October 3, 2024 • 33 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is a bit of audio that I've been meaning
to get to for a while. Let me do that now.
James Lindsay explains what is called woke capital. And let's
take the case of bud Light. Why did bud Light
(00:20):
get so invested in transgenderism? Why did they allow themselves
to be attached with Dylan mulvaney, Why did they make
a why did they put the dude's face on a
beer can? Why did they invest in this? This wasn't
(00:44):
just some dude who couldn't get any attention from being
a gay guy, so then announced he's a little girl
and his idea of being a woman is acting like
about a nine year old girl at a slumber party.
That's what women are supposed to be.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
No, but.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
Why did did they get themselves allow themselves to get
sucked into this? Well, James Lindsay explains.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
I could talk to you guys for an hour about
how ESG scores work, but let me just give you
an example. Do you think bud Light wanted to put
Dylan Molvani's face on a beer can and lose what
thirty billion dollars or whatever it is?
Speaker 4 (01:21):
No, they did not.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Maybe that one lady did that they let take the
fall or a handful of activists that are working in
the company. But the fact of the matter is we
saw immediately afterwards that the Human Rights Campaign publishes a
number called the Corporate Equality Index that requires them to
do visibility activism, that requires them to go testify or
lobby for bills. It requires corporations to do activism on
(01:47):
behalf of whatever its agendas are, and then that score
is used as a proxy to their ESG scores, their Environmental,
Social and Governance behavior scores, which are the most corrupt
cartel system that the finance industry's ever come up with,
and is being used to push the United Nations and
CCP agenda to destroy America.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Kelly Robinson is the president of something called the HRC
Human Rights Campaign, the very same human rights campaign that
has pressured companies like Target, brands like bud Light to
go against their best interest, to go against the values
of their core base of consumers and support their far
(02:30):
left causes. I would like to read a portion of
Kelly Robinson's biography. This appears on the Human Rights Campaign website.
I will read it exactly as it is written. Kelly
Robinson is the ninth President of the Human Rights Campaign,
(02:50):
the first black queer woman to lead the organization. The
Human Rights Campaign is America's largest civil rights organization, working
to achieve equality and liberation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
and queer people. Robinson, widely respected for her work over
(03:15):
the last fifteen years creating and leading winning campaigns and programs,
steps into her new role at HRC after serving as
executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Okay makes sense,
(03:35):
you want to kill babies?
Speaker 2 (03:37):
You wanna?
Speaker 1 (03:38):
Okay? From community organizer now like Barack Obama, to progressive leader.
Robinson has been at the forefront in the fight for
bodily autonomy. That is, if you have a baby inside
you, you can kill it. That's what bodily autonomy means. And
(03:59):
racial engender equity, not equality, equity with a focus on
lifting up marginalized communities. And here's the part I highlighted
when I'm printed it building political power. Keep that in
(04:22):
mind as we play the next two cuts for you,
Kelly Robinson, her description to black queer woman and the
Human Rights League are not about equality, they are about
political power. First up is Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana.
(04:44):
He asked Kelly Robinson, if she thinks biological males have
an advantage over women, wait till the end. You're not
going to want to miss former collegiate swimmer and brave
eve patriot Riley Gaines. Who's going to chime in with
facts at the end.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
That a biological male has a physical advantage in sports
over a biological female.
Speaker 5 (05:14):
Not as a definitive statement.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
Give me an example. Well, now, I don't think how
many female members of the NBA do you see?
Speaker 5 (05:27):
Well, I can say that, you know, there's been this
news article about men that think that they could beat
Serena Williams in tennis, right, that they think that they
could actually score a point on her, and it's just
not the case. She is stronger than that.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
What's your experience being male female?
Speaker 6 (05:43):
Both Serena and Venus lost to the two hundred and
third ranked male tennis player, which they're phenoms for women.
Speaker 5 (05:50):
My experience my.
Speaker 6 (05:51):
Husband, he swam at University of Kentucky as well. In
terms of accolades and in terms of national ranking. I
was a much better swimmer than him. He could kick
my butt any day of the week without trying.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Next you're going to hear Senator Ted Cruz of Texas
ask Kelly Robinson, the self described black queer woman who
leads the Human Rights Campaign, if she believes there's a
difference between men and women. Is there a difference?
Speaker 6 (06:21):
Ms?
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Robinson?
Speaker 7 (06:22):
Do you agree with miss Gaines that there's a difference
between women and men?
Speaker 5 (06:25):
If the question is about trans women, I'm.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Just asking is there a difference between women and men?
Speaker 5 (06:30):
What I can't say is that the NCAA has rules
in place. They've had rules in place for the last decade,
and when this competition.
Speaker 7 (06:36):
I'm going to try rules very clear. Do you believe
there's a difference between women and men?
Speaker 2 (06:40):
It's a yes no. Question is do you believe there's
a difference?
Speaker 5 (06:43):
Oh, I think that we're talking about this case with
the answer no.
Speaker 7 (06:45):
I'm asking a question, do you believe there's a difference
between women and men? Most people could answer this very simply.
I'm curious if you're willing to do so.
Speaker 6 (06:54):
Oh.
Speaker 5 (06:54):
Absolutely, I'm just putting into the context of the vization
that we're having. I think that there are definitions.
Speaker 7 (06:59):
Really, so I'm trying to get a yes or no.
I'm not trying to get a speech. Is there a
difference between women and men?
Speaker 5 (07:07):
I think that there are definitions for biological sex.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
So you're not answering.
Speaker 7 (07:11):
Let me ask you this question, then, why do women's
sports exist? If you can't define a difference between women
and men, why not abolish women's sports and just tell
little girls to swim with little boys and see who wins.
Speaker 5 (07:23):
Oh, I'm simply saying that that sex.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
My question why.
Speaker 5 (07:29):
It's a great value. I mean, Senator, I'll take.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Miss Robinson, please answer the question.
Speaker 7 (07:33):
I'm asking you absolutely why do women's sports exist?
Speaker 5 (07:37):
I think that there are so many positive benefits to sports.
Speaker 7 (07:40):
But why have a secer back category for women? If
there's no difference between women and men, why to have
women's sports.
Speaker 5 (07:46):
I'm saying that there's a difference between sex and gender,
and that the NCAA has rules in place, which they
have for the last decade.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
I would like to.
Speaker 7 (07:54):
Enter the record and an article from Duke Law called
comparing athletic performances for the best elite women to boys
and men.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
You today to the Colonial House Apartments and receive a
free even we're recorded.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
We played a portion of a James Lindsay speech in
the last segment explaining woke capital and why companies like
bud Light get themselves into trouble. I want to go
back and revisit part of that speech he gave to
the European Parliament about cultural Marxism. We'll play as much
as we can. I don't know how much we'll get
(08:34):
to for the rest of the hour, but I think
this speech is incredibly important and I want.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
To share it with you. Hello, thank you. I'm glad
to be here.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
I want to address something Tom just said, which is,
in fact that woke is supposed to advance equity in Europe.
