Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 556 | How Race Marxism Is Infiltrating Schools, Churches & the Government | Guest: James Lindsay

Episode Date: February 1, 2022

Today we're thrilled to welcome our friend James Lindsay back to the show who's published a new book, "Race Marxism." James is an expert in all things Marxism, critical theory, and how leftists in this country are getting what they want, bit by bit. We discuss some of the lesser-known details about the history and philosophy of Marxism and James explains how it functions as an "intense religion." We also talk about how leftists since that time, from Woodrow Wilson to the black feminists of the 1960s, and people like Ibram X. Kendi and much of the modern Democrat Party, have adapted Marx's ideas and kept them alive to this day. James describes how leftists use language, propaganda, and outright bullying to shape society in the way they see fit and how their views on "structural forces" are diametrically opposed to Western views on individualism. --- Today's Sponsors: Good Ranchers is giving away 40 free chicken breasts to every order that uses promo code 'ALLIE'. That's a $150 value for free! Get you some of their 100% American, 110% delicious chicken, beef, & seafood at GoodRanchers.com/ALLIE. Patriot Mobile is America's only Christian conservative cell phone provider with broad, nationwide coverage. They have plans to fit any budget & they provide exceptional customer service. Support a company that loves America, you & your values at PatriotMobile.com/ALLIE or call 972-PATRIOT. CBDistillery has over 2 million customers that have been helped with their health conditions like insomnia, discomfort, or needing some peace & calm. Go to CBDistillery.com to order online with no prescription required. Enter promo code 'ALLIE' for 20% off! --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Hey, guys, welcome to relatable. Happy Tuesday. Today's episode is brought to you by Good Ranchers. Get you some good beef and chicken shipped right to your front door.

It makes your life so much easier. Good Ranchers.com slash All right. Today we are having a fascinating conversation with our friend James Lindsay. He's got a new book out called Race Marxism. We're talking about that, but we're talking about a lot more than now. We are talking about the philosophical, ideological roots of the left wing in this country that we have not discussed before. We've discussed a lot of things, but today what we're analyzing, we haven't talked about,

and we're talking about a lot of the things going on in the news right now, how that fits in to this ideology. and we're also going to be talking about theology. And our difference is there. He is an atheist slash agnostic. And I, of course, am a Christian. And so it truly is such an interesting discussion. And as I always say, I could talk to him for six hours and still not talk about all the things that I want to talk about.

He's just such an interesting person. I know you're going to learn a lot from this conversation. I certainly did. So without further ado, here is our friend James Lindsay. James, thank you so much for joining us. I'm sure everyone at this point knows who you are. You've been on here. This is the third time. You've been on Rogan three times as we were just talking about. So most people know who you are. But just in case, there are a few people who don't. Tell us who you are and what you do. Well, I'm James. Yes, that's true. James Lindsay, I write. I do podcasts. I own a company called New Discourses. The podcast is creatively titled The New Discourses podcast. That's where I put out most of my content now in addition to, you know, books or whatever. And lately, I guess I'm like a speaker or something, like a phenomenon. I'm invited everywhere all over the country to talk. So I do a lot of that as well. So is that who I am? That's who you are. That's the real me. Yeah. And why do you think that kind of suddenly, over the past year, I would say especially, even though your rise has been steady for a while, why do you think over the past year you have come in such high demand? I got lucky enough to study something that's happening to everybody that people are increasingly noticing is happening to everybody.

And people are hungry for the truth. And I don't hedge when I talk about it. I just say what I think. And because it's such a strange situation, you know, there's hunger, real hunger for the truth. Yeah. And I think that's really what it is. I say what I think. I take it seriously.

I don't come out and just say, oh, the left this, the woke that. I go read their materials and I say, this is what they say, this is what they mean by that, this is why this is important and they aren't fooling around. They mean what they say. Yeah. You know, they say, we want a revolution. Well, they want one. Yeah. I think that your expertise is taking us back to the roots of the things that we hear about today that most people assume are just new.

White privilege, white fragility, the things that people are reading from Ibrax candy, riots are the voice of the unheard. this kind of excusing of violence on their side and then castigating it when it comes from the other side. All of this, I think most people assume this is just a product of our social media, divided, politically polarized age, and it's unique to 2020 to 2022. And what you have taught us is that really this goes back a very long time, not just to the 1960s, but even before that hundreds of years. You really talk about the lineage, the philosophical lineage of things like, critical race theory. And I think that's what makes what you do so interesting. Most people don't

want to read those philosophers. Most people don't want to read that history. And you break it down in a way that people really understand. So if you can summarize, take us back a little bit. So I mean, the past couple of years obviously have been very tense because of the riots after George Floyd. And to everyone, like I said, that just seemed that just seemed to happen almost in a vacuum kind of. They were just so taken aback by it. And everything, you know, 1619 project, what we're seeing and public school curriculums with critical race theory. When did all of this start? How long has all of this been building? I mean, the idea is the philosophical idea is probably go back, you know, thousands of years.

But, you know, the kind of concerted push we're seeing in the West really is a project that's a little over 100 years long, which is a cultural Marxist project. So, you know, I can't say cultural Marxism and say it started there without saying, well, Marx was obviously relevant somehow as well. But Marx came up with a number of ideas, you know, and he had a number of predictions about how things would go. Probably most pertinently he predicted that, you know, capitalism would reach this kind of ripe stage. And then the workers would realize their exploitation. And in realizing their exploitation, they would come together and rise up. And so you'd see the major industrial centers turn socialist.

And then that didn't happen. Russian Revolution in 1917 comes along and peasant society goes communist because the Bolsheviks forced it to go communist everywhere else it's tried. They tried it in Hungary. The Hungarians are like, we're not having this. No.

And they like four months later, they beat the communists out of power. And then Berlin doesn't go communist, London doesn't go communist, Paris doesn't go to New York, you name it. None of them went communist. And so you have these Marxist thinkers in 19,

10s, 1920s, looking at this situation, even in 1930s saying, what? Marx got something wrong. What was it? And they said, well, we got to look at the cultural side of things. We got to look at a cultural economy because the cultural economy is somehow propping up the material economy. And so a whole new branch of Marxist's thought came into being that really focused on the way that cultural institutions create kind of a force field that keeps out revolutionary change.

