Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 909 | The Left Is Falling in Love with Osama bin Laden | Guest: James Lindsay

Starting point is 00:00:00 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.

Starting point is 00:00:19 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. Osama bin Laden's letter to America written over 20 years ago is now going viral online as TikTokers are expressing sympathy for the terrorist behind the 9-11 attacks. What is going on here? What is the mentality responsible for this kind of sympathy among Americans online? And what is really going on behind the debate, the discussion, in some cases, the violent

Starting point is 00:01:13 protest regarding the Israeli and Palestinian conflict? How does critical race theory, intersectionality, Marxism, liberation theology, all play into what is going on here in America and the discussions that are being had around this conflict. We've got a fascinating conversation for you with one of my favorite guests, James Lindsay. First, we're going to talk about some of the conflict and controversy that he has gotten himself into on Twitter, and then we will get into his analysis of everything that is going on here and what it means for the future of the country. and then I will also note the implications of this theologically.

Starting point is 00:01:59 This episode is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers. Go to Good Ranchers.com. Use code Alley at checkout. That's good ranchers.com code Alley. James Lindsay, welcome back. Thanks so much for joining Relatable again. Okay, before we get into all the stuff that's going on, and I just want to get your interpretation of everything,

Starting point is 00:02:27 I've got so many questions about the debates. You were recently restricted on Twitter. I went to your page and I saw that it said this profile is temporarily restricted, which I've never seen before. What happened? I don't know. I actually got almost no information about this whatsoever. I fried and found a way to kind of submit a report to Twitter and they sent me back an automated email that said that my account had been flagged for suspicious activity, believing that I probably had been hacked. and so I don't know.

Starting point is 00:03:05 It resolved itself. It said if I would reset my password and all of this, it could resolve itself after a few hours. And then after several hours, I changed my display name and that allowed me to verify that I am a human through the test that that gives you if you change anything on your profile. And once I verify that I was a human, it gave me my account access back.

Starting point is 00:03:29 So I know that I was getting mass reports yet again for making people mad. Yeah, tell me why. I want to get into that a little bit. Who was, who do you think was mass reporting you and why? Well, I know who was mass reporting me because they were bragging about mass reporting me. And this turns out to be a group of radical feminists who I made very upset. I guess, what is it, about a week ago, week and a half ago, I went to the Genspect conference, which Genspect is a organization that's going after the kind of trans ideology and especially the medical transition of minors.

Starting point is 00:04:04 And I went and spoke at their conference. It was a very interesting conference. It had probably a 60-40 split of people who identify on the left versus on the right or as Democrats versus Republicans. Somebody did a kind of informal poll and kind of determined that. So it was a very mixed crowd. There were feminists there. There were trans people there. There were detransitioners there.

Starting point is 00:04:26 but there were conservatives there and there were just kind of people kind of in the I don't know social media space talking about

Starting point is 00:04:35 and identifying this issue biologists were there but there was also a self-confessed auto-gynophilic man named Phil Illy who was there and he was wearing a dress

Starting point is 00:04:45 the whole time because that's what Phil Illy does he was completely respectful I know he wasn't entering women's private spaces like women's restrooms because I ran into him in the men's bathroom

Starting point is 00:04:55 and so the feminists got very, very upset. The radical feminists got very upset after the fact, not that he was there, but that he ended up in a picture posted by Genspect. So he didn't speak. He wasn't a speaker there. He was an attendee. No.

Starting point is 00:05:12 Okay. He was an attendee. Now, the thing is that he wrote a book that's called something like auto-heterosexual or something like that. It's gigantic. And he was not selling it. He was handing it out to people he deemed to be.

Starting point is 00:05:25 influencers who might want to read it. He wasn't in that sense promoting it with the official sanction of Genspect, but Genspect didn't tell him you can't give out your book. And so as far as like I tell his behavior was completely respectful. It's a little weird to be walking around in a dress. I personally felt like I wanted to just go up to him and say, dude, really, a bunch of times. But, you know, whatever. And this turned into a big mess.