So here's the definition of equity, and see if it
sounds like a definition of anything else you've ever heard of.
The definition of equity comes from the Public Administi literature.
It was written by a man named George Frederickson, and
(09:04):
the definition is an administered political economy in which shares
are adjusted so that citizens are made equal. Does that
sound like anything you've heard of before? Like socialism, They're
going to administer an economy.
Speaker 4 (09:22):
To make shares equal.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
The only difference between equity and socialism is the type
of property that they redistribute, the type of shares they're
going to redistribute social and cultural capital in addition to
economic and material capital. And so that this is my
thesis when we say what is woke, woke is Maoism
(09:48):
with American characteristics. If I might borrow from Mao himself
who said that his philosophy was Marxism Leninism with Chinese characteristics,
which means woke is mark. It's a very provocative statement.
It's something you will certainly hear. It is not that
it is different, and the professors and the philosophers will
(10:10):
spend a large amount of time explaining to you, why no, no,
it's about economics, when it's Marxism, this is social, this
is cultural, this is different.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
It's not different.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
I need you to think biologically for one moment, and
I don't mean about your bodies.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
We could do that, that's a different topic.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
I want you to think how we organize plants and
animals when we study them. They're species, but above species,
they are the genus of the animals. So you think
like the cats, all the cats, but you have tigers,
you have lions, you have house cats, you have whatever, leopards,
many different kinds of cats. If we think of Marxism
(10:48):
as a genus of ideological thought. Then classical economic Marxism
is a species. Radical feminism is a species in this
same genus. Yes, critical race theory is a genus, or sorry,
a species in this genus.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
Queer theory is a species in this genus.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
Postcolonial theory that's plaguing Europe is a species in this genus.
And they have something that binds them together called intersectionality,
that makes them treated as if they are all one thing.
But the logic is Marxist, and I want to convince
you of that, because Marx had a very simple proposition.
Speaker 4 (11:28):
But we get lost.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
We think that Marx was talking about economics, because he
often talked about economics.
Speaker 4 (11:36):
He wrote a book called Capital.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
It's very famous book, and we think, well, this is
about economic theory.
Speaker 4 (11:42):
But this isn't true. It's always true on the surface.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
If we go below the surface, what Marx was talking
about with something different. We know what Marx's hypothesis was
was that we must seize the means of production. If
we're going to bring socialism to the nations, to the world,
we have to seize.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
The means of production.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
So we have to ask what does he mean and
if we think that it's about capital, then we miss
what he means. If you think it's about the means
of production in the factory with a hammer and the
means of production in the field with a sickle, then
you miss what it means. Because Marx explained what makes
human beings special in his earlier writings, and what makes
(12:23):
human beings special is that man is a being that
is incomplete and knows that he is incomplete. He is
a man whose true nature has been forgotten to him,
which is social being. He is a socialist at heart
who doesn't realize it. And the reason he doesn't realize
it is because of the economic conditions operating as the
(12:45):
means of construction or production, not just of the economy
but of him, but of man, of society, and particularly
of history. Marx said that he had the first scientific
study of history. How is history produced by man doing
man's activity? And man's key activity was economic activity, as
(13:07):
he saw it, and so economic production doesn't just produce
the goods and services of the economy, it produces society itself,
and society in terms produces man. He called this the
inversion of praxis, and so when he says, we must
seize the means of production, and he's talking about factories
(13:28):
and fields. He's actually talking about how we construct who
we are as human beings, so that we might complete ourselves,
so that we might complete history. And at the end
of history, mankind will remember that he is a social being,
and we will have a socialist society, a perfect communism
that transcends.
Speaker 4 (13:47):
Private property, is how he put it.
Speaker 3 (13:49):
He said, in fact, that communism is the transcendence of
private property as human self estrangement. That's a quote from
the Economic Philosophic Manuscripts of nineteen eighteen forty four. So
Marx was interested in controlling our understanding and controlling how
man produces himself, and he writes about this exclusively in
(14:13):
the eighteen forties, very deeply.
Speaker 4 (14:16):
How do we do this?
Speaker 3 (14:17):
And he looks at the economic conditions and he says,
this is where it is, and that's why we get
economic Marxism, and that's why we think Marx was an economist.
But Marx was never an economist. He was a theologian.
He wanted to produce a religion for mankind that would
supersede all of the religions of mankind and bring him
back to his true social nature. And this is the
(14:37):
true fact of Marx. And what the goal was, like
I said, is to complete man. So what he said is, well,
how are we building man currently? All of his economic
analysis is about how are we building man at present?
Through what he called material determinism, And he said, well,
what we have is a special form of private property
in our society. Our society is organized around private property,
(15:00):
and so all of our thoughts organize around private property.
In other words, there's this special kind of property that
the bourgeois elite class has access to, and then they
organize society to exclude everybody else from access to that
property through exploitation, through alienation.
Speaker 4 (15:18):
Through estrangement, through oppression.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
And so what Karl Marx was proposing is that economics
becomes a vehicle to separate society into a bourgeois class
that has access to a special form of property. The
people who have access wish to retain that, so they
oppress people and keep other people out of that special
form of property. They erect a system of classism to
(15:42):
do that. It's enforced by an ideology called capitalism that
believes that this is the right way to engage in
the world. And what we have to do is awaken
the under class the proletariat, to the real conditions and
the fact that they are historical agents of change and
bring them to do a revolution and transform society so
(16:04):
that we would have equity or socialism, whichever word you want,
they have the same definition. Now let's say that we
step out, we step back from this species, this economic species,
Homo economicus, and we step back to the genus, and
we look at this idea, a special form of property
(16:24):
that segregates society into people who have, the bourgeois and
the people who do not have, who are in class.
Conflict with an ideology that keeps this in place, and
the underclass must awaken with consciousness to fight back and
to seize the means of production of that form of
deterministic property. And now we say, change out class, put
(16:46):
in race, and watch we get critical race theory falls
out of the hat, just like that, very simple. In
nineteen ninety three, Cheryl Harris wrote a long article for
the Harvard Law Review called Whiteness's Property. She explained that
whiteness or white privilege, constitutes a kind of cultural private property.
(17:06):
She says it must be abolished in order to have
racial justice. Just like Karl Marx said that in the
communist Manifesto, Hero Communism can be summarized in a single sentence, the.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
Abolition of private property.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Well, this is why critical race theory calls to abolish whiteness,
because whiteness is a form of private property.
Speaker 4 (17:26):
Police chess can rolling around.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Damn it all right, this is Mark Chestnut and jar
the czar of Talk Radio.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Okay, we're short on time to get this in. We've
tried to break it up. I know this is a
lot of audio and people want to hear me talk,
but we want to amplify good messages. James Lindsay's speech
in front of the European Parliament on cultural maxim Marxism
is important here.