And over the course of the 30s and 40s, the so-called Frankfurt's, school, Institute for Social Research, which, by the way, was originally going to be named the Institute for Marxism, but I guess they thought it was a little too on the nose. And so they backed off and called the Institute for Social Research, as they do. They hide everything they do and, like, lies. That's so true. Tricky language. And so it comes along, and it's looking at the situation.

It says, well, the working class has had a bunch of labor reforms and they're happy. We have a stable middle class now. Most of them are conservative. They're, in fact, counter-revolutionary. even when they're not conservative, they just want to go to work, earn a fair, reasonable living in a reasonably safe working environment and buy their corvette and wash it on Saturday and enjoy their little, you know, their little neighborhood house and their barbecues and maybe they play golf a couple times a month or whatever it is they like to do. People actually like that and they

like being free. And so these Frankfurt School critical Marxists, they're called, or critical theorists stared at this and they said, well, the problem is that the working class stabilizes itself. What on earth? You know, we know that there's something going on with culture, but we also see it the working class as a terrible revolutionary force because it agitates for change. The change comes in small parts, and then they're stable, and they become counter-revolutionary. It's like a self-defeating program that Marx had actually laid out. What are we going to do. And they said, oh, I know, identity politics. That's where some real energy is. They're looking at the black, you know, liberation movement. And this is what? In the 20th century at this point?

Yeah, 50s, 1960s. I mean, they first conceived of the idea that a critical theory had to address the fact that the working class stabilizes itself by about the late 1930s, 37, 38. By the 50s and 60s, they started to figure out that a going after consumer culture and trying to just badger people for liking things that they like wasn't going to work. So basically, they were. So basically they realized, as you said, that the working class stabilizes itself and isn't actually in need of some kind of liberating revolution in order to get better wages, in order to have a free life that they like to gain the security that they're looking for. Yeah. Now, some people would also say, well, that's actually thanks to, that's actually thanks to some left-wing movement. that's thanks to the policies of FDR or that's thanks to the unions.

And so they would say even if it wasn't Marxism that helped the working class in the mid-20th century, it was still the left wing of American politics that helped stabilize the working class in the United States. Would you agree with that? Or would you say that they're, I mean, because that's different than saying that they're self-stabilizing, which is what you argue. Sure, sure. Yes, it's generally correct. when I say self-stabilizing, a lot of these people actually, and this is a thing that a lot of people don't understand about how movements actually work, these people who are the workers, they don't just automatically self-stabilize. They started to agitate for change. They joined labor movements. They got involved in unions. Yeah, it does come down to things that FDR put into place, etc. Because there were some real reforms that were needed at the level of, you know, preventing terrible exploitation of workers, for example. If you've read the jungle upton Sinclair, you know, you can, you can, you know,

here you can see just how horrible the meatpacking industry was until that book forced people to, even though it was fiction, forced people to actually, and he was a socialist, forced them to go look at what's really going on in the meatpacking industry. And it was horrible, you know, it was actually terrible. And so then all of a sudden they started to work on these reforms. So yeah, left wing movements achieved this. But what happens is a lot of people, you know, think that leftism means that you just have to keep going left, right? And these movements want to just keep going left. But the thing is, no, there was a left side that was very wrapped up in Marxists, so labor movements.

And these workers joined those movements, not specifically necessarily because they were left or right, but because they were agitating for the things they needed. They got the things they needed. And then they said, okay, we got what we wanted. And they got out. And so this is the thing a lot of people fail to appreciate. movements aren't meant to go on forever if they're actually, you know, goal oriented. The problem with outright leftism or Marxism is that it doesn't have, in fact, not only does it

not have a limiting principle. I was going to say it doesn't have a limiting principle like that. Oh, we got what we want. Let's get out of the game. No, they just want more left. Yeah. They don't have anything in specific that they want. They want more left to get to super left revolution.

And that's a different goal than, you know, no, I just want my job to not suck. Yeah. You know, and so what you have is, is these people that are hard on the left have this, like, hardcore vision that most of the people who end up helping them, you know, in their movement, don't want and then eventually leave. We see this also with the feminists. There's, you know, there's a very Marxist and the very radical feminists through the, say, 50s and 60s and 70s. And then there are these very liberal feminists who are just like, no, I want to be able to get my own bank account.

I want to be able to be treated as an equal. I want to be able to work if I want to work. want to be able to stay home if I want to stay home. I just want to be treated, you know, equally as a person and make my own decisions. And then, you know, a lot of these reforms came through and the radical feminists and the Marxist feminists are still pissed off doing whatever feminist things they do, whereas most women are like, cool, we're free. Like, we got what we wanted and they've moved on with their lives. And, you know, girl power, but let's like not take it too seriously. The problem is that leftism is really almost, and I mean it, it's really like an

intense religion. Yeah. And most people aren't there for that. They aren't there for this, you know, have a revolution for society program. So, yeah, left-wing movements did, I mean, the labor movement was largely a left-wing movement. And it achieved some things that were valuable. It achieved some things that got brought in as writers that are problems.

Yeah. And of course, we see that now. We actually see when you kind of pair the standard, what used to be standard you know, agenda for the Democratic Party, which was pro-working class, pro-labor. Now, I would push back against someone who said that FDR's policies were really what brought us out of the Depression and were really great. I think we would probably agree with that, but it is kind of the wedding of the radical leftist ideology with that kind of standard democratic agenda that we see, for example, the danger of the teachers unions today. They've kind of wed those two things and it's become so

powerful and so ideological and so religious that it really like you said it really can't even be described as a political movement anymore. So can you talk a little bit more about that? When did that start to happen? Was it the 1960s that the Democratic Party really started to move to the left or leftism started moving to the left? You know, there have always been these kind of elements their, you know, FDR obviously is before then and Woodrow Wilson is before that. And they had some very, You know, the progressive era, going back to Wilson, becomes kind of really relevant because it laid a lot of the tracks upon which the leftist train has been running ever since. You know, Wilson was an outright Higalian progressive. It openly was.