Starting point is 00:05:55 In Spect wrote an article about it. I shared the article and said that ratfambs are losing their minds over a man doing something they don't like. So after Jinspec posted the picture, and let's just be specific, the radical feminists are people who are feminists who, like, the left would consider turf. So they are feminists who are against gender ideology in men and women's spaces. There are writers at the outlet Redux, an outlet that I've promoted a lot, Genevieve Glock, has done in a lot of them. amazing research. He's been on the show several times, just dissecting a lot of the things that are going on in gender ideology. So those women were upset that it seemed like GIN spec was platforming a man who was manifesting his sexual fetishes at a conference that is ostensibly

Starting point is 00:06:45 speaking out against gender bending as a male fetish. Like I would say that that's probably what their complaint was, right? That is their complaint. As a matter of fact, they said that more specifically because he's a self-confessed autogynophile, which is a man who is sexually aroused by the idea of himself being a woman or being seen as a woman, him being an address at the place was necessarily making other people complicit in his sexual fetish, which is in their sense of violation. And so there is a point there. I mean, Phil could have dressed in street clothes. like normal person. I don't know or claim to know anything about Phil or his motivations. I spoke to him for maybe all of three or four minutes.

Starting point is 00:07:35 He gave me a copy of his book. I haven't read any of it yet. But anyway, I, even to the degree that they have a point, radical feminism, and this was the point that I made that upset them refuses to take any responsibility for the completely blatantly obvious and true fact that radical feminist theory and activism is what opened the door to this happening in the first place. They're only willing to blame the men who are involved and the specific men who are acting as autogonophiles or whatever other things for all of this. It's that their own theory can have literally no negative consequences whatsoever in their mind.

Starting point is 00:08:19 And so that's what I was calling out. And it made particularly the kind of feminist icon, Kelly J. Keen very upset. And she decided to try to be a hard ass with me or something, which as everybody who's ever spent five minutes on Twitter knows being a hard ass with me on Twitter never goes well. And so I'm not going to leave it alone and I didn't leave it alone. And I'm continuing not to leave it alone. So it will continue to spiral into a bigger and bigger fight until, in my opinion, feminism is exposed for playing the roots of queer theory. also laying the roots of the sociocultural milieu in which women grow up to hate womanhood

Starting point is 00:09:00 or young women grow up to hate the idea of womanhood. They grow up to see the idea that while it is uncomfortable for many, it's easy to recognize and unseemly and something to be talked about, that as they develop sexually as teenagers, that they start to attract male attention and male attentions given to them in that way, that that gets interpreted as a form of patriarchal violence. and victimization of women as a class only exacerbates the problem rather than helping it. And to be frank, the entire theme of toxic masculinity, not to, this will get taken all kinds of out of context. But men didn't enter women's spaces very successfully when men were allowed to police other men on doing that.

Starting point is 00:09:44 As Riley Gaines has said, for example, many times, they kept waiting for a dad or a coach or somebody to come in and grab the William Thomas. and pull him out of the women's changing room or locker room because he's male. And that never occurred. Well, the thing is, is toxic masculinity as a feminist trope, has really prevented men from being able to take action to stop creepy and predatory men, whether acting toward women or children. And so a portion, if not most of the blame for this problem, while we must, of course, recognize the complicity of the actor or the blame actually for the actor himself, who is

Starting point is 00:10:27 an autogynophile or a pervert or whatever doing these things. We also have to recognize that feminist theory and activism has opened the door, and that's the way I phrased it, is that it actually unlocked the door that has allowed all of this to manifest in society. And if they're not willing to take any responsibility for it, they may as well recognize that their theory, which I can talk about it in that aspect as well, is completely useless. In fact, it's worse than useless for stopping the problem, which I think we all agree is a problem. You know, I really like Kelly J. Keene and I really appreciate Redux just for the reporting that they do on the stories that we don't hear about, these predatory men that are going into women's prisons and rape shelters and are committing absolutely