Speaker 3 (17:52):
It is people who have access to this property are whites,
or white adjacent, or they act white. These are words
out of the American lexicon that they've used to describe
how people gain access to the private property. People without
that are people of color, and they are oppressed by
systemic racism. Systemic racism is enforced by an ideology of
(18:14):
white supremacy instead of capitalism. If you think of whiteness
as a form of cultural capital, white supremacy, as they
define it as identical to capitalism. It's the belief. It's
not believing that white people are superior. It's believing that
white people have access to the control of society and
should maintain that. Even if you don't actually believe that,
(18:35):
if you merely support that, you have adopted the ideology
of white supremacy into your mind, and so you have
the exact same system. And the goal is to awaken
a racial consciousness in people so that they will band
together as a class and seize the means of cultural production,
so that white cultural production is no longer the dominant mode.
(18:58):
It's a big mystery in your I know in the UK,
throughout Europe, I hear this question again and again. Why
on earth is this very American phenomenon about slavery and
so on that doesn't apply to our country. Why is
it popular here? It's because it's not about history at all.
It's not about slavery at all. Those are excuses that
they use. It's about creating a class consciousness that's against
(19:22):
this form of property called whiteness, that's against the dominant culture.
That may just be a matter of fact, say if
you're in Europe. That's why, because it becomes a site
by which people can come together and they can channel
resentment and try to claim power. I wrote a book
called Race Marxism, and I defined critical race theory as
it really is in that book.
Speaker 4 (19:42):
On the first page, I said that critical.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
Race theory is calling everything you want to control racist
until you control it. But couldn't we say the same
about Marxism. It's calling everything you want to control bourgeois
until you control it. But those mean the same thing.
They mean exactly the same thing. But what about, say,
queer theory, how is that Marxist? It's very strange, all
(20:06):
this gender and sex and sexuality. Well, Tom said, what
is woke? Attack the idea of being normal? Well, the
queer theory thinks that there are certain people who get
to set the norms of society. They are privileged. They
call themselves normal. They say this is normal. It's normal
to consider yourself a man and look like a man,
and act like a man, and dress like a man,
and eat meat like a man. And then there are
(20:27):
women that should be feminine and pretty and all these things,
and so they get to define what's normal. They're heterosexuals,
so they get to define the heterosexuality is normal and
other sexualities are abnormal.
Speaker 4 (20:40):
And so you have a conflict.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
Across this cultural property of who gets to be considered
normal and who is a pervert or a freak or
some other term that gets used in their literature.
Speaker 4 (20:53):
But technically who is a queer?
Speaker 3 (20:56):
Which sounds like a slurb, but they adopted it and
it's a technical academic term. Now it means an identity
without an essence, by the way, an identity that is
strictly oppositional to the concept of the normal, as defined
by queer theorist David Halperin in his nineteen ninety five
book Saint Foucaut Toward a Gay Hagiography.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
I didn't make that up. I'm not extrapolating.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
So you see, queer theory is just another species of
the genus of Marxism. What about post colonial theory, which
is plaguing Europe thanks to Franz Fannin and his biggest
European fan, Jean Paul Sartre.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
What about this? What's the same. You have the West
as the oppressor.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
They have access to the material and cultural wealth of
the world because they've decided their culture is the default
and have gone and colonized the world to bring culture
to the world, as they say, and so the oppressed,
the natives around the world, the people have to band
together and their activity is going to be called decolonization.
Speaker 4 (21:55):
They have to remove every aspect of Western culture.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
So when they come to Belgium or they come to France,
or they come to the United States and they say
we're going to decolonize the curriculum, or they go to
the UK and say we're going to decolonize Shakespeare, this
is what they mean. We're going to remove the cultural
significance of your cultural artifacts because those cultural artifacts themselves
(22:18):
are oppressive to us. This is the same system. It's
another species and the exact same genus, and that genus
is Marxism, which is a way of thinking about the world,
and the goal is always to seize the means of
control of the production of man and history and society.
Marx merely believed it was through economic means. Now it's
(22:40):
through socio cultural means. The evolution into this sometimes called
Western Marxism, began in the nineteen twenties. We had a
Russian Revolution in nineteen seventeen and this did not happen
in Europe, and the Marxists in Europe were confused, and
so Antonio Gramsci sat down and wrote out some things,
and Lukach sat down and wrote History and Class Consciousness
(23:02):
after the failure of the revolution in Hungary, and they
wrote what became cultural Marxism, the idea that we have
to enter the cultural institutions in order to change them
from within, because Western culture has something about it that's
repelling socialism, so we have to go inside and change
the culture to make it socialist. Now you aren't allowed
to talk about cultural Marxism. Now they've categorized this as
(23:24):
a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
They say that it is anti Semitic. This is not true.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
Antonio Gramsci wrote books, George Lukoch wrote books.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
You can read those books. They have a philosophy.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
If they don't like the name cultural Marxism, we can
use the name that other people at the time used,
Western Marxism. So much like I don't know, a virus
adapting to the conditions, it changed to try to infect
a new host. It worked in feudal societies. Marxism took
over in Russia. It took over later in China, it
took over in all of these kind of agriculturally driven
(24:00):
feudal societies, but it wouldn't work in actual capitalist nations
because Marx was wrong. Then several Germans from the Frankfurt
School started to study this phenomenon in more depth, and
they evolved the idea further. They evolved the idea into
what's called critical Marxism. They developed what's called the critical theory.
And Max Horkheimer, who designed the critical theory, explained the
(24:22):
critical theory and what did he say?
Speaker 4 (24:23):
He said, well, what.
Speaker 3 (24:26):
We came to realize was that Marx was wrong about
one thing. Capitalism does not emiserate the worker. It allows
him to build a better life. So I developed the
critical theory because it is not possible to articulate the
vision of a good society on the terms of the
existing society. So critical Marxism criticizes the entirety of the
(24:46):
existing society. Everything is somehow needing to be subjected to
Marxist conflict analysis.
Speaker 4 (24:55):
But how is that to be done?
Speaker 3 (24:57):
They sought an answer through the middle part of the
twentieth century and World War II breaks out. The Frankfurt
School comes to America, which in this metaphor is the Wuhan.
Speaker 4 (25:06):
Institute of Virology.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
Because gain and function began to happen on the Marxist
virus very quickly in America, and American universities adopted these
professors from Germany.
Speaker 4 (25:17):
Interpreter to teachings which she said in Spanish.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
I just said it to the judge in Spanish because
I feel that she forgets that we're Hispanic and that
we're the people that she targeted.
Speaker 4 (25:25):
For a vote the Michael Verry Show.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
All Right, finally, for short on time, here's the final
bit of James Lindsay's speech on cultural Marxism. Go to
the internet hear it for yourself. It's important.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
Herbert Marcusa, writing in the nineteen sixties said extremely clearly this,
writing in nineteen sixty nine, not only did he say
capitalism delivers the goods, gives people a good life, makes
them wealthy and comfortable and happy, he also said that
the working class is no longer going to be the
base of the revolution because of these things. In other words,
(25:58):
we don't have to be responsible to the working class anymore,
which opens up the ability for Marxists who are seeking
power to make friends with the corporations. The bosses are
no longer the enemy. They're an opportunity because the working
class is irrelevant, he said.