And we see all kinds of changes that kind of got swept in during his era. So, you know, we could go all the way back there to, I mean, that's when, even when, for example, since you brought up the N.A. or the teachers unions, that's when compulsory public education became a thing in the United States. And so in the space in which that occurred, immediately progressive reformers, as they're called or social reformers or school reformers, came in John Dewey and was it something, Thorndyke, Marshall Thorndyke, something like this, get involved immediately, you know, in the kind of school reform movement. And all of a sudden there's this attempt to start twisting, and these guys are straight out of the Communist Party or connected straight to the Communist Party USA. There's this

attempt to start kind of warming this stuff in. So what you have to understand like with a Democratic party, etc., is that Marxism, it sounds so bad to say this. I don't want to give off some like demagogue vibes, but the function of it is actually very parasitical. And so I'm not saying that Marxists are parasites, but it's very parasitical in its approach. It looks for some opening, whether that's going to be this kind of compulsory public education, and then it kind of starts warming its way in and changing the policy slowly from within, creating what Antonio Gramsci referred to as a counter-hegemony from within. That's that cultural Marxist turn. And you see this with the teachers unions as well. The teachers' unions have had this kind of colored history back and forth as long as this has

been going, where sometimes they're a little bit less crazy and sometimes they're a little bit more crazy. In the 70s, at the very beginning of the 70s, they were getting latched on. on to the whole kind of what we would recognize as like white fragility thing. It wasn't called white fragility then. It was white awareness. But there's a, there's a professor named Patricia Biddle at the time who was writing the first books that were claiming that whiteness operates like a form of schizophrenia. And, you know, you're either with us or against us. You're either racist or anti-racists. Things people associate with Kendi today. And that was written in 1970. And it was funded by the N.A. The N.A.

actually funded Patricia Bidal putting together a, she had her book she wrote in 70, and by 73, they had one that she brought out four schools specifically, and the NIA paid for it. If you get a copy of it, which is very hard to get a copy of, and I can't remember the title to tell you to go look it up right now, racism and education or something like this. If you look in the, you know, paid for by the National Education Association, etc. But this has been going on for so much longer than most people have realized, certainly longer than I've realized, what made all of this take root now? Like, why is your standard even, I would say, Republican open to reading Ibermax-Kendi

or certainly my friends who have considered themselves conservative Christians after George Floyd? I mean, it's like they became at least for a couple months full-on progressives, talking about anti-racism and the dangers of white privilege and how they were going to raise their little toddlers to understand their privilege and to deny their whiteness? I mean, that obviously didn't happen. I don't think among, you know, your standard moderate American in the 1960s and 70s, even though these ideas were percolating. So what happened between then and now to make this mainstream to the point where it's dominating our political institutions, but also our corporations and even some of our churches?

So this is a, when I said they're very parasitical, they work their way into opportunities, whether it's the school reform movement, I'm talking about Marxists. Marxists. Yes, Marxists. Marxists work their way in and they slow, the cultural Marxist turn that we see, you know, following people like Gramsci, following things like the Frankfurt School, is actually to slowly get inside of an institution, whether that's a school, whether it's a family, whether it's a church, whether that's the country overall, whether it's a particular government agency, like, say,

the Department of Education or whatever, is to get in it and very slowly tweak one little thing at a time almost imperceptibly. The goal, like if it was, you know, if you have a tick, you don't feel the tick, you can crawl up your leg and you don't even feel it on you. It can bite you. You don't even feel it. It's got, you know, techniques and poisons or whatever does it make it do that?

They actually are very subtle like that. There's an old saying, there's another group called the Fabian Socialists, which you maybe have heard of. Founded in 1844. Probably the reason, by the way, that George Orwell called his book, 1984, because a century of the Fabians creep. But one of their emblems was a turtle.

And it says, you know, something like to build up slowly and then hit hard all at once. And so they've slowly demoralized, slowly watered down, slowly poisoned the way that we look at things. They've slowly caused people over the course of 50 years at least to question that Americans, that Americans, can feel proud to just say, yeah, America is good. It's like even you'll find a lot of people will say, even that they feel a little cringe to say something like that. And that little bit of cringe, it's a little bit of poison, has worked its way in so thoroughly.

And then through the say the political correctness movements that they've done with language, they've slowly tailored it to where you, well, there are these rules about how you have to speak about things. You can't say this, you can't say that. You have to try to find a polite way to say things. You've always got to stay respectable or we're going to pay. counts on you very vigorously, you know, with the media that you said something very coarse, and we're going to tie you to racism, and we're going to tie you to sexism, we're going to tie

you to exploitation. And it's not even really just respectable. I mean, that's what they want you to think that political correctness is. But it is actually sometimes a denial of reality. Like when it comes to using particular pronouns, they say that that's just respectful. You'll just be respectful. But obviously, it is a denial of that, which is. actually true. But I think it starts with people just saying, well, I'm just being kind. I'm just being polite. I'm just being respectful. And no one wants to be a jerk. No one wants to purposely be a jerk. But then it gets to the point to where we are now to where we, if I do not call a man who is obviously a man, a she and a woman, then that's not being respectful. And actually, they bring it to the point of where if you misgender,

as they say, someone, if you don't call this man a woman, then you are perpetuating suicide. You're killing these people. Yeah, of course. Of course. They tie it to these really horrible things. You know, you can either have a trans kid or a dead kid. You know, they put these horrible, like, false dichotomies on you and associate with the worst kind of evil. Before this, it was fascism. If you didn't do what they said, they would call you a fascist. Hey, this is Steve Deist. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news

of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this Steve Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. And that's still happening like these poor truckers in Canada who are pushing for freedom. They're being called a fascist convoy by people who I guess don't know what fascism is. I don't know. There was that whole political

cartoon where the guy drew the trucks and just wrote fascism on the side of every truck. That's ridiculous. And so this is what they do though. It's this game of very slowly smearing and demoralizing. And then when they feel like the conditions are sufficient, then they pass. And so it feels like it comes all at once because they don't act until they think that the structure has been rotted out enough to where it'll collapse if they hit it. So what does pouncing look like in your analogy? Well, I mean, when George Floyd died, the pouncing came very quickly. You were super racist if you didn't do literally everything they said, including, you know, tolerate riots, tolerate arson, bail people out of jail for engaging in riots and arson, putting, you know, all of the social media behavior. were supposed to say these things or say those things. And if you didn't say those things,

you know, somebody and your family would probably text you and say you're not being compassionate enough and something would get twisted on you, you know. And you have to give money. We're going to make lists at your employment, at your job. We're now we're going to have diversity, you know, offices everywhere. Remember after George Floyd died, how quickly this crazy boilerplate that was virtually identical appeared in literally like every university, every corporate board, out of nowhere, they pounced. Yeah. Those materials were large, like, you know,

largely prepared in advance for such a moment and then disseminated very quickly, by who? By these big foundations that produces stuff kind of endlessly waiting for their moment. And so all of a sudden, you know, they had assessed that there was enough, you know, dry tinder on the ground. George Floyd died and the spark dropped.

