even Marcuse. Nor can we blame this all on their college professors who did.
Most of these people swallowed the blue pill because society told them it was the nice, compassionate, polite thing to do. And we've done a terrible job of articulating why society's standards are a poor analog for actual morality.
Yes Wokeism attracts idealists/“altruists” but it also attracts psychopaths whom obviously mean to harm. Shitlibs don’t call it out though.
Good points, to add: I'd argue it's the organized and heavily resourced institutions more than the society at large that promulgate wokeism, since most people aren't engaged in wokeism and even fewer are proselytizing. I'd also argue a critical element of becoming woke is material security and comfort, since it seems entirely a belief system held by those who would suffer no consequences from its implementation.
@@kw6713a Fair comments, you both.
Social engineering.
I know at this point that it's an exercise in futility to say this, but socialism has always been about harnessing the politics of envy; once the architects of that have pitted class against class to the point that the 'workers' (almost seems an antiquated term now, doesn't it?) are willing to massacre those they believe to be better off, said architects move in to take control and impose their own sense of order upon their loyal followers. It's been played out numerous times in numerous locales, and it always ends the same; don't believe me? Just look at Cuba, Venezuala or Laos (not to mention the former Soviet Union). No one ever said you had to be particularly bright to be a devoted Marxist...
Pol Pot was hyper woke
Marxism uses resentment as a source of political energy. Envy is just one form of this.
A half assed lazy intellectual gathers up lazy dummies and teaches them how to steal from productive people and destroy societies for his own power....
this is a misunderstanding of marxism. It talks not about those better off - it talks about those who have means of production in their possession. It is about the contradiction of the collective way of work and the private way of possession of results of work.guys, why do you not read the original source, why do you repeat what the so-called teachers say to you?
@@ludmilaivanova1603If as you say it doesn’t talk about those better off, it sure leads to resentment of those better off and at the end of the day uneducated people that dabble in these dogmas are left to reek havoc on society. They usually take the bits and pieces that suits their agenda and this is the major reasons why it always ends the same. Say what you will but people who use these tools to manipulate the working class is never to the worker’s benefit.
Excellent, concise analysis.
Way off though lol
In the occult political sphere ....it's is well known " woke " was started by right wingers as a psyops bomb.
Meaning that the "wokies" including the idiots at the alphabet agencies believe wokeism is a leftwing construct....the truth is it's a way for the rightwing to manipulate the left into showing their true colors and to enrage the left into self destruction.
It's a virus ...it's infected corporations ...schools ..the body politic and the tards at intelligence agencies.....
The component of religiosity provides the foundation of group think, resulting in cohesion through peer pressure. When you see family members turning against each other, the fear through peer pressure is greater than the fear of the deterioration of said family.
So Rousseau is basically the original, "we live in a society" guy
Literally so.
Plato set up a commune based upon this idea in southern Italy after the death of Socrates.
the original Socialist, you could say.
Plato… and then all the other collectivist-obsessed anti-reason- philosophers and prominent firgures after him - some of the main ones, in random (not chronological-) order Meister Eckehard, David Hume, Rousseau, Friedrich Schlegel, Schleiermacher, Schelling, JG Herder, Richard Wagner, Arthur Schopenhauer, Heinrich con Treitschke, Luther, Kant, Hegel, Marx, JGFichte, F Nietzsche, … … all of them, almost inevitably, leading up to the evolution of the socialist-fascist-communist- collectivist horrors of the last century…all perpetrated in the name of the oh-so-über-virtuous doctrine of “ we-know-best-what’s-good-for-you and if you don’t submit we hold the All-Encompassing-Truth which may change from day to day according to our needs and whims, and we hold the All-Encompassing Authority and Power to take you out of the way of our GrandPlans if we so desire to “… by whatever means necessary …
James Lindsay = VERY SHARP!
Great review of marxism and wokeism, thanks.
All this, and do they ever pause to ask themselves "could I be wrong?"