Speaker 4 (26:13):
The energy is somewhere else.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
He said, it's in the racial minorities, the sexual minorities,
the feminists.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
The outsiders.
Speaker 3 (26:21):
That's who, he said, have the energy for a Marxist
revolution in the West, not the working class. And so
Marxism was able to evolve to abandon the working class.
And so what did they do, Well, all they had
studied for thirty years was what they called the culture industry,
an industry that commodifies and packages culture and sells it
back to people, so supposedly stripped of what it actually.
Speaker 4 (26:45):
Is, empty abstract now and so what of course did
they do.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
They seize the means of production of the culture industry,
because that's what they do. And so they started to
transform the culture industry to sell racial sexual sexuality based
agit prop as though that were genuine culture. And so
we get concepts like cultural appropriation, we get concepts like
(27:12):
cultural relevance, cultural this, cultural that, cultural everything, and it's
all provided in pastiche. It's all provided as a mockery
of what's really going on. And this evolved in America's
highly racialized context, and we ended up with woke, a
(27:33):
form of identity based Marxism, a constellation of Marxist.
Speaker 4 (27:38):
Species that all work.
Speaker 3 (27:42):
With the same operating premise but locate themselves indifferent. And
I'll use the German term here for this folk. LGBTQ
is a folk and they get folkish identity there and
become activists.
Speaker 4 (27:57):
The black community is a folk. How do I know?
That's what W. E. B.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
Duboce said it would be when he laid down the
foundations that became critical race theory later. They think of
themselves as nations. Don't they all have flags? Don't they
put them on your buildings like colonizers? Don't they hang
them in your streets. They think of themselves as occupying nations,
but they see themselves as bound together, just like the
various colonized nations around the world, and seeking liberation from
(28:22):
Western civilization. And so we end up with Western Marxism
taking many forms, but with one overarching approach.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
And the approach that they use.
Speaker 3 (28:32):
I started off by saying, is Maoist not merely Marxist?
Now you know the theory is marx It's just evolved
into different species to attack the West at its weakest points.
Through our tolerance, through our acceptance, through our openness, through
our generosity, through our best traits. Actually the things that
we should be proud of being, the things that we
are proud of being. But Mao Zedong knew how to
(28:57):
use identity politics. I don't know how you study in Europe,
but in America we have very red washed education, as
we might say, the communists have stripped out all education
about communism entirely. You don't learn about it in America
at all. So we don't learn anything about Mao. And
maybe you don't know this, but I tell this to
American audiences and they're shocked. Mao used identity politics. He
(29:19):
created ten identities in China. Five he labeled red for communists,
five he labeled black for fascist, and he categorized people
into these identity categories. What they are doesn't really matter.
Of course, they were communists. There were things like landlord
and rich farmer and things like this. Right winger is
a bad category in and of itself, by the way,
(29:40):
conservative All of them bad bad influences. That's another one.
You could be a bad influence for just thinking the
wrong thing, or saying the wrong thing at any time,
or because the government decides it doesn't like you.
Speaker 4 (29:50):
These are the bad categories.
Speaker 3 (29:51):
And if you have a bad category, very importantly, your
children have a bad category by default. So they create
a social pressure for your children to identify as revolutionaries,
at which point they get a red identity, a communist identity,
a good identity, and they.
Speaker 4 (30:05):
Get rewarded for it.
Speaker 3 (30:07):
And the youth led the revolution in China because Mao
did this identity politics through the children in the schools.
That should feel very uncomfortable to you, because here we have,
at least in the United States, we tell our children
being white is bad, being white is oppressive. You automatically
hurt people of other races by your very existence. But
(30:29):
by the way, if you become queer, we'll celebrate you.
And you can create a radical army of people who
identify as gender minorities and sexual minorities. At seven years old,
you can lead them into paths of puberty blockers and
transition medical transition, which, of course big pharm of profits
off of at seven years old, behind their parents back.
(30:53):
There's a reason for this. It's the same program that
mal Zeidong used to radicalize the youth in China. The
only thing different is the id identity categories have shifted.
It's Maoist cultural revolution with American characteristics, and it's being
exported to Europe. And just like how critical race theory
has come to Europe even though it doesn't make sense,
it will come to Europe whether it makes sense or not,
(31:14):
and you will have a cultural revolution here too.
Speaker 4 (31:16):
You guys even had a kind.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
Of offshoot one in twenty twenty George Floyd dies in Minnesota,
which has nothing to do with you, and you guys
have statues coming down in Europe.
Speaker 4 (31:26):
Total nonsense.
Speaker 3 (31:27):
It doesn't matter though, the point is to destroy Western
civilization from within using MAOIs techniques. One last point about
Mao to kind of drive that point home, Mao said
in nineteen forty two that his formula to transform China
was called unity criticism.
Speaker 4 (31:42):
Unity.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
First, you'd try to create the desire for unity, Then
you criticize people for not living up to that. Then
you bring them into unity under a new standard. Does
that feel like what you're being put through? But the
words are different. We use words like inclusion and belonging.
We'll have a place where everybody feels.
Speaker 4 (32:02):
Like they belong. We just want to have an inclusive space.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
But unfortunately you have racist ideas and you have to
criticize for you, we have to criticize you. For those,
you need to criticize yourself. For those, you need to
go study shwashi in Mandarin, exactly like Mao said. And
then we can bring you into unity under a new
standard which Mau called socialist discipline, which we in the
West would not buy. We call it in the West inclusion.
(32:28):
And so we have this new program and within inclusion
we have or above inclusion, actually we have sustainability. We
have a sustainable and inclusive future. I see the Agenda
twenty thirty here with an X over it. The sustainable
and inclusive future is the new socialist standard that we
will have freedom under socialist discipline. And Mao said the
way that that will work is through what he called
(32:49):
democratic centralism.
Speaker 4 (32:51):
We call that stakeholder capitalism.
Speaker 3 (32:55):
And my shot at the World Economic Forum is taken
because it's one of the things co ordinating this. My
shot at the United Nations is taken because it's one
of the things that's coordinating this. So woke is Marxism
it's advancing through Maoist cultural revolution. It's using americanized identity categories.
(33:16):
And while some of those will not work, and Europe,
I guarantee you the colonial aspect will. They will find
your weakness, they will adapt the theory to fit because
it's like a virus that will evolve to its host.
And Europe is a great risk. Now, the last thing
I'll mention is this risk is twofold. When you endure
Marxist provocation, Marxist strategy is always of the same type.
(33:38):
It's called middle level violence. They don't come at you
with full blown Bolshevik assault. Very often it's middle level violence.