And they, you know, now it's like fan the flames. and the flames as wide as possible. And to people who would say, though, and I guess this will get into your book, who would say, well, you know, what's wrong with that? George Floyd, that incident really happened. That really was terrible. It really was emblematic of, you know,

systemic racism and white supremacy in the United States. So what's wrong with these corporations taking a stand against racism and committing to diversity? Isn't that completely innocuous? Why are you against diversity, James? Because it's communist. Diversity is communist?

Yes, diverse. All their words mean communism. Every word. You pick a word. We can get to communism. So, but what you're saying is what they mean by diversity is communism, not that actual diversity is communism. See, this is the thing is you can't fall for the trick of using their language on terms that haven't been clearly defined. So now if I don't even, if I think a word has been captured, I don't use the word except ironically and in their way. So, and I do so, you know, viciously to criticize it. I don't use the word misinformation. anymore because that word's been captured. I don't, yeah, I suppose there is misinformation. Are we going to have any, any language left if we're not using any of the words that are

captured, or can we use the words that they use and use them in the way that is real? It's hard to, it's, while the capturing still exists, you can't do anything with it. Because there's always ambiguity about what's meant and that ambiguity is set up to always advantage the Marxists every single time. So why am I against diversity? Because what diversity means is somebody who has the critical consciousness, the awakened consciousness of their, the way that the structural forces of society, whether it's systemic racism or whatever that they believe structure society, that those systemic forces have created a unique set of character. They call it the unique voice of color, as a matter of fact. And so diversity means that you are awakened to saying, what, say, critical race theory, as you're supposed to say about being whatever race you are. So if you're white, that means there's no positive white identity. If you're black, that means that you're politically black as Nicole Hannah-Jones had it.

Or if you want, like Ianna-Pressly said, we don't want any more black-and-brown faces who don't want to be black-and-brown voices. What's she talking about? She's talking about that you are somebody who speaks the politics that's supposed to be for that identity and supposed to be is defined by being a critical race theorist because they believe that everything is structurally determined. And so what does that make a diversity person? Well, in Ibram Kennedy's exact words, a formally trained expert on racism.

In other words, a critical race theorist. In other words, in older language, a commasar. Because his definition of racism is not prejudiced against someone because of their skin color. It is any policy. How did he define racism? Racism is racism and a racist racist. That's right. It's racism is racism when it's racist by our. racist. That's really what it comes down to. He said that it was when you have racist outcomes determined

by racist policy put in place by racist people. Well, only by white people. He doesn't believe that a black or brown person can be racist. No, I don't know, because Larry Elder ran for governor and the L.A. Times said that he was the black face of white supremacy. Yeah. And then Dave Chappelle made jokes about trans people and his special, and they said that he used his white privilege to make those jokes. But that actually goes exactly to the point that you are making that those people you know, I think that they would say that I think that they would say those two things at the same time. I think that Ibrax-Kindy would say a black or brown person, maybe he would say can't actually be racist because racism is prejudice plus power and only white people have power. You know that whole thing.

But at the same time, they would say that someone like Larry Elder isn't actually black. So because Larry Elder isn't actually black, he's actually what, he's functionally white. Yeah, because he's structurally white. And so it sounds crazy, but, you know, decoding what they're saying, it does kind of make sense in some kind of convoluted way. Since you brought up the privilege plus power or no, prejudice plus power definition, by the way, that also was Patricia Bidall, the woman who was funded by the N. The 1970s. She came up with that. And the ADL, the, is it the ADL that just came out with a new definition on.

of racism, the Anti-Defamation League. Yeah. You know, it was prejudiced against someone because of the skin color. Now it is like a system of oppression against people of color only by white people. Yeah, exactly. If you actually look up the definition of race used by critical race theory, it says that it's, you know, a characterization created by white people originally from Europe that holds themselves up as the archetype of humanity so that they, the white race, so that they can oppress other people.

It really, that's their definition of race. It's all like that. they have all these self-serving definitions that you don't know are happening. Say it all the time on Twitter. Communists share your vocabulary, but they don't share your dictionary. They have completely different meanings. So back to your other question, though, why does it matter if corporations see the George Floyd incident and want to do that? It doesn't.

What's weird is when all of them are doing it all at the same time with almost like copy pasta boilerplate. And then every university is saying the same thing. and the government is saying the same thing. It is nothing natural is happening when myriad people across all kinds of walks of life are all saying and doing exactly the same thing and this kind of weird. Like if we took some of that boilerplate

and read it in a chant, everybody would recognize this is a cult, this is really weird. But when you read it as it is, you know, you realize this doesn't say anything really except there are these key words now to commit to equity, yada, yada, yada. which by that way also means socialism.

Yeah. And so what's weird is that there was no diversity whatsoever in the response to this. There was no critical thought allowed. And if anybody attempted to it, either got drowned off media or you got bullied or people got screamed at, fists in their face, you know, screaming it. There's that iconic image of the young woman who supported Black Lives Matter, by the way, sitting at a table. But she was like, I just don't want to raise my fist because you're making me.

And they freaked out on her, you know. There was there was this was what you said you what does it look like when they pounce they pounced everything had to be that from every direction everywhere all at once and that was sustained for as long as they could sustain it and it was totally justified and defended even by people that I know in respect they at the very least so after the George Floyd thing happened lots of you know I'm very in you know Christian white woman Instagram world. I see it. I see how they react to things. And even the ones who would say, they would definitely say, because I don't think that they are, they would say, I'm not a Marxist. Are you kidding me? I don't believe in Marxism. I don't believe in communism. I'm conservative like you. But they'll post the Black Square. They'll talk about anti-racism. They'll repost a story about Border Patrol agents whipping migrants. They'll always go with the left-wing narrative of something, especially when it comes to race because they have white guilt themselves. But they'll say they're conservative.