Starting point is 00:11:22 heinous crimes in the name of just, you know, being their gender, being who they are, but they're actually preying upon vulnerable women as they're taking on this new character of womanhood. So I really appreciate all of the work that Genevieve Gluck has done. However, I don't consider myself a feminist for the very reasons that you just listed. It's not because I don't believe that women are equal or valuable or any of those things, but because I think the ideology down to its roots is rotten. So could it, but could it be possible that they define feminism differently than what you're defining, like, couldn't jealous, Kelly J. Keene and the writers at Redux, they're saying, well,

Starting point is 00:12:05 we're feminist because we simply believe in the protection and perpetuation of the rights and equality and the dignity of women. That's what we're trying to protect. That's what we've always tried to protect. And I've also seen them say, look, they're feminists going back several decades who were fighting against this idea of gender bending, fighting against this idea of men in women's spaces fighting against the idea of gender ideology. So couldn't it just be that there were some feminists who really do, they just consider themselves champions of women's rights? And then the other feminists who say, well, no, men and women are basically interchangeable. And femininity is akin to weakness. And so women have to be masculine in order. And so because that, I understand,

Starting point is 00:12:48 did open the door to this idea of gender bending and men can be women and vice versa. But there do seem to be feminist, even if I think that they're wrong in a lot of ways, who don't see themselves as advocates for gender bending or women becoming masculine or things like that. So could it just be a problem of different definitions and different factions of feminism? Actions is a better word than definitions, but I guess the definitions define the factions. What I would say is that the word feminism is not very granularly clear in this case. There are many, many branches of feminism. Those branches frequently don't agree very famously. In the 80s, there was a conflict between what was called sex positive radical feminism and sex negative

Starting point is 00:13:34 radical feminism. They did not agree with one another whatsoever. Queer theory was born out of the sex positive splinter off of the sex positive radical feminism of the 1980s, going into the 1990s. That's really not that much in doubt. There are these people who are materialist feminists who are at war with what are called post-structuralist feminists, there are like 20-something, 30-something different. And I think the right word here is denominations of feminism. But at the end of the day, feminism believes that women are a unified class that can have a feminist consciousness that awakens within them. And this kind of excludes the idea of these kind of champions of genuine women's rights and equality in the same way that queer awakening or queer consciousness

Starting point is 00:14:20 doesn't represent the vast majority of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people whatsoever. That's why there's this LGBT alliance trying to break away from the T and the Q, which are rooted essentially in queer theory. So feminism is not a clear enough term. If we were to get really into the weeds, I've studied a little bit of this, I would definitely not consider myself in any way a radical feminist. I don't use the term for myself at all, but I find myself agreeing with quite a lot of what it's called choice feminism. for example, or liberal feminism, which are both derided in the radical feminist literature as kind of sellout positions. And that's in fact what our fake paper that was the feminist M.Kampf, where we rewrote the chapter

Starting point is 00:15:03 of MnKamp and intersectional feminism, we said the intersectional feminism needed to define a form of solidarity that copied the, well, it didn't, we didn't say it needs to copy the Nazi movement. We replaced the Nazi movement that Hillary was writing about with intersectional feminist solidarity as a new movement. And the thing that it was targeting was neoliberal and choice feminism. So there's immense differences between feminists as the main point I want to draw here. But the fact of the matter remains that feminist theory from Simone de Beauvoir asking the question in 1949, what is a woman?

Starting point is 00:15:34 The Matt Walsh asking the question in gender theory is not being able to answer it in 2022, what is a woman, including Kintaji Brown Jackson going on Supreme Court. there's a straight line and that line travels primarily through feminist theory. And yeah, it's true that men and perverts and people like John Money and Stoller and a lot of these, Kinsey and a lot of these other guys, the influence of the post-structuralists like Foucault, all had huge influences on the development of queer theory and trans ideology. But it doesn't change the fact that the underlying construct that defines the whole thing is the definitional construct of radical feminism, which is gender is a social construct. If you believe gender is a social construct, the next stop on the train, imagine it's a train going from station to station.