Speaker 4 (33:47):
They provoke
This is a bit of audio that I've been meaning
to get to for a while. Let me do that now.
James Lindsay explains what is called woke capital. And let's
take the case of bud Light. Why did bud Light
(00:20):
get so invested in transgenderism? Why did they allow themselves
to be attached with Dylan mulvaney, Why did they make
a why did they put the dude's face on a
beer can? Why did they invest in this? This wasn't
(00:44):
just some dude who couldn't get any attention from being
a gay guy, so then announced he's a little girl
and his idea of being a woman is acting like
about a nine year old girl at a slumber party.
That's what women are supposed to be.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
No, but.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
Why did did they get themselves allow themselves to get
sucked into this? Well, James Lindsay explains.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
I could talk to you guys for an hour about
how ESG scores work, but let me just give you
an example. Do you think bud Light wanted to put
Dylan Molvani's face on a beer can and lose what
thirty billion dollars or whatever it is?
Speaker 4 (01:21):
No, they did not.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Maybe that one lady did that they let take the
fall or a handful of activists that are working in
the company. But the fact of the matter is we
saw immediately afterwards that the Human Rights Campaign publishes a
number called the Corporate Equality Index that requires them to
do visibility activism, that requires them to go testify or
lobby for bills. It requires corporations to do activism on
(01:47):
behalf of whatever its agendas are, and then that score
is used as a proxy to their ESG scores, their Environmental,
Social and Governance behavior scores, which are the most corrupt
cartel system that the finance industry's ever come up with,
and is being used to push the United Nations and
CCP agenda to destroy America.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Kelly Robinson is the president of something called the HRC
Human Rights Campaign, the very same human rights campaign that
has pressured companies like Target, brands like bud Light to
go against their best interest, to go against the values
of their core base of consumers and support their far
(02:30):
left causes. I would like to read a portion of
Kelly Robinson's biography. This appears on the Human Rights Campaign website.
I will read it exactly as it is written. Kelly
Robinson is the ninth President of the Human Rights Campaign,
(02:50):
the first black queer woman to lead the organization. The
Human Rights Campaign is America's largest civil rights organization, working
to achieve equality and liberation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
and queer people. Robinson, widely respected for her work over
(03:15):
the last fifteen years creating and leading winning campaigns and programs,
steps into her new role at HRC after serving as
executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Okay makes sense,
(03:35):
you want to kill babies?
Speaker 2 (03:37):
You wanna?
Speaker 1 (03:38):
Okay? From community organizer now like Barack Obama, to progressive leader.
Robinson has been at the forefront in the fight for
bodily autonomy. That is, if you have a baby inside
you, you can kill it. That's what bodily autonomy means. And
(03:59):
racial engender equity, not equality, equity with a focus on
lifting up marginalized communities. And here's the part I highlighted
when I'm printed it building political power. Keep that in
(04:22):
mind as we play the next two cuts for you,
Kelly Robinson, her description to black queer woman and the
Human Rights League are not about equality, they are about
political power. First up is Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana.
(04:44):
He asked Kelly Robinson, if she thinks biological males have
an advantage over women, wait till the end. You're not
going to want to miss former collegiate swimmer and brave
eve patriot Riley Gaines. Who's going to chime in with
facts at the end.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
That a biological male has a physical advantage in sports
over a biological female.
Speaker 5 (05:14):
Not as a definitive statement.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
Give me an example. Well, now, I don't think how
many female members of the NBA do you see?
Speaker 5 (05:27):
Well, I can say that, you know, there's been this
news article about men that think that they could beat
Serena Williams in tennis, right, that they think that they
could actually score a point on her, and it's just
not the case. She is stronger than that.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
What's your experience being male female?
Speaker 6 (05:43):
Both Serena and Venus lost to the two hundred and
third ranked male tennis player, which they're phenoms for women.
Speaker 5 (05:50):
My experience my.
Speaker 6 (05:51):
Husband, he swam at University of Kentucky as well. In
terms of accolades and in terms of national ranking. I
was a much better swimmer than him. He could kick
my butt any day of the week without trying.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Next you're going to hear Senator Ted Cruz of Texas
ask Kelly Robinson, the self described black queer woman who
leads the Human Rights Campaign, if she believes there's a
difference between men and women. Is there a difference?
Speaker 6 (06:21):
Ms?
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Robinson?
Speaker 7 (06:22):
Do you agree with miss Gaines that there's a difference
between women and men?
Speaker 5 (06:25):
If the question is about trans women, I'm.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Just asking is there a difference between women and men?
Speaker 5 (06:30):
What I can't say is that the NCAA has rules
in place. They've had rules in place for the last decade,
and when this competition.
Speaker 7 (06:36):
I'm going to try rules very clear. Do you believe
there's a difference between women and men?
Speaker 2 (06:40):
It's a yes no. Question is do you believe there's
a difference?
Speaker 5 (06:43):
Oh, I think that we're talking about this case with
the answer no.
Speaker 7 (06:45):
I'm asking a question, do you believe there's a difference
between women and men? Most people could answer this very simply.
I'm curious if you're willing to do so.
Speaker 6 (06:54):
Oh.
Speaker 5 (06:54):
Absolutely, I'm just putting into the context of the vization
that we're having. I think that there are definitions.
Speaker 7 (06:59):
Really, so I'm trying to get a yes or no.
I'm not trying to get a speech. Is there a
difference between women and men?
Speaker 5 (07:07):
I think that there are definitions for biological sex.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
So you're not answering.
Speaker 7 (07:11):
Let me ask you this question, then, why do women's
sports exist? If you can't define a difference between women
and men, why not abolish women's sports and just tell
little girls to swim with little boys and see who wins.
Speaker 5 (07:23):
Oh, I'm simply saying that that sex.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
My question why.
Speaker 5 (07:29):
It's a great value. I mean, Senator, I'll take.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Miss Robinson, please answer the question.
Speaker 7 (07:33):
I'm asking you absolutely why do women's sports exist?
Speaker 5 (07:37):
I think that there are so many positive benefits to sports.
Speaker 7 (07:40):
But why have a secer back category for women? If
there's no difference between women and men, why to have
women's sports.
Speaker 5 (07:46):
I'm saying that there's a difference between sex and gender,
and that the NCAA has rules in place, which they
have for the last decade.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
I would like to.
Speaker 7 (07:54):
Enter the record and an article from Duke Law called
comparing athletic performances for the best elite women to boys
and men.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
You today to the Colonial House Apartments and receive a
free even we're recorded.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
We played a portion of a James Lindsay speech in
the last segment explaining woke capital and why companies like
bud Light get themselves into trouble. I want to go
back and revisit part of that speech he gave to
the European Parliament about cultural Marxism. We'll play as much
as we can. I don't know how much we'll get
(08:34):
to for the rest of the hour, but I think
this speech is incredibly important and I want.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
To share it with you. Hello, thank you. I'm glad
to be here.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
I want to address something Tom just said, which is,
in fact that woke is supposed to advance equity in Europe.