Have you ever asked yourself, "could I be wrong?"
Who do you refer to James or Karl
Could you be wrong? 😜
Obviously they don't, or if they do, the answer is always "naaaa." It takes a certain measure of willful blindness to maintain the Marxist/Socialist frame of mind, as the objective lessons of history are well documented down through history to the present day.
@@aspensulphate There we go! THAT'S what I meant.
Happy Independence day, my good man.
We are living in a material world, and I am a material girl
Marx favorite song
Just listened to the audiobook. Its an intellectual way to excuse sloth and jealousy. Its quite remarkable to imagine what KM couldve done if he focused his intellect to doing good.
@sole_
Can you expand on that?
I understand how Marxism excuses envy,
But I’d like to hear more about the sloth part.
I don’t know much about that?
@@tomgee8211 You know Marx lived on family & friends? That was a trivial thing. It is a rebellion of reality.
@tomgee8211 sloth doesn't just mean lazy. It's mean distracted and avoiding what needs to be done as well. So if a Marxist busies themselves with nothing but ideology and the revolutionary "work" they ignore what actually needs attending in their personal life/world. It's slothful to reject reality and either condemn or outright ignore goodly responsibility.
@@tomgee8211 people not wanting to work, people "just living their lives" (I've heard that one a lot), just being their creative selves; which translate into policies like wanting to be given a "living wage" so you don't have to work. Lying to the public about how you could live a nice comfortable, upper middle-class lifestyle without ever having to work, if only the "rich" would pay their fair share (spoiler, the "rich" do not have enough $$$ to fund this preposterous notion).
I can handle 15 minutes of James, I overdosed on him, and lost hours exploring his world. Needed to take a break - Lindsay overload.
The best explanation of woke I’ve heard. Absolutely brilliant. Thank you
“ I think therefore I am “ is the beginning of the enlightenment age this is rooted in of our problems today 😮
I just remember a spring day in 2016 when a flood of social media was taken over by a group parroting woke slangs. From comments on news pages, movie, comics, fashion, home decor... everything, everywhere all at once.
I think we can find the source of woke by looking at social media and finding that day where "woke" was pushed and finding out who was pushing it and finding out where they came from.
Our society should have an open discussion of these sources of our current issues.
That would be antisemitic
Best possible condensed explanation of WOKE THEORY 🤦🏻
Thank James, we absolutely appreciate you bro 🙏
TRUMP 2024 to get the opportunity to READDRESS the nation + world 🌎 as we know it!
Happy 4th AMERICA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Thank you. That was such a great analysis. ⭐️
Lindsay has this topic down cold.
@@aspensulphate Except when it comes to naming anyone who openly funds this crap.
Excellent explaining and linking, Mr Lindsay!
It's disappointing what she did. I hope every ASL interpreter is qualified from now on. Everyone deserves to understand what is being said
Great vid.
James Lindsay is awesome. ❤
Wokeness is just the newest term for a very old and well documented phenomenon that higher education correlates well to leaning left.
Which is why the un goals are to put 50% of youngsters through university. And they have to pay for it and they have to contribute to bank profits it's a beautiful thing.
Higher indoctrination . And most Nobel prize winners are religious , woke trash mean throw common sense away that's the truth of it.
ABOLISH the WOKEY POKEY! 😆🤣
Unfortunately the heritage foundation releasing 2025 project was adding fuel to a fire that was almost going out.
Wokeism was fading. But the heritage foundation relit that fire
Is there any book talking more about this? Thanks
The more I listen to Lindsay’s dissertations on postmodernism, the more I agree with it. I don’t think he had that in mind.
“How Woke Culture Was Created” but no mention of the Frankfurt School of philosophy which gave us critical theory.
Sooooo this!
Another factor I believe is "mental" and habitual. Do not consider myself a pro at all in the mind sciences field. However the principle of unbiased LOGIC I have never battled with. I read a mind sciences study report. Conclusion was that it takes ONLY about 60 days. To develop or abandon habits. Good or bad. Connect the dots????