Starting point is 00:16:23 The next stop on the train is, so is sex. As a matter of fact, you find Monique Wedding, who, Wedding, I should say, who is a female feminist. You find Judith Butler. You find a person after person, even within, you know, kind of just straight, feminist analyses of both are, you find this conclusion that if gender is a social construct, maybe sex was too all along. And then guess what? Phil Illy showing up in a dress, well, his gender is just a social construct. It doesn't really matter technically what motivates that unless you want to make a lot of, hey of it. I think these things do matter personally. But my point is that feminists don't get to draw the

Starting point is 00:17:04 line arbitrarily at where the revolution that they started is going to stop. And that revolution has now consumed them. It is their idea that gender is a social construct that has been taken to its next dialectical conclusion that is consuming them with this. Yeah, but it's interesting this kind of collectivist mentality, both in what I've heard you say and how I hear feminist talk, like you're saying, they have to take responsibility for this as if they are the ones who perpetuated it back in, you know, 1949 or in the 1970s. Obviously, this is a new group of people. They're not responsible for the people who identified as feminist a long time ago. So I do wonder if they would just say, I mean, this is what I would say if I identified as a feminist to what you just said is, yeah,

Starting point is 00:17:48 you're absolutely right. The ideology of those people several decades ago did lead the way to this. It did kind of prime the pump, but I don't believe those things. I believe in these tenets of feminism, feminism, and this is what kind of feminist I am. And so I wonder if they would respond that way, although I didn't see that in their responses. I kind of just saw defending previous feminist. So I don't know why there wouldn't just be, hey, a distinction. Yeah, James, I see what you're saying. They were absolutely wrong, but I'm trying to correct that within feminism. So yeah, that's interesting. That's how I would respond. What they were was that these are misinterpretations of Beauvoir's own words. In other words, they have,

Starting point is 00:18:32 you know, the secret codex to how to read feminist theory from Simone of Bovar. They don't dare say that Simone de Beauvoir was wrong. No, it's that there are misinterpretations and here are like, you know, 3,000 pages of crap nobody's going to read to try to rescue Bovroar from herself. But the fact of the matter is that if you draw the sex gender distinction and you claim that gender is socially constructed, you have no tools to stop the next question of whether or not sex two is a social and political construction. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what happened. That's exactly what the theory says. And the people who have decided to say that sex is a social construct as well can turn right around.

Starting point is 00:19:18 First of all, citing Beauvoir just as readily as anybody else, they can turn right around and say the only reason that you want to reserve sex is because it benefits you politically. In other words, you're saying sex is reserved from social construction and gender is not because it's politically expedient for you as feminists who get to benefit from a certain kind of privilege that comes with identifying with sex that unfortunately queer identified people who fall outside of that normalcy framework don't have that privilege. And so it's again, it's the dialectical logic they've assumed. So when I say that I'm not assigning collective blame in this case. Anybody in this category, I mean, collective blame would be saying it's women's fault. It's not

Starting point is 00:20:05 women's fault. Feminism is an ideology. People who subscribe to the ideology should recognize that their ideology has consequences rather than continue to try to reject responsibility for that ideology. Yeah. Like I could say, okay, some things have been done in the name of Christianity by people who profess Christianity that I just don't agree with. I don't have to be an apologist for that. Like I could just say, well, that's not true to God's word. That is not a legacy that I want, whatever, whatever it was. I'm not even thinking of specific examples. But I'm not really sure why there wouldn't be an effort to just differentiate.

Starting point is 00:20:42 Or maybe there is, and I'm just kind of misunderstanding or missing it. But I just wanted to get your take on that conversation because obviously I respect you and your thoughts a lot. That's why I love having you on. And I also really appreciate the work done at Redox and the work done by Genevieve and Anna. and yeah, to see two sides that I respect fighting, I just kind of wanted to hear a little bit more of your insight on that. Okay. I'll just say we go on that I've appreciated the work done at Redux 2.