So here's the definition of equity, and see if it
sounds like a definition of anything else you've ever heard of.
The definition of equity comes from the Public Administi literature.
It was written by a man named George Frederickson, and
(09:04):
the definition is an administered political economy in which shares
are adjusted so that citizens are made equal. Does that
sound like anything you've heard of before? Like socialism, They're
going to administer an economy.
Speaker 4 (09:22):
To make shares equal.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
The only difference between equity and socialism is the type
of property that they redistribute, the type of shares they're
going to redistribute social and cultural capital in addition to
economic and material capital. And so that this is my
thesis when we say what is woke, woke is Maoism
(09:48):
with American characteristics. If I might borrow from Mao himself
who said that his philosophy was Marxism Leninism with Chinese characteristics,
which means woke is mark. It's a very provocative statement.
It's something you will certainly hear. It is not that
it is different, and the professors and the philosophers will
(10:10):
spend a large amount of time explaining to you, why no, no,
it's about economics, when it's Marxism, this is social, this
is cultural, this is different.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
It's not different.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
I need you to think biologically for one moment, and
I don't mean about your bodies.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
We could do that, that's a different topic.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
I want you to think how we organize plants and
animals when we study them. They're species, but above species,
they are the genus of the animals. So you think
like the cats, all the cats, but you have tigers,
you have lions, you have house cats, you have whatever, leopards,
many different kinds of cats. If we think of Marxism
(10:48):
as a genus of ideological thought. Then classical economic Marxism
is a species. Radical feminism is a species in this
same genus. Yes, critical race theory is a genus, or sorry,
a species in this genus.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
Queer theory is a species in this genus.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
Postcolonial theory that's plaguing Europe is a species in this genus.
And they have something that binds them together called intersectionality,
that makes them treated as if they are all one thing.
But the logic is Marxist, and I want to convince
you of that, because Marx had a very simple proposition.
Speaker 4 (11:28):
But we get lost.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
We think that Marx was talking about economics, because he
often talked about economics.
Speaker 4 (11:36):
He wrote a book called Capital.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
It's very famous book, and we think, well, this is
about economic theory.
Speaker 4 (11:42):
But this isn't true. It's always true on the surface.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
If we go below the surface, what Marx was talking
about with something different. We know what Marx's hypothesis was
was that we must seize the means of production. If
we're going to bring socialism to the nations, to the world,
we have to seize.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
The means of production.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
So we have to ask what does he mean and
if we think that it's about capital, then we miss
what he means. If you think it's about the means
of production in the factory with a hammer and the
means of production in the field with a sickle, then
you miss what it means. Because Marx explained what makes
human beings special in his earlier writings, and what makes
(12:23):
human beings special is that man is a being that
is incomplete and knows that he is incomplete. He is
a man whose true nature has been forgotten to him,
which is social being. He is a socialist at heart
who doesn't realize it. And the reason he doesn't realize
it is because of the economic conditions operating as the
(12:45):
means of construction or production, not just of the economy
but of him, but of man, of society, and particularly
of history. Marx said that he had the first scientific
study of history. How is history produced by man doing
man's activity? And man's key activity was economic activity, as
(13:07):
he saw it, and so economic production doesn't just produce
the goods and services of the economy, it produces society itself,
and society in terms produces man. He called this the
inversion of praxis, and so when he says, we must
seize the means of production, and he's talking about factories
(13:28):
and fields. He's actually talking about how we construct who
we are as human beings, so that we might complete ourselves,
so that we might complete history. And at the end
of history, mankind will remember that he is a social being,
and we will have a socialist society, a perfect communism
that transcends.
Speaker 4 (13:47):
Private property, is how he put it.
Speaker 3 (13:49):
He said, in fact, that communism is the transcendence of
private property as human self estrangement. That's a quote from
the Economic Philosophic Manuscripts of nineteen eighteen forty four. So
Marx was interested in controlling our understanding and controlling how
man produces himself, and he writes about this exclusively in
(14:13):
the eighteen forties, very deeply.
Speaker 4 (14:16):
How do we do this?
Speaker 3 (14:17):
And he looks at the economic conditions and he says,
this is where it is, and that's why we get
economic Marxism, and that's why we think Marx was an economist.
But Marx was never an economist. He was a theologian.
He wanted to produce a religion for mankind that would
supersede all of the religions of mankind and bring him
back to his true social nature. And this is the
(14:37):
true fact of Marx. And what the goal was, like
I said, is to complete man. So what he said is, well,
how are we building man currently? All of his economic
analysis is about how are we building man at present?
Through what he called material determinism, And he said, well,
what we have is a special form of private property
in our society. Our society is organized around private property,
(15:00):
and so all of our thoughts organize around private property.
In other words, there's this special kind of property that
the bourgeois elite class has access to, and then they
organize society to exclude everybody else from access to that
property through exploitation, through alienation.
Speaker 4 (15:18):
Through estrangement, through oppression.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
And so what Karl Marx was proposing is that economics
becomes a vehicle to separate society into a bourgeois class
that has access to a special form of property. The
people who have access wish to retain that, so they
oppress people and keep other people out of that special
form of property. They erect a system of classism to
(15:42):
do that. It's enforced by an ideology called capitalism that
believes that this is the right way to engage in
the world. And what we have to do is awaken
the under class the proletariat, to the real conditions and
the fact that they are historical agents of change and
bring them to do a revolution and transform society so
(16:04):
that we would have equity or socialism, whichever word you want,
they have the same definition. Now let's say that we
step out, we step back from this species, this economic species,
Homo economicus, and we step back to the genus, and
we look at this idea, a special form of property
(16:24):
that segregates society into people who have, the bourgeois and
the people who do not have, who are in class.
Conflict with an ideology that keeps this in place, and
the underclass must awaken with consciousness to fight back and
to seize the means of production of that form of
deterministic property. And now we say, change out class, put
(16:46):
in race, and watch we get critical race theory falls
out of the hat, just like that, very simple. In
nineteen ninety three, Cheryl Harris wrote a long article for
the Harvard Law Review called Whiteness's Property. She explained that
whiteness or white privilege, constitutes a kind of cultural private property.
(17:06):
She says it must be abolished in order to have
racial justice. Just like Karl Marx said that in the
communist Manifesto, Hero Communism can be summarized in a single sentence, the.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
Abolition of private property.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Well, this is why critical race theory calls to abolish whiteness,
because whiteness is a form of private property.
Speaker 4 (17:26):
Police chess can rolling around.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Damn it all right, this is Mark Chestnut and jar
the czar of Talk Radio.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Okay, we're short on time to get this in. We've
tried to break it up. I know this is a
lot of audio and people want to hear me talk,
but we want to amplify good messages. James Lindsay's speech
in front of the European Parliament on cultural maxim Marxism
is important here.