They'll say they're conservative evangelical and they're not progressive Christians and whatever. But they will never post the other side of the story while still just, you know, defending themselves as completely apolitical and completely neutral. But they would call someone like me on the conservative side. They would never repost me or like one of my posts or agree with something I say. But they would be much quicker to defend an outright communist, I think, and a racial. Marxist on their views, even though they consider themselves conservative. It's just wild to watch. That's the two things there. That's the demoralization. People don't know how to feel like a good person

in that bullying campaign that comes along with it. And so they go along with it because they, you know, they kind of think maybe there's something to that and they didn't really thought about it a lot. And then they're just going to kind of go with it because the bullying campaign is obvious and everybody else is doing it. And they're so true to it. Racist. You know, there are racists there. Like there's people who are racist and they have friends who said, well, I've been followed around in a store, whatever. And so because of that empathy, which I would love to hear you talk about empathy, that's really the thing. Because of empathy, they have to post the black square. They have to say that they're reading Ibra Mexican Day.

Right. The funny thing was is there was actually nothing racist whatsoever as far as I can tell about the George Floyd incident. There was, except that the cop was white and the victim was black. And that's all you need in their formula. Yeah, exactly. And so, you know, who's projecting racism into the situation? It becomes a question at that point. But yeah, the weaponized empathy, lack of understanding what words mean because they've been made ambiguous. They mean multiple things at multiple times, depending on, you know, who's using them and for what purposes. But with empathy, you know, a lot of people get their heart out in front of their head. We need a heart. We need to have that care. But, you know, you've, you've, Everybody could think of kind of an example of somebody who just kind of, you know, comical kind of television sort of scene where somebody's trying to help and they're flailing around

trying to help and they're doing all the wrong things because all they want to do is help, but they don't actually know how to help or they haven't taken time to slow down and assess a situation and do something that's appropriate for the situation. So there's this kind of, you know, very emotionally driven empathy and then, which is very instinctual and, it happens very fast and you feel like, you know, something must be done. I have to care. And that's so important. Or maybe I just do care. But then there's there's kind of head-driven empathy, which is kind of goal-driven or results-oriented empathy. Like something maybe is wrong. I don't know. Maybe something is wrong in the country with policing. I am suspicious.

This has been a hard-driven narrative by Marxist organizations for a while, so I'm suspicious of the facts, but we should take a look and we should start saying, well, if there is this kind of pervasive problem, what does it actually look like? What do the data say? You know, what are real solutions? How do we kind of A, B, test potential solutions and see what the outcomes are and start picking solutions at work to whatever problem may actually be? How do you start to bridge the gap of lack of trust between these kind of inner city predominantly black communities or neighborhoods and the police who feel like they have to police them in particular ways, particularly harder. And maybe is there racism there and what can be done to bridge that trust? These are things that, you know,

kind of goal-oriented, thoughtful empathy. Like, I care about this issue and I want it resolved. Not, I care about this issue. And somebody said, this is the thing to do. So I have to do this. And it reminds me of something that, you know, and we actually haven't talked about critical race theory in a little bit. We kind of took a little bit of a break because we were talking about it so much. But something that we say a lot is by Thomas Soul that disparities in themselves are not proof of discrimination. And I think that's where this empathy piece comes in for people that you see these gaps. This is what people on the left do, by the way. It's a little bit of a rhetorical trick.

They say, well, why are black people, you know, being shot by the police at a higher rate than white people? or why are they less likely to graduate from high school? Why are they on average poorer than white? Or they actually, they probably won't even mention Asian. They'll just say than white Americans. And so you look at all of these gaps and then someone fills in those gaps by saying, well, those gaps can only be because of discrimination. And if you're on the other side of that, especially if you're a white person,

you don't want to argue with a black person who says that those gaps, those disparities, are because of discrimination, especially when they say they do this trick, too, and this has happened to me. Because I've said, well, that's not, disparities aren't proof of discrimination. There could be so many other factors that are playing in there. They'll say, oh, so it's, you know, it's our fault. So you're saying it's some innate characteristic that's causing these disparities. And actually Thomas Sola debunked that, like, back in the 1980s. And so it's a conversation that's been going on for a long time. But you could see how your average person, especially your average white person, who wants to be empathetic. when you hear from a black person, well, these are the reasons for the disparities.

You don't want to argue against that and say, well, what does the data say? Is that really true that it's because of discrimination? Then you really seem like a bigot and a racist and no one wants to be that. Well, you seem like you're uncaring. Exactly. And then that gets transformed into bigotry and racism. And these manipulations are extremely subtle. Like a lot of the people that are doing the manipulations don't even necessarily know that they're engaging

boils down to a moral extortion racket, which is what that is. It's such a good way to put it. That was a moral extortion racket being put on you. You say there's a problem. You think, you know, you've offered there. So we'll take for granted that the problem is real and exists. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't.

Maybe it doesn't. Let's take for granted that it does. And then you've offered an interpretation of that problem. And you don't have to actually deny the problem to deny the interpretation. Exactly. And so we're often wrong. Our interpretations of what's going on are frequently wrong. Every time anybody's ever got food poisoning, they tend to, they're like, oh, I must

ate some bad chicken or whatever. And chances were, it was a salad bar that's a classically known thing because it's not cooked. And so, you know, we don't really know. Our interpretations are not always that great. And so we should be questioning each other's interpretations. And data are the best way to resolve those questions. But these manipulations are extremely subtle. And by the way, Ibram-Kendi is called directly for reversing that mentality.