This guy knows his stuff!
I think Mr Lindsay is the most un-sung researcher, analyst, cultural whistleblower and Chief Voice in the Wilderness in the world today. In other words he has the clearest view and the clearest expression of the complexity of these ideas but seems to get very little exposure.. Could you please pass a suggestion on to Mr Lindsay? IMHO, I think Mr Lindsay could reach more people if he put out pieces which are closer to the YT attention span - about 10 to 30 minutes. I find myself daunted by his very lengthy lectures; I'm sure others would too.
Thanks for having him on - the more we find him all over the place the better - and thank you in advance for passing my suggestion on to Mr Lindsay.
Keep 'em flying! Cheers!
Many of the layers of ideas he works in requires either that you're keeping up and doing mostly the same readings as him, so that you can follow along with the conversation, or they require all that time to properly calibrate the audience's mind to understand what he's saying.
The real big ideas just can't be unambiguously expressed in short form - medium form content like that to an audience with variable starting points of base knowledge.
He does have some shorter form content. Have you been looking for it?
@@Thalanox Oh, I understand how complex this is and how extremely difficult to popularize it and make sense of it for a wider audience considering, as you say, how much history and background material there is. I fully agree with your concerns in that matter.
I suppose I was mostly hopefully musing that somehow it could spread more. This ideological machine is something everyone should understand but it is so darn dense.
I have seen his short stuff; I was thinking something in between ... like this interview was clear and concise.
Thank you for the reply.
Very thoughtful of you.
Cheers!
@@kaoskronostyche9939 I think that the most major readability gains will likely be made with a recreation of the full dataset. That happens with some cultural discussions. Any time things move to a new medium, or a new major event happens that leads a big group of people to be new to an idea, but not necessarily have known of the prior thought development of that idea, then there's a new colonial phase where the basics of the discussion are being recreated, or repackaged/transcribed into the new medium. This usually makes it become more digestible to the current masses of the day.
At this stage, only the willfully informed have even a little bit of the inclination and capacity to understand the underpinnings or the idea of a bigger picture. I think it might just be flat out far too much to put out in a proactive advertisement campaign, but successively compact and organized courses will be made.
The good news is that as more people live in the awfulness, the more they'll be able to understand the ideas being described. Few are able to operate in the abstract and need to have a concept physically constructed in their lives through experience.
The bad news is that things will probably have to get worse for a while longer before they get better again.
See if you can start a local organization / discussion / education group in your area and talk about these things. Without actual curiosity and a special spark, ideas will not disseminate. My biggest issue is that I have no idea what someone who hasn't been keeping at least some sort of eye on these cultural discussions that have been going on for decades knows or what they don't know.
RUclips keeps on unsubscribing me from this channel.
Smart guy! One of the best explanations of Marxism that I have heard!
Let me guess he's not going to mention social justice comes from Rome. The Catholic colleges and now all of the colleges.
i wish lindsay and his associate peter boghossian had done better in their exchange with marc lamont hill (a virulent marxist and social justice race baiter.) jl & pb sadly got destroyed by hill. it was so strange given all their important work and contribution and commentary around web.
Because JL refuses to believe the current form of political Marxists ARE actively attempting to over throw and abolish capitalism, which they define as private property ownership.
JL keeps hoping he can convince these Marxists that they are wrong and to join his side. They will NEVER join our side. They truly believe capitalism causes ALL problems in every society. JL thinks they’re not serious about wanting to over throw and abolish capitalism that they just want the social power. They already have the social power. They already have the institutional power. They can take children from their parents and administer cross sex hormones to the child against the wishes of the parents. Why are they doing this? For 3 reasons. 1 to prove they have the institutional power to do so. 2 to attack parental rights as they view parental rights as a form of private property. 3 to undermine the family to stop the flow of productive workers into the capitalist system. They are collectivists. They do not care if they harm individuals as long as it leads to the greater good of overthrowing and abolishing capitalism. Individual trans ppl may not see it that way but the Marxist organizers and theorists (leaders) do. Individual harm is completely acceptable to them if it serves the collective.