Speaker 3 (17:52):
It is people who have access to this property are whites,
or white adjacent, or they act white. These are words
out of the American lexicon that they've used to describe
how people gain access to the private property. People without
that are people of color, and they are oppressed by
systemic racism. Systemic racism is enforced by an ideology of
(18:14):
white supremacy instead of capitalism. If you think of whiteness
as a form of cultural capital, white supremacy, as they
define it as identical to capitalism. It's the belief. It's
not believing that white people are superior. It's believing that
white people have access to the control of society and
should maintain that. Even if you don't actually believe that,
(18:35):
if you merely support that, you have adopted the ideology
of white supremacy into your mind, and so you have
the exact same system. And the goal is to awaken
a racial consciousness in people so that they will band
together as a class and seize the means of cultural production,
so that white cultural production is no longer the dominant mode.
(18:58):
It's a big mystery in your I know in the UK,
throughout Europe, I hear this question again and again. Why
on earth is this very American phenomenon about slavery and
so on that doesn't apply to our country. Why is
it popular here? It's because it's not about history at all.
It's not about slavery at all. Those are excuses that
they use. It's about creating a class consciousness that's against
(19:22):
this form of property called whiteness, that's against the dominant culture.
That may just be a matter of fact, say if
you're in Europe. That's why, because it becomes a site
by which people can come together and they can channel
resentment and try to claim power. I wrote a book
called Race Marxism, and I defined critical race theory as
it really is in that book.
Speaker 4 (19:42):
On the first page, I said that critical.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
Race theory is calling everything you want to control racist
until you control it. But couldn't we say the same
about Marxism. It's calling everything you want to control bourgeois
until you control it. But those mean the same thing.
They mean exactly the same thing. But what about, say,
queer theory, how is that Marxist? It's very strange, all
(20:06):
this gender and sex and sexuality. Well, Tom said, what
is woke? Attack the idea of being normal? Well, the
queer theory thinks that there are certain people who get
to set the norms of society. They are privileged. They
call themselves normal. They say this is normal. It's normal
to consider yourself a man and look like a man,
and act like a man, and dress like a man,
and eat meat like a man. And then there are
(20:27):
women that should be feminine and pretty and all these things,
and so they get to define what's normal. They're heterosexuals,
so they get to define the heterosexuality is normal and
other sexualities are abnormal.
Speaker 4 (20:40):
And so you have a conflict.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
Across this cultural property of who gets to be considered
normal and who is a pervert or a freak or
some other term that gets used in their literature.
Speaker 4 (20:53):
But technically who is a queer?
Speaker 3 (20:56):
Which sounds like a slurb, but they adopted it and
it's a technical academic term. Now it means an identity
without an essence, by the way, an identity that is
strictly oppositional to the concept of the normal, as defined
by queer theorist David Halperin in his nineteen ninety five
book Saint Foucaut Toward a Gay Hagiography.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
I didn't make that up. I'm not extrapolating.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
So you see, queer theory is just another species of
the genus of Marxism. What about post colonial theory, which
is plaguing Europe thanks to Franz Fannin and his biggest
European fan, Jean Paul Sartre.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
What about this? What's the same. You have the West
as the oppressor.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
They have access to the material and cultural wealth of
the world because they've decided their culture is the default
and have gone and colonized the world to bring culture
to the world, as they say, and so the oppressed,
the natives around the world, the people have to band
together and their activity is going to be called decolonization.
Speaker 4 (21:55):
They have to remove every aspect of Western culture.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
So when they come to Belgium or they come to France,
or they come to the United States and they say
we're going to decolonize the curriculum, or they go to
the UK and say we're going to decolonize Shakespeare, this
is what they mean. We're going to remove the cultural
significance of your cultural artifacts because those cultural artifacts themselves
(22:18):
are oppressive to us. This is the same system. It's
another species and the exact same genus, and that genus
is Marxism, which is a way of thinking about the world,
and the goal is always to seize the means of
control of the production of man and history and society.
Marx merely believed it was through economic means. Now it's
(22:40):
through socio cultural means. The evolution into this sometimes called
Western Marxism, began in the nineteen twenties. We had a
Russian Revolution in nineteen seventeen and this did not happen
in Europe, and the Marxists in Europe were confused, and
so Antonio Gramsci sat down and wrote out some things,
and Lukach sat down and wrote History and Class Consciousness
(23:02):
after the failure of the revolution in Hungary, and they
wrote what became cultural Marxism, the idea that we have
to enter the cultural institutions in order to change them
from within, because Western culture has something about it that's
repelling socialism, so we have to go inside and change
the culture to make it socialist. Now you aren't allowed
to talk about cultural Marxism. Now they've categorized this as
(23:24):
a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
They say that it is anti Semitic. This is not true.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
Antonio Gramsci wrote books, George Lukoch wrote books.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
You can read those books. They have a philosophy.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
If they don't like the name cultural Marxism, we can
use the name that other people at the time used,
Western Marxism. So much like I don't know, a virus
adapting to the conditions, it changed to try to infect
a new host. It worked in feudal societies. Marxism took
over in Russia. It took over later in China, it
took over in all of these kind of agriculturally driven
(24:00):
feudal societies, but it wouldn't work in actual capitalist nations
because Marx was wrong. Then several Germans from the Frankfurt
School started to study this phenomenon in more depth, and
they evolved the idea further. They evolved the idea into
what's called critical Marxism. They developed what's called the critical theory.
And Max Horkheimer, who designed the critical theory, explained the
(24:22):
critical theory and what did he say?
Speaker 4 (24:23):
He said, well, what.
Speaker 3 (24:26):
We came to realize was that Marx was wrong about
one thing. Capitalism does not emiserate the worker. It allows
him to build a better life. So I developed the
critical theory because it is not possible to articulate the
vision of a good society on the terms of the
existing society. So critical Marxism criticizes the entirety of the
(24:46):
existing society. Everything is somehow needing to be subjected to
Marxist conflict analysis.
Speaker 4 (24:55):
But how is that to be done?
Speaker 3 (24:57):
They sought an answer through the middle part of the
twentieth century and World War II breaks out. The Frankfurt
School comes to America, which in this metaphor is the Wuhan.
Speaker 4 (25:06):
Institute of Virology.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
Because gain and function began to happen on the Marxist
virus very quickly in America, and American universities adopted these
professors from Germany.
Speaker 4 (25:17):
Interpreter to teachings which she said in Spanish.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
I just said it to the judge in Spanish because
I feel that she forgets that we're Hispanic and that
we're the people that she targeted.
Speaker 4 (25:25):
For a vote the Michael Verry Show.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
All Right, finally, for short on time, here's the final
bit of James Lindsay's speech on cultural Marxism. Go to
the internet hear it for yourself. It's important.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
Herbert Marcusa, writing in the nineteen sixties said extremely clearly this,
writing in nineteen sixty nine, not only did he say
capitalism delivers the goods, gives people a good life, makes
them wealthy and comfortable and happy, he also said that
the working class is no longer going to be the
base of the revolution because of these things. In other words,
(25:58):
we don't have to be responsible to the working class anymore,
which opens up the ability for Marxists who are seeking
power to make friends with the corporations. The bosses are
no longer the enemy. They're an opportunity because the working
class is irrelevant, he said.