Starting point is 00:21:11 In fact, they mocked me for sharing 218 or something articles in the last year alone that Redux is published. And then as it came out, I was sharing those as favors to people who did it. I'm very busy. I don't particularly need to read the details, the gory details of a story about a man identifying as a woman so we can enter a woman's prison and rape people to know that sharing that is something that's worth raising public awareness about. So sharing not most, literally all of those articles.

Starting point is 00:21:43 I've never opened a Redux article to my knowledge. I'm sharing all of those articles without having read them, which the people at Redux tried to burn me for. So I've now decided I will not share Redux anymore, even though it might be a little. and the public interest to have done so, and even if their work generally could have value or is bringing value to the issue. Unfortunately, like I said, at the heart of it, though, is this radical feminist constructivist ideology, a critical constructivist ideology that can't solve this problem. So I think it's probably better to try to figure out other ways to get

Starting point is 00:22:17 to the same reporting. Let's move on to Israel, Palestine. And really, I just want you to break down like what is going on behind the conflict or the interpretation of the conflict here in the United States. We did an episode last week talking to someone else about what's going on in the history and things like that. I'm sure you would have an interesting analysis of all that. But I want you to talk about the debate and the discussion that's happening. And I'll just give you some of my observations and there are just so many things that I've seen that I'm like, I need James Lindsay to interpret what is going on behind what's being said. So let me go back to something that you said in 2021.

Starting point is 00:23:09 There's a tweet that you said James. Okay, so it says James Lindsay in my notes said that critical race theory is the biggest threat to Jews in the world today in response to a tweet claiming whiteness is the center of American Jewish life. And I think it's really interesting to go back to your response to that tweet because it seems like that's kind of what's underneath a lot today, like just absolute unabashed Jewish. hatred in these pro-Palestine protests on college campuses, they're not even hiding it. It's not like some nuanced position to where they're trying to even just say, well, we're anti-oppression, we're anti-colonialism. That's part of it. But it is just on a bashed, we don't like the Jews. We don't like Israel in some of these places. So what's going on? How is this possible when the Jewish people have endured so much oppression for their entire history

Starting point is 00:24:09 are such a small minority, why are they seen as the colonizing white supremacist oppressor that must be taken down by, you know, resistance fighters and liberators? Yeah, I wish I had a short and concise answer for this, but it's actually super complicated.

Starting point is 00:24:29 That's okay. Go for it. Like a 10,000 or 12,000 or something word essay, some absurd length back in 2020 in October of 2020. So over three years ago, talking, as we called Critical Race Theory's Jewish Problem, talking about this issue way back because I started to read, actually during the Grievance Studies Affair, we stumbled on a large number of papers that were actually conflating Jewishness and whiteness. And I just kind of bookmark that as like, that's probably a potential problem.

Starting point is 00:24:58 And I finally came back to it in 2020 when I was studying critical race theory in more depth. And I ended up reading this book. by a scholar, I assume, named Karen Brodkin, which is titled, how Jews became white folks and what that means about race in America, which was published in the late 90s, 98 or 99, something like that. And so I read this book, and her argument is actually that Jews were considered minorities in the United States. And until roughly the 1950s, then Jews started to throw other minority groups under the bus so that they could be classified as white.

Starting point is 00:25:31 they then climbed the ladders of white culture to become the cultural kind of the trendsetters of white culture, whether in media or in entertainment or in law or whatever else, and basically usurped whiteness from white people and became kind of the most elite vanguard of whiteness, where in critical race theory, whiteness is considered a form of cultural property, bourgeois cultural property associated with race that's meant to exclude people of color from other, from the, from the full benefits and full citizenship in society. And so the goal of CRT is to abolish whiteness, but this sets aside this kind of very special and weirdly unique wrath for Jews, which is then also what you just mentioned actually plays into the story as the claim is that Jews became white in the 1950s and 1960s at the expense of people of color, in particular blacks. But they hide behind the fact of the Holocaust to say, look how oppressed we are, or hide behind, you know, the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70, 80, and all of these other calamities that have been visited upon them as a people to hide behind this and say, no, no, we're oppressed too.