He, in his, in 2019, he wrote an essay or paragraph, really, for Politico, how do you fix inequality? And he says that we should have an anti-racist constitutional amendment. And the second of the two principles that he says that should be in that constitutional amendment is that inequity or differences and outcomes, she'll be taken as proof of discrimination. Right. So that's the only possible explanation. Now, you can see that this is going to be a disaster in the making if that's what you're, actually going to do is always boil it down to you you know the explanation for whatever happened in advance um and then it's something very sensitive like racism that you can inflame people and you can get people

I don't want to be associated with racism so I'm not going to argue it's a very subtle and nasty manipulation um and just it's just to put it in really simple terms so people understand it's basically saying if you earned five dollars and I own earned two dollars for the same job the assumption has to be that it's because of sexism or some unfair you know, form of discrimination when really it could be that I don't have as much education as you or I didn't do the job as well or I didn't take as many hours to do it, whatever it is. And you see the same thing actually in feminism when it comes to the wage gap, even though when you control for all factors, men and women have no wage gap between them for the same job. But when you don't control

for the factors, women do make 79 cents on a dollar because we work less, we work fewer hours. We tend to not want to take the job that is, you know, as trying as the job as a man would take. And so you see this really across leftist talking points. Yeah. And so what you actually are, what we see in general is actually a denial of responsibility or accountability for failed left wing policy. That's kind of the underlying theme of all of it. You know, all, granted, there's also Marxist manipulation. But if we're trying to be. a little bit like less they're communists about everything. What's going on, you know, what, for example, with race, what causes, what actually causes a lot of these, these issues, these

differences and outcomes? The data actually are not equivocal on this. The, it's not totally 100% of the explanation, but a huge proportion, and I don't know the statistic, but a very large proportion of it comes down to do you have a stable two family or two parent household and in a stable neighborhood. And so that moves a question back. Well, why don't you have those? Right. Why is there such a huge disproportionality by racial group in that particular domain? And, you know, the great society, maybe it was well intended, but in some of the programs that they installed were certainly of some benefit, but of others, they were wrongheaded and they should have been short term or never implemented at all. And you see very clearly, and if you talk to, you know, people who've studied,

you know, American history of blacks through the desegregation period, through the civil rights era, and on both sides of it, what you see is that's where the policies that they put into place decimated the family. And the decimation of the family led to the decimation of neighborhoods. And the black family used to be extremely strong. It was the backbone that led the... Before the 1960s, the divorce rate was lower, or the fatherlessness rate was lower among black Americans than white Americans. They were very, very pro-family. And then some bad policy got put into place. But that policy was put forth by Democrats and therefore.

And in the name of equity, because, you know, they still saw, okay, there's these gaps of outcome when it comes to income or when it comes to education. And so we're going to fill those gaps with government programs. And as you're saying, actually disincentivize. family togetherness because as the government does, I mean, talk about parasitical, it is taking the power of the family, which is the incubator of liberty and of values and of all of these things, and it's replacing it with something that really can't replace it effectively. That's, and one thing that also people don't really point out, if you're looking at the fatherlessness rate among black Americans and white Americans, starting in like the 1940s to today,

even though starting in the 1960s, the black fatherlessness rate went up at a faster rate than the white fatherlessness rate. Both went up starting in the 1960s. So if because like you said, when you, okay, fatherlessness, we know is one reason for teen delinquency and a lot of different things that are plaguing any community that has rampant fatherlessness. But the left would peel that back and they would say, no, it's not because of the great society and LBJ and these government programs. It's because of mass incarceration in the 70s and 80s. And that's really what led to fatherlessness in the black community. So it's right-wing policies, whatever. But again, if that's the case for black Americans, then what is the reason behind white fatherlessness also increasing at a very quick rate starting in the 19?

in 60s, but they never want to meddle with those kinds of inconvenient facts. Well, they don't want to bring up the fact that the answer to the question is the F word. Feminism. The feminism. And I mean that quite seriously. One of the more interesting things that I had when I was reading, you know, I started to talk about the birth of the identity politics into the Marxism earlier. And so we're looking at this big black liberation movement and the black nationalism movement. And these things are huge in the 60s.

and then an offshoot of this was black feminism. And if you actually go read the black feminist writings from, say, the 1970s, the Kambahee River Collective Statement, for example, has it explicitly in there. They start talking about how they, and this is where the birthplace of intersectionality is also, by the way, they talk about how they need to start, like, their big issue that they have is that black men don't want anything to do with feminism. they're like, no, you're not going to have that. And, you know, basically you're not going to be some uppity woman and mess everything up. And in the Kambahee River Collective Statement, which is really the first kind of manifesto of Marxist black feminism, what you see is they're, it's like a five page manifesto. And they take it, they have one thing they really quote. And what they quote is, you know, look how terrible these, you know, black nationalist movements are for the,

way that they view women. And it's this very, you know, I am the man, you are the woman, you're not busting up our family with your feminism. We're going to keep the family together. The family is the core of, of, you know, the black community, et cetera, et cetera. And they're like, this is terrible. And so it's this. These black feminists were saying that's terrible. The black feminists were saying this is terrible. Which reminds me so much of BLM, because people don't realize the BLM is, was really founded not on, you know, wanting to preserve black lives, but really it's found. upon that queer feminist, radical feminist ideology that seeks the breakdown of the family. That's why they didn't mention fathers when they were talking about black communities and

black families on their website. Yeah. And so, I mean, there's so much there that, you know, it's pretty well known that young men are fairly reckless unless they have something that they're working for. the highest rates of violence, etc. are men 16 to 25. P.S., you should look at their testosterone levels with the age and testosterone makes you crazy. You know, the roid rage thing or whatever is something people talk about.

And when you create situations to where they're not able to be building toward a family, you're going to see increases in criminality. You're going to see increases in all kinds of, you know, antisocial behaviors. And so you have this kind of self-fulfilling wheel of destruction going on in circumstances like that. But you also had this strong movement of feminists saying to the point where the black nationalists were like, stop. You know, no, y'all are a problem trying to break up this idea of the two-parent household. And the government just made that easier by saying, okay, well, we'll take care of you. We'll take care of you.

And if you have children, you know, without being married, then we'll give you more money. And if you have children from different fathers, we'll give you even more money. And those incentive structures lead to bad decision making. So now you have these guys who aren't channeling that energy into building, you know, the best stable home situation that they can because baby mama threw them out. Maybe for good or bad reasons. Maybe they were a jerk. Who knows? But you're not channeling that energy anymore.