Speaker 4 (26:13):
The energy is somewhere else.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
He said, it's in the racial minorities, the sexual minorities,
the feminists.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
The outsiders.
Speaker 3 (26:21):
That's who, he said, have the energy for a Marxist
revolution in the West, not the working class. And so
Marxism was able to evolve to abandon the working class.
And so what did they do, Well, all they had
studied for thirty years was what they called the culture industry,
an industry that commodifies and packages culture and sells it
back to people, so supposedly stripped of what it actually.
Speaker 4 (26:45):
Is, empty abstract now and so what of course did
they do.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
They seize the means of production of the culture industry,
because that's what they do. And so they started to
transform the culture industry to sell racial sexual sexuality based
agit prop as though that were genuine culture. And so
we get concepts like cultural appropriation, we get concepts like
(27:12):
cultural relevance, cultural this, cultural that, cultural everything, and it's
all provided in pastiche. It's all provided as a mockery
of what's really going on. And this evolved in America's
highly racialized context, and we ended up with woke, a
(27:33):
form of identity based Marxism, a constellation of Marxist.
Speaker 4 (27:38):
Species that all work.
Speaker 3 (27:42):
With the same operating premise but locate themselves indifferent. And
I'll use the German term here for this folk. LGBTQ
is a folk and they get folkish identity there and
become activists.
Speaker 4 (27:57):
The black community is a folk. How do I know?
That's what W. E. B.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
Duboce said it would be when he laid down the
foundations that became critical race theory later. They think of
themselves as nations. Don't they all have flags? Don't they
put them on your buildings like colonizers? Don't they hang
them in your streets. They think of themselves as occupying nations,
but they see themselves as bound together, just like the
various colonized nations around the world, and seeking liberation from
(28:22):
Western civilization. And so we end up with Western Marxism
taking many forms, but with one overarching approach.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
And the approach that they use.
Speaker 3 (28:32):
I started off by saying, is Maoist not merely Marxist?
Now you know the theory is marx It's just evolved
into different species to attack the West at its weakest points.
Through our tolerance, through our acceptance, through our openness, through
our generosity, through our best traits. Actually the things that
we should be proud of being, the things that we
are proud of being. But Mao Zedong knew how to
(28:57):
use identity politics. I don't know how you study in Europe,
but in America we have very red washed education, as
we might say, the communists have stripped out all education
about communism entirely. You don't learn about it in America
at all. So we don't learn anything about Mao. And
maybe you don't know this, but I tell this to
American audiences and they're shocked. Mao used identity politics. He
(29:19):
created ten identities in China. Five he labeled red for communists,
five he labeled black for fascist, and he categorized people
into these identity categories. What they are doesn't really matter.
Of course, they were communists. There were things like landlord
and rich farmer and things like this. Right winger is
a bad category in and of itself, by the way,
(29:40):
conservative All of them bad bad influences. That's another one.
You could be a bad influence for just thinking the
wrong thing, or saying the wrong thing at any time,
or because the government decides it doesn't like you.
Speaker 4 (29:50):
These are the bad categories.
Speaker 3 (29:51):
And if you have a bad category, very importantly, your
children have a bad category by default. So they create
a social pressure for your children to identify as revolutionaries,
at which point they get a red identity, a communist identity,
a good identity, and they.
Speaker 4 (30:05):
Get rewarded for it.
Speaker 3 (30:07):
And the youth led the revolution in China because Mao
did this identity politics through the children in the schools.
That should feel very uncomfortable to you, because here we have,
at least in the United States, we tell our children
being white is bad, being white is oppressive. You automatically
hurt people of other races by your very existence. But
(30:29):
by the way, if you become queer, we'll celebrate you.
And you can create a radical army of people who
identify as gender minorities and sexual minorities. At seven years old,
you can lead them into paths of puberty blockers and
transition medical transition, which, of course big pharm of profits
off of at seven years old, behind their parents back.
(30:53):
There's a reason for this. It's the same program that
mal Zeidong used to radicalize the youth in China. The
only thing different is the id identity categories have shifted.
It's Maoist cultural revolution with American characteristics, and it's being
exported to Europe. And just like how critical race theory
has come to Europe even though it doesn't make sense,
it will come to Europe whether it makes sense or not,
(31:14):
and you will have a cultural revolution here too.
Speaker 4 (31:16):
You guys even had a kind.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
Of offshoot one in twenty twenty George Floyd dies in Minnesota,
which has nothing to do with you, and you guys
have statues coming down in Europe.
Speaker 4 (31:26):
Total nonsense.
Speaker 3 (31:27):
It doesn't matter though, the point is to destroy Western
civilization from within using MAOIs techniques. One last point about
Mao to kind of drive that point home, Mao said
in nineteen forty two that his formula to transform China
was called unity criticism.
Speaker 4 (31:42):
Unity.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
First, you'd try to create the desire for unity, Then
you criticize people for not living up to that. Then
you bring them into unity under a new standard. Does
that feel like what you're being put through? But the
words are different. We use words like inclusion and belonging.
We'll have a place where everybody feels.
Speaker 4 (32:02):
Like they belong. We just want to have an inclusive space.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
But unfortunately you have racist ideas and you have to
criticize for you, we have to criticize you. For those,
you need to criticize yourself. For those, you need to
go study shwashi in Mandarin, exactly like Mao said. And
then we can bring you into unity under a new
standard which Mau called socialist discipline, which we in the
West would not buy. We call it in the West inclusion.
(32:28):
And so we have this new program and within inclusion
we have or above inclusion, actually we have sustainability. We
have a sustainable and inclusive future. I see the Agenda
twenty thirty here with an X over it. The sustainable
and inclusive future is the new socialist standard that we
will have freedom under socialist discipline. And Mao said the
way that that will work is through what he called
(32:49):
democratic centralism.
Speaker 4 (32:51):
We call that stakeholder capitalism.
Speaker 3 (32:55):
And my shot at the World Economic Forum is taken
because it's one of the things co ordinating this. My
shot at the United Nations is taken because it's one
of the things that's coordinating this. So woke is Marxism
it's advancing through Maoist cultural revolution. It's using americanized identity categories.
(33:16):
And while some of those will not work, and Europe,
I guarantee you the colonial aspect will. They will find
your weakness, they will adapt the theory to fit because
it's like a virus that will evolve to its host.
And Europe is a great risk. Now, the last thing
I'll mention is this risk is twofold. When you endure
Marxist provocation, Marxist strategy is always of the same type.
(33:38):
It's called middle level violence. They don't come at you
with full blown Bolshevik assault. Very often it's middle level violence.
Speaker 4 (33:47):
They provoke
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!