That’s why racists and Marxists like Marc Lamont Hill like inciting race hatred. He knows it is damaging to individuals and he does not care about that at all because he believes using identity based politics is an effective tool to install Marxism.
JL has the same problem the Marxists theorists have. They’re living in a mental esoteric fantasy while the Marxists organizers and activists ARE ACTIVELY ATTEMPTING TO OVERTHROW AND ABOLISH CAPITALISM!!!
That’s why James lost the debate. He’s trying to debate mental opinions instead of the facts as they are actually happening.
If the general public was made aware that the public schools are run by Marxists and they plan to destroy the gender binary to attack capitalism through social reproduction theory people would start pulling their children out of public schools and this Marxists madness would stop in a generation. However not even conservative influencers like JL and PB will talk about that because public school IS big business and big business IS capitalism.
The contracts for building and maintaining public schools runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars and a lot of powerful conservatives own and run companies that hold those contracts.
That’s why you’ll never see Fox News tell their viewers the public schools are run by Marxists and to pull your children out of them immediately.
Marxists are very operational. Activism is their life's work. They publish tips on how to trip up the competition. They're not about leaving people alone to follow their own beliefs. They're IN YOUR FACE. Superior intellect, and actually being right, pale in the face of their assault.
James need to play Mage The Ascension
Was Marx an oppressor or was he oppressed?
Early Christians did NOT all believe this panopoly of claims. Marcionites, for example, believed that the god of the OT was an evil god, and was not the creator. They believed in an original creator who wanted nothing and needed nothing, and had set up the world the best way possible to create the conditions for life, and for potential human flourishing. They also believed that Christ was the emanation of that God, and had come to free us from those chains. They founded a colony on an island, and lived in peace for many years until they were destroyed by the Orthodox church.
They were thrown into the "gnostic" pot by the Orthodox church and branded heretics. They did not harm each other, and practiced cooperative responsibility, without a rigid hierarchy, but with priests and priestesses running the group. Basically, they followed the golden rule, in practice.
Nice try Heretic. Mariocite is just another flavor of the modern attempts to throw away the old Testament despite how important it is to understand the New Testament.
@@silverhawkscape2677 incorrect. 1. Read your history. Marcion was born in 49 AD, and his father physically met Christ. 2. I'm not a gnostic and dont follow any of those traditions. I'm just describing what is on the record.
Truth is truth.
The early Christians in Ireland & the Scottish Isles were distinct from the Roman Church.
That's why they are called *heresies* . They were ideas that originated in pagan Greek Platonism and Neo-Platonism, and through the 3rd Century BC into the 3rd Century AD, first Jewish and latter Christian teachers, philosophers, and laymen wrestled with (and in some cases adopted) these views or elements of these Hellenistic Greek views.
Even then, some elements of Platonist Gnosticism still ultimately got into Catholic (Universal, as Catholic is the Greek word for Universal) Christian doctrine.
Leave it up to the Catholics (and their branch-off Protestants descendants) to assert that the mind and spirit is superior to the body (that Original Sin soiled the flesh or desires of the flesh are inherently dirty/sinful [this is why Monasticism in Christianity swears off concerns of matters of mortal life and rejects things such as marriage for clergy).
That is as opposed to Restorationist/Primitivist Christian denominations like my own religion that assert the point of mortality is the acquisition of a physical body, that God the Father has a transfigured/sanctified body of flesh and bone, and that mind, body, and spirit are co-equal necessary components to becoming Exalted like God, and so on and so forth.
@@GreyWolfLeaderTW the idea that there is a one, perfect God is, in fact, a Platonic idea. I appreciate your commentary very much.
I'd say be careful what you call "pagan". Abrahamic faiths all come from a Platonic core.
Ironically, Marx was correct that the basic dynamic is oppressed vs. oppressors. Problem is, he misidentified the oppressors, and the mechanism of oppression.