And so you can see how this becomes kind of a vicious circle of problems, creating problems, creating problems. And it really becomes very easy to just start pointing and saying, well, this is why, this is why. But the degradation of the family is really at the heart of. Yeah. And whether or not there were any right-wing policies that were proactively picking up, say, black men to continue racism in the post-segregation era after the civil rights movement. regardless of whether or not that's happening, there's also a concerted left-wing effort to degrade the family that's stretching back 100 years that's coming to fruition through the various identity politics angles of Marxism that became prominent in the 1960s. Yeah, and that'll hurt any community no matter the skin color. And as, you know, as I said, you saw that among white families too, the rate of fatherlessness

really hiking up from the 1960s onward. And so if you're going to say that fatherlessness in the black community is only due to racism, well, you're also going to have to answer for white fatherlessness rate, the white fatherlessness rate is also up. And to go back to your point of just being able to see that strong correlation between a present father in the home and father and mother in the home and success. I mean, it's just an undeniable correlation if you look at each racial group because the group, and I know they call this the model minority myth, but the facts are the facts is that Asian Americans have the highest

median income, the highest graduation rates, the lowest crime rate, and they also have the lowest fatherlessness rate. And that is just too, it's too strong. It's too strong of a correlation to say that there's not a causal relationship there. And to speak to your point about, you know, every leftist narrative just trying to cover up for the failures of democratic policies, when you talk about that, all they do is they point to right-wing policy, which, like you said, I'm not saying that that's not a problem, but that's all they do. And they also deny or they just ignore the fact that a lot of these communities, these predominantly black and brown communities that they say are just depressed by white supremacists have actually been run not just by Democrats, but black Democrats for

decades. And still, they somehow point to the white evangelical Trump supporters the source of the issues in these cities and communities. I mean, we're seeing the same thing in the Canadian trucker convoy right now, too, of course, right? It's obviously the stupid vaccine mandate policies are what moved the truckers to start doing what they're doing. And then there's this whole weird left-wing movement where they're trying to support the so-called real truckers who are still delivering goods and doing their regular job and who have, you know, basically stayed in their lane quite literally as far as truckers go. And so now it's, it's, it can't possibly be the fact that there are these tyrannical policies that many people hate and we seem to have almost no

political recourse against. We petition, we beg, we ask, the news won't even cover. it, the politicians just ignore it. You say, we don't want to do these mandates. People try to do things against the mandates. And they're like more mandates for you then, you know, until everybody comes along. And it's been very tyrannical. And so it can't possibly be the policy that's causing the problem is that the truckers are fascists. So it's like they have absolutely no capacity to accept accountability for the fact that, you know, I'm not even of the mindset that all left-wing policies necessarily bad. The right, if it has all of its way, all of the time, tends to get stagnant.

Yeah. And you need some movement a little bit. But at the same time, if you're absolutely unwilling to take any responsibility for your failures and to correct for those, you're on a collision course with disaster. And the thing is, is that when you, and I'm not talking about liberal versus conservative because there's that third category, leftists. Leftists are literally completely convinced. It's nobody, leftism never fails. People just fail leftism. And that's, you know, that's a cult mentality that's destructive.

That's the whole communism has never been tried mentality. Yeah, real communism has never been tried because, you know, it got co-opted by the state and became state capitalism, which is a kind of fascism, which is ultimately right wing or, you know, whatever. It's always that. And you said something earlier that seems to be true is that the goal of progressivism should not be to continue to go to the. the left. If the goals really are what they say that they are to help the working class, to help the traditionally marginalized person, I think most people are on board with that. I disagree with what you say, a person on the left, what you say is the cause of the problems and therefore I disagree with your proposed solutions. But if the goal is to actually help people and lift people up, I think there are a lot of conservatives that are also interested in that the problem is, is that we want to listen to people like Ibrax Kendi, instead of someone like

Walter Williams or Thomas Sol, who have really been talking about economic solutions to the disparities that are between black Americans and white Americans. No one is saying that that's a great thing. Like, no one is saying that it's great that black Americans have a lower median income than white Americans. I'm just saying if we're just going to blame that on some, you know, intangible idea of white supremacy and your solution Ibrax Kendi is to not hire white people or to somehow discriminate against white people, which is exactly what his proposed solution is, well, then I'm not on board with that. And you're actually just going to get in some kind of gridlock because, okay, then I guess you don't want to talk solutions and we're just going to stay as we are.

And I don't think that's a good thing, but I don't know what else to do because I can't agree with their premise. Right. Well, their premises are bad all the way. down. If you read, for example, Paulo Ferreari, he's a Brazilian Marxist educator. He's dead now, but he was very influential. He, in fact, is the most influential figure in terms of what our education system does today. If you read him, he talks in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed. He talks about trying to reach the peasants and teach them about their dependency. Right. And at no point does he say, you know, well, the path out of dependency is to teach these people responsibility. Teach them how to be, like, maybe they actually are naive. Maybe they actually do have

beliefs that keep them, you know, down. Oh, this is just the way it is for us. We're peasants, you know, and they're very self-defeating. And he talks about that. Maybe they really do have these, but he doesn't teach people to take responsibility. He doesn't teach that at all. In fact, he says instead that you have to teach that the source of their dependency is the system itself and that they need to band together in solidarity to overthrow the entire system. And so you can see this mentality, whether it's in white Appalachia, whether it's in, you know, kind of the black ghetto in the cities or whatever and you see it in Freire. The idea is that if you were to teach the peasants responsibility, if you were to teach the oppressed

to take responsibility for their lives, teach them to read, teach them whatever it happens to be to be able to lift themselves out of their dependency, then what would happen is some of them would succeed and some of them wouldn't. And they would, those people would therefore become part of the problem. They would actually have abandoned the neighborhood, left the peasants off even worse, and become part of the problem that's oppressing them in the first place. But in today's terms, they would have become white, as the racial Marxists would say, unfortunately. Yeah, because whiteness is the scapegoated cultural property. So they would be white or white adjacent or that they are seeking white reward or, you know, something of this kind. And so, yeah,