Starting point is 00:26:43 So they're the height of privilege hiding behind oppression. And I thought that that looks an awful lot like Hitler's ideology about Jews as well, but not exactly the same. But this is tucked deeply within critical race theory mentality. And so Jews are coded as white, except sometimes there's a carve out for what are called brown Jews, which is used in critical race theories, an attempt to set brown Jews against white Jews and cause division within a broader Jewish community, which is its own kind of sick, divisive, conflict-driven identity politics that you see all over the place with this CRT. So CRT has a Jewish problem, and the essay's first half is covering that. And it explains a lot of what you're asking about, except the settler,

Starting point is 00:27:30 colonialist part. And so for that, we have to turn to post-colonial theory. Now, before I talk specifically about the Palestine Liberation Organization or Palestinian Liberation Organization in its roots in history, I just want to talk about post-colonial theory. Post-colonial theory is based largely off of this French psychoanalyst who is from Martinique. His name was Franz Fannin. He wrote in the 50s and 60s, some very, very radical books openly advocating for violence in order to reclaim the psychological status of the colonized person from their colonizer. In fact, he says he starts the book, The Wretched of the Earth, which he published in 61,

Starting point is 00:28:13 with the sentence that no matter what you call it, decolonization is always a violent. process. And so this decolonized project has always been one rooted in violence. Now, Fanon's work was taken up very significantly by a Palestinian American professor named Edward Saeed. And Edward Saeed is sort of considered the father of post-colonial theory. And what he did was mixed. Fanon's very radical, literally Marxist analysis of third worldism into a mixed Foucault's power dynamics of postmodernism into that. And that's basically the backbone of what Saeed did, followed also by Gaetri Spivak and some of the other Homi Baba and some of those being in the Indian context,

Starting point is 00:29:01 being the fathers or mothers and fathers, I suppose, the parents of post-colonial theory, which has as its center of this idea of radical decolonization of all colonized lands, which means, in effect, removing capitalism and Western civilization from all lands that anybody can make a claim belong to somebody else beforehand, even including Britain somehow. And so post-colonial theory itself is an extremely angry and literally violent branch of this philosophy, but it's relevant that Saeed was a Palestinian-American because it grew up within that Palestine conflict context, within Said's mind. And this also, he was also a hero of the region in the 1970s and 1980s for the Arabs in that world looking at Israel through that lens. And so that was kind of deeply embedded in where post-colonial theory developed. So it has a very anti-Zionist, but really anti-Israel project at their heart. And a lot of these crazy ideas that Jews are the new Nazis

Starting point is 00:30:11 that we've heard around this movement, but we heard earlier in various parts of time in the world, came out of this post-colonial theory mindset, unfortunately. Now, the reason that Palestine and the Saeed become so relevant here is because, like I said, the People's Liberation, or the Palestinian Liberation Organization is actually a splinter and offshoot. Now, Liberation, PS, is like liberation, like Mao's People's Liberation Army, like the, the Liberation Front in Vietnam, like the liberation movements in South America, it's a communist project. But the PLO is an offshoot of something that was earlier defined as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the PFLP. Now, popular front should tell you just linguistically if you've kind of picked up on these things that that was a Marxist project.

Starting point is 00:31:04 As a matter of fact, it was a Soviet project to bring Marxism and division into the region following the establishment. of Israel in 1948. So the PLO, which gave birth to Hamas, after the very radical traditionalist, if you want, but it's really radical fundamentalist Islam ideas from the Muslim Brotherhood got infused into the liberationist ideas of the PLO actually came from Soviet setup to create division around the object of Israel in the region. So this is all, in some sense, the downstream effects of blatant propaganda from the Soviets trying to break apart the Middle East to make it a violent war-torn area, make it so that there would never be peace unless the American and English project of the Israeli state were completely and utterly destroyed. And so there's no surprise that there's massive solidarity from the left.