Nah... He was just a s*t*nist
Nope, he did not even get that right. Oppression exists, of course, but it is NOT the primary dynamic in history, especially post-Enlightenment, even if it is an important factor.
@@KRGruner Do tell.
@@seankennedy4284 I think you have the burden of proof here my friend.
@@seankennedy4284 LOL, dude, if you are not aware that Marxists turned to post-modernism, critical theory, and so on, because they figured out the masses were NOT being exploited by the capitalist class, but in fact were benefiting from free exchange dynamics under capitalism, I got nothing for you. Literally everyone knows this by now, and the neo-Marxists (or whatever you want to call them) are the first ones to tell you (the Frankfurt School, for one). Marxism insists that everything is about power, but IRL, it is not. It is also about competence, understanding, charity, religious beliefs, non-zero sum games, civil society, and so on. Wanting to make literally everything political (i.e., about power relations) is strictly speaking insane. Totalitarianism is not the answer.
Equity by praxis? People must become activists so, “The enlightened,” can seize the means of production? Tricked from a profound lack of street smarts and civic awareness.
it started in 1919, weimar germany
It is not a THING. You just don't like people who have a different understanding/analysis of the world.
@@vivienneb6199 shows how little you know
@@AlotOfNothing-vp8en Actually it shows how little you know.
Actually it shows that what you think you know to be true just isn’t so
Its much older. The source of Woke et al, are the same group that destroyed Babylon.
Rousseau is the fountainhead of today's mischief, then.
Maybe you prefer Hobbes?
@@vivienneb6199 Hobbes was more of a realist.
@@parrotraiser6541 Sure, need to band together if we are going to survive. Might makes Right.
Clearly man created "god" in his own image. Our founders also did not believe in private property rights. Imagine if we had private property and private business rights. If we did, imagine how easily our “god” given rights could be taken from us. If you had “private property” rights you could insist I not carry my gun in your home or your business violating my "god given" right to carry a gun, that I not swear, that I not hold certain opinions, or at least not exptess them on your property. You could silence my political speech on your “privately owned” online platform. Just imagine how quickly we would lose all of our “god given” rights if “private property” rights existed making the property owner more powerful than “god” himself who gave us those rights. Thank “god” for our constitution that forbids anyone from becoming so powerful that they could squelch our rights in such a way……….. oh wait, shit!
Before Marx was the Error of Rousseau
Therefore we in America lost all meaningful work that pays well and have mostly only admin for someone else's vision/ business who resents having to pay us anything. Fun times in marx-land!
So make something useful, and stand up for your rights and do NOT allow govt to be your god, do NOT comply with tyrranny
@@makas63 Right
A certain minority that was historically disliked by the majority in the countries it inhabited decided that those countries would be better controlled by promoting other disliked minorities
Nice Anti-Semitism there. Especially since some of Marx's (and the entire Leftist movement's) biggest critics have been Jews. From Ludwig von Mises to Milton Friedman and so on. To condemn an ethnic group is to condemn individuals who disagree with a popular (or at least highly visible) position held by some members in it.
Would you say all Germans are N@z!s? All English are K'K-K members? (The American South was primarily settled by Englishmen from the Southwest/Cornwall area and the Anglo-Scottish Border regions).
This is highly suspect given Fredrick Engles (who was half of the genius behind Marx's philosophy) was pure ethnic German, as was Hegel. Marx was marinated his whole childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood in German society and culture and rejected the religion and culture of his rabbi grandfathers by becoming an atheist and did not observe Kosher, and Vladimir Lenin was at least one-fourth Volga German. So, by the reasoning of ethnic prejudice, is Marxism not a German philosophy and are Germans in general not to be held accountable for its monstrous ideas?
Wokeness goes all the way back to ancient Egypt. The Emerald Tablets of Thoth/Hermetic Wisdom is the start of Wokeness.