but it's always that there's some overarching structural system because it's Marxist. That's actually the organizing principle of society. And what you have to do is teach people that they are made dependent or made oppressed by that system and that their only legitimate option is actually to band together inside their oppression and dependency and negativity and have a revolution to overthrow the whole system because it's ultimately a Marxist approach. And that's the trap that they're in. That's the when you say, you know, I disagree with your diagnosis of the problem and therefore I disagree with your prescription of the medicine. That's why. Because that that's the way they think about the world is that it's not any individual person's fault or even any but individual

person's responsibility. It's the collective's responsibility to make the world so that nobody is in oppression or dependency. But also by saying it's no one person's fault, it's also everyone's fault. It's actually everyone's fault that they see on the side of the oppressor anyway, which is exactly why they don't if, you know, if you didn't do the thing that they wanted you to do or say the thing that they wanted you to say even just in a performative way, like posting a black square. And your defense was, well, I don't know that, you know, the George Floyd incident had to do with race. I can think it was bad and that justice needs to be exacted without, you know, saying that had to do with race. And I don't really want to post a black square because I don't know what that represents. And I don't really

know if I support Black Lives Matter. And I definitely don't support the right in looting, just kind of like these critical questions. And you get accused of racism and your defense is, well, I'm not racist. I just have these questions, they don't even take that as a response for, I think, a couple reasons that I've heard you talk about before. One, because of this idea of structural racism. Therefore, if you have benefited from white privilege, then you are racist. You're responsible for this racist structure in some way. But also this kind of Kafka trap that if you deny that you are something, that is just more proof that you are actually that thing. And so, your only option that is to say, okay, well, I'm not playing anymore.

Exactly. And that's because ultimately, again, if people don't know, like nobody's really read Marx and the people who have, according to the, you know, the Marxists that I've read in the past, or, you know, who've written in the past, say, 20 years, I don't think a lot of people understood Marx. So Marx had this very simple kind of construction of the world. You have this thing called the base later in the structural framing. It got called the infrastructure. That's your productive workers. It's also where nature is. It's where all the stuff's happening. But all of your productive working class is the base. That's what actually build society. Society's made out of that. And then you have all these people who do things like what we're doing. We're talking. We don't do real work. We talk. We write books. You know, we're lawyers. We mediate people's problems. We're priests or pastors and we just shepherd people through spirituality. That's their opiate of their masses or whatever. These aren't real jobs. They don't produce any real tangible stuff. So in a sense, Marxists see that is a grift. But what Marx calls all of that is a super-strand. of society, and that's where the real organization of society kind of gets its kind of

basis. And everybody who's involved in the superstructure is also known as an ideologist. An ideology is this bunch of excuses the people who get to work in the superstructure give for why they get to be in the superstructure, why they get to do this fake work that doesn't have to produce anything while somebody else has to toil with a hammer or a sickle to produce the base of society. And so they have these things called ideologies. And they convince themselves that their ideology is the real explanation for how the world works. And so they, therefore, are trapped into thinking, well, this is how it's supposed to be. I've earned my way here.

I went to school longer. You know, I'm meritocracy. I did the right stuff. I'd sacrificed. I've worked my way up. And you could, too, if you wanted to. But what you have is that those two things are held in this relationship and tension with one another. and they're creating the structure of society that organizes how society works.

And it therefore conditions how everybody thinks, depending on where you are positionally, as they would say in intersectionality, against that structure of power. Where are you relationally to being part of the either cultural or material production base? Where are you in terms of the ideology? And one of the features of the ideology is that you think that you don't have an ideology. That's the magic sauce of the ideology. you can't see it, but you are being conditioned by these structural forces that are ultimately what Marx called the social relations produced by the relationship between the infrastructure and superstructure. And this is a dialectical relationship.

So that's what dialectical materialism is all about. So you are conditioned by that. That determines who you are. It determines your character. So with critical race theory, whiteness becomes the property, white supremacy becomes the structure that justify, it's the ideology I should say, that justifies. It's the ideology, I should say, that justifies why some people get access to whiteness and why other people don't. And then systemic racism becomes the structure that shapes all of society, conditions everything. And so any answer or excuse that you give.

It's truly conspiracy theory. It's a huge conspiracy theory. You know, it reminds me not to interrupt you, but as you were talking, I'm thinking, I'm like, this sounds exactly like what people say when they talk about Kim Trails. Seriously. It is. When they're talking about Kim Trails and they're like, well, see, the Kim Trails are like, a. convincing people of different things. They're like playing with your mind.

But I, I am the one person who has escaped the power of the Kim Trails. And I am here to tell you about that. And if you deny that Kim Trails have had an effect on your thinking, it's just because the Tim Trails are working. It's working. That's right. And I use the special soap or whatever that got them out of my hair. It's like, no, seriously, though, it is a huge conspiracy theory.

Even in the book, I have to call it a conspiracy theory. The whole thing is a giant conspiracy theory. and that everybody's participating in, and the only people who are aware that this is even how it works, just like with the chemtrails, are the people who have the awakened consciousness, in other words, the Marxists. And so they therefore get to appoint themselves the arbiter

of how everything's going to go, how everybody's going to have to respond. And they're the only, if you disagree with them, you must not have understood correctly. So you don't have epistemic authority to challenge them, or you must be secretly a racist. Yeah, it's because you're white. And it goes back to almost like pathologizing whiteness that your white brain just can't understand.

Because it's been conditioned by the structural reality of systemic racism so that it's just not possible. Even though, you know, we've had comedians, you know, breaking down the racial barrier by talking about white culture and doing, you know, Eddie Murphy or whatever, Bernie Mac, all these guys coming out doing their white person voice and making fun of white people culture. Like everybody's been making fun of this for a long time. I mean, what they're saying doesn't even make any sense. But they think they're the only ones who can actually see that this is how this really works in society. But they don't realize that they're actually in a cult. Okay, guys, that was just part one of that conversation. We had to cut it short, split it into two parts because it was really, it was long.

And we just felt like, you know, you needed some time to chew on this and to think about the things that he was saying. Because there's just so much to unpack. The second part of this conversation, we're going to take. talk about our differences in theology, why Christianity is so important to the moral foundation of lawmaking in the West. And so there are more fascinating parts to this conversation to come. So stay tuned on that. I'll see you guys then. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what

we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts.

I hope you'll join us.