Starting point is 00:32:06 When Judith Butler got caught on tape, you know, came out now and she's trying to disclaim. it but 20 years ago saying that Palestine has always been a project of the global left. She wasn't kidding. She wasn't lying. She wasn't wrong. She's trying to disclaim it now for whatever reasons that we could speculate on. But here we have the fairy godmother queer theory saying that Palestine was always a project of the global left and all of these other liberation movements, including Black Lives Matter, which is really the black liberation movement reconstituted, queer liberation and so on. all have to sign on and go full bore into solidarity across this global left push.

Starting point is 00:32:47 Because for them, it doesn't matter if it's queer things or black things or race or sex or gender, sexuality, or ability status or in this case, colonial status in specific Israel versus so-called Palestine. The issue is not for them the issue. The issue is always the revolution. And this is part of that far global left revolution. So you see 100% solidarity because that's how cults work. Yeah. And obviously, you know it's not about like true liberation for Muslim people because they don't have anything to say about Uighur Muslims in China. They don't have anything to say about the Muslims that are being oppressed by their own Muslim governments in almost all of the Muslim world. So if it were really about liberation, it would, or like true liberty, they would be concerned about those things. I thought it was interesting when Ilhan Omar, she got up in front of Congress and said, you know what, they have a right to find liberty. And what she means by that is the destruction of Israel.

Starting point is 00:33:42 She doesn't actually mean liberty as you and I see liberty, because even if Israel was eliminated altogether, the people in Palestine wouldn't have liberty. They wouldn't be free. Hamas would still be in charge. Hamas is not championing their rights and their dignity and their freedom as individuals. They would just be under total Muslim rule as they are today. Their lives wouldn't improve in any way. And that's what you see in all of these decalculations. colonizing, liberating revolutions. I'm not saying that every colonizer has been, you know, kind and

Starting point is 00:34:18 compassionate, but the decolonialisms tends to always lead to prolonged destruction. If you're looking at Zimbabwe or Haiti or any of these places where they have risen up against their oppressor, they haven't improved the lives of the people that they say that they're advocating for. They live in a lot of cases in squalor. They live undercorrhizant. They live under oppression. But liberation from that kind of oppression apparently doesn't matter. It's only against the white or perceived white oppressor, the Western oppressor, whatever it is. And so I guess I just don't understand what the end goal is.

Starting point is 00:34:58 Like we already have seen throughout history what the result of these violent revolutions are in the name of liberation. It's never good. It never improves the lives of the people that they say. that they're advocating for. So why do they think that this time it'll be different? Well, what they're seeking liberation from is Western values, literally free inquiry,

Starting point is 00:35:20 the ability to determine truth for yourself to the best of your ability, the ability to associate freely without punishment. In other words, these are totalitarian ideologies. Hamas is a totalitarian ideology. As a totalitarian interpretation of Islam, it very specifically is, it takes very literally that Islam, Islam, which literally means submission, is the pathway, the sole and only pathway to peace.

Starting point is 00:35:45 There will be peace when everybody submits to their very radical, very, very fundamentalist interpretation, very totalitarian, I should say. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Alley, 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,

Starting point is 00:36:09 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.

Starting point is 00:36:32 I hope you'll join us. Interpretation of Islam as a totalizing ideology. So no Islam, no peace would be the way. that they phrase it. But that's the same as no justice, no peace that we hear in the West, or no socialism, no peace that you might have heard under Mao. It's literally the exact same project. There's a reason that I continually mess up when I try to say the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the PLO, accidentally say the People's Liberation Organization, because I'm conflating it with the People's Liberation Army of China by mistake in my head, which is what Mao

Starting point is 00:37:04 named his communist Red Army as the PLA. And it's still the PLA. And it's still the PLA. to this day. The idea is very simple. What Mao said was that there would be freedom, right? So there's your liberation, your liberty that Omar is talking about. There'll be freedom, but it only exists under socialist discipline. That's what Mao said would be the case in China after the revolution. Hamas is zero percent different, absolutely not different at all. There will be freedom or liberty or they'll be liberated from Western values or whatever. As long as there's, it's all under Sharia. discipline or full-blown Islamist discipline. It's the exact same totalitarian logic.