Most of this stuff came out of the Frankfurt School. What do Marx and The members of the Frankfurt school have in common? People like this guy will never say it.
We are created in God’s image.
That image is not the Soviet man. The Soviet man is impossible.
There are aspects of this discussion that concern me. Human beings either have agency or they don't. Lindsay seems to be trying too hard to equate Marx to the basic human desire to have agency. Marxism has clearly had a negative net influence on society, but it is intellectually dishonest to imply this is no different than people desiring or taking pride in their own accomplishments. Marx's error was in thinking that tearing down one hierarchy-based system wouldn't give rise to another equally unfair and oppressive system, just one that didn't worship deities. The original problem before Marx yet remains.
What is this original problem? You take us there and then you shut the door.
If you erase God then your insatiable hedonism has no limits, degenerates fear the punishment God might place on them, so they gravitate to ideologies that allow them to think they can become their own god...
@@JackHaveman52 I basically stated it. Human civilization has historically functioned with a strict hierarchy, either with a ruling class or a deity at the top. The problem with a deity-based system is that the deity cannot be fully known or understood, and therefore the deity cannot be challenged even in times of crisis. The problem with a more secular ruling class is that men are corruptable and can shield themselves from criticism by claiming a monopoly on facts. As I understand it, Marx believed that the act of tearing down a hierarchy would cause the revolutionaries to adopt a more enlightened view. But when confronted by reality (how do we put food on the table, defend ourselves, etc) , no one can figure out what that enlightened view should be. No two people think alike. The result is one hierarchy simply replacing the other, and over time the new hierarchy becomes just as corrupt and unchallengeable as the one it replaced. In short, the original problem is human nature, and the fact there has to be leadership in order to get anything done. In relation to my original argument, a deity-based system denies or rejects human agency almost completely, so winding back the clock to embrace deity leadership as a way of combating the current social order would have the effect of making human life meaningless. People would rebel against this, just as they did centuries ago, and nothing would be accomplished.
Apologies if this response seems rambling. This is a difficult subject, and I'm not wise enough to know the correct way forward, I just know what an incorrect way is when I see it.
@@Lennis01
The American system isn't deity driven. Organised religion has great influence but, at this moment, political ideology has become more influential than religion, in the form of radical socialism. Notice how the left are always talking about the "threat to our democracy" and are focused more on that than on the Constitution.
The Constitution allows for religious beliefs but does not allow for the dominance of one religion to be the driving force of government. The right to vote for our representatives is central to the American system, just like all the other rights protected in the Constitution. It's what's supposed to keep the democratic process into devolving into mob rule. It's why the US broke away from Britain. The founding fathers believed in taxation through representation.
A Deity driven society is known as a Theocracy and the US is far from that. A lot of the Islamic countries are Theocracies, in which Islamic law is the law of the land. In the US, Christianity has influence, a strong influence, but isn't central to American law. "No religious test" is covered in Article 6 of the Constitution. Your religion can influence your voting but it cannot violate the Constitution. However, there is no way to fully rid society of a hierarchical progression. It will always happen, just as it did in every Socialist regime in history, a system which advocates for the end of the class structure and has morphed into the identity politics that we see today.
Don't worry about the long comment. It's the only way to explain your point of view and it didn't bother me one bit to read it all.
@@JackHaveman52 Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the American system is deity-driven. Not anymore. Rather, some people would like to return to a deity-driven system as the best way to combat the existing neo-liberal social order. Even if they should succeed in doing this (not likely), it would just be rewinding the clock in a way that wouldn't be beneficial to society in the long run. In essence, it would be Marxism in reverse. The core philosophy may be different, but it wouldn't lead to any better of an outcome.
⚔️⚔️⚔️⚔️⚔️
:)
Honestly it's more endemic to enlightenment principles than specifically Marx
It's a thread that can be traced back to Biblical times. St John's gospel (Revelations) is a Gnostic gospel.
@@AndyJarman Tikhistory covers this too.
@@AndyJarman Wrong. Careful about reading leftists BS. They are always at their termite like work of trying to dismantle and destroy the good strong & true.
Where’s Kant in your political, philosophical, religious fantasies and logic theories? Total contemporary of all the left and right wing ideology musings in Napoleon IV’s reign
Kant's metaphysics were the inspiration for Hegel's metaphysics, but there's nothing remotely political in it. Kant inspired all 19th c. philosophers; he was hugely influential. Everybody is inspired by something else. Kant was inspired by Hume, and so on.
estrogen
Who nose whose behind it?
Dumb analogy. Birds make nests and make it a home. They created it.
Once again distorting Marx He advocated for abolishing the wages and profit system. It is not a philosophy. People can misinterpret his works as did lenin mao and the jordan Petersons of this work. What other failings of Capitalism are you going to blame on a guy whos been dead for nearly 150 years .
First draft of Communist Manifesto was called The Communist Confession of Faith, which should make clear Marxism is not an economic theory. Marxists know economic (aka vulgar) Marxism/socialism doesn't work so the framework was applied to cultural and social capital instead. And guess what, it's just as destructive there also. But then again, it is so BY DESIGN.
Marxism and socialism have failed everywhere they have been tried! Nobody sneaks across the ocean on a raft to get to a Communist utopia
Problem Is capitalism isnt going to go away. And left and liberals have given up talking about class, wages and income inequality.
Fighting for better wages I agree with it. Discussing ethical capitalism (besides don't shop at shein or temu) are conversations that should be had.
The "woke" POV Is wait for communism to save us. You may as well as wait for a letter from Hogwarts to save you
This is the most compelling argument for Marxism I've ever heard...fuck it, I'm turning.
Hope you are joking…if not, get yourself a ticket to Cuba, cuz it ain’t happening here
Go visit Cuba or China for a few months. See how that works for you. What I don't understand stand if people want that way of living. Then, move away instead of trying to push those beliefs on everyone else.
The creation of Israel started modern wokism....
If he says the word gnostic once I'm out.
There it is 9:30 seconds, he can't help himself. What a goon. He's on the right track but then takes a left turn at Albuquerque because he only understands gnosticism from the writings of early church critics and not the Bag Hamadi text which are the ACTUAL gnostic gospels. What a GOON.
@@grognardgaming8952 You call him a "goon" twice, which by any objective standard he is clearly not. I think it's you who cannot help himself.
Bye
@@grognardgaming8952 I mean, Marxism is clearly material gnosticism. I don't get your objections.
Woooo! Snowflake alert!
Two problems: Firstly, Lyndsay is overly verbose and his adversaries are not as intelligent as he believes them to be. Secondly, Lyndsay openly refused to acknowledge that liberalism and modernity has failed because both liberalism and modernity are the cause of the emergent managerial state as well as the current and past ideological conflicts. In reality, Lyndsay is no less an ideologue possessed by ideobabble than his leftist adversaries, and his insistence on picking and choosing his particular flavor of leftist ideas is both incoherent and incongruent with reality. Lyndsay is done for and true Americans must move past this academic towards true solutions (Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior united underneath the banner of Orthodoxy and Western spiritual tradition).
Shut up.
Even as an atheist I can't wholly disagree. Though I think Lyndsay is VERY smart and it does nobody any good to dismiss him from the discourse when he's slowly arriving at the conclusion you just described. Marxism is the Luciferian intellect manifested. James, ironically, opened my once-closed atheist mind to the idea that thought-forms and the spirit are the same thing, allowing me to process Christianity in the way, I think, it was intended to be interpreted.
Oh, righty ho, will do.
What exactly in what he has said do you disagree with? You cannot possibly expect him to take on & destroy liberalism & modernity before he can have any credibility. Nothing he said is counter to Jesus Christ or your religious beliefs. He provided an analysis, not an answer or final conclusion.
Aw, you ruined an otherwise good point with your Christian nonsense. No thanks, bro, I'll take my chances in a secular, liberal society.