Starting point is 00:37:46 And it's the exact same totalitarian logic that we have here in the West that is in solidarity with it under different brand names that are more effective in our culture, which is that we will have more freedom and more liberty will be liberated from all of this oppression if and only if we have our sustainable and inclusive future where everybody's on board with the climate change agenda and everybody's on board with diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives as run through the critical theories of identity like CRT, queer theory, and so on. It's the exact same model. They're all totalitarianism.

Starting point is 00:38:21 They're all pushing the same set of concepts. And again, it's not a surprise, therefore, that there is solidarity. So what they're looking for liberation from, I mean, you can try to conflate it with white, but that's their thing to do. It's kind of a big trap being laid for, a mistake. It is Western values. It is the idea of free inquiry, free association, property rights that people can't abridge or decide, you know, outside of you. It's the freedom of conscience, belief, and speech in particular that they are absolutely against because they're running a totalitarian cult. And if anybody can tell the truth under a totalizing ideology, then anybody can tell the truth.

Starting point is 00:39:02 And if anybody can tell the truth, eventually the lies get exposed and the cult breaks and they, lose their power. So what their end game is, Ali, is very simple. It's power and totalitarian control of the people that they have under their thumb. Okay, so the communists here, the critical race theorists here, do they understand that Islam is incongruent with their goals, that like Islam isn't interested in their intersectional goals? Like, Islam doesn't see themselves actually linking arms with black Americans here against depression. Maybe they, I mean, they're very, I think these Middle Eastern countries, just like China, are really good at propaganda. And so they're really good at kind of using those messages to cultivate support, you know, among brainless left-wing activists here. But obviously, that's not the goal of Islam. The goal of Islam is total control. And in a different way, though, than critical race theorists here. It would be a different government, a different system. So do left-wing activists, is here understand that like do they understand that Islam like is not interested in their pie in the

Starting point is 00:40:26 sky left wing coalition or are like have they so deluded themselves into thinking that they are like fighting the same fight as Hamas like it's wild because you do see like professors using that symbol the silhouette of the paraglider as a symbol of resistance and I don't know if you saw, I know that I'm kind of like going on a rant, so I'm giving you a lot to respond to, but I don't want to forget this. I don't know if you saw yesterday that they're on TikTok that Ben Laden's letter to America that he wrote 20 years ago, basically saying, this is why we attacked you on 9-11, that it's going viral on TikTok. And you've got, from what I see mostly leftists, saying, wow, my perspective has totally changed. And wow, Ben, Ben,

Starting point is 00:41:18 someone actually said, someone said bin Laden is the good guy. Someone said, why is terrorism? Why is it called terrorism when really it's just resistance against the oppressor? What? There was a TikToker who said, she said herself, she said, you know, I'm Muslim and now that everyone is reading bin Laden's letter to America, now people know the truth. James, that's terrifying. So I don't even know, I guess, what my question is, it's just all. so obvious to me that anti-Israel is anti-West, is anti-Civilization, is anti-America, and if you see terrorism as a form of legitimate resistance and moral resistance against the oppressor, and you see Westernism, white Americans, capitalism, whatever, as the same form of oppressor here, then what is stopping those same people from using the same tactics that Hamas and

Starting point is 00:42:18 Bin Laden did here. Yeah, well, you're basically, you've got your thumb right on it. So you don't need to have a question about that. You have got, you've already explained that their, their logic is really bad, really dangerous and really frightening. As for these, you know, left as professors with the paraglider thing, you know, just tell them if they're listening. I doubt they listen to you and me, but if they're listening is, and do not ask for whom the paraglider fly. it flies for thee, it's coming for them. And know, to your first part of the questionality,

Starting point is 00:42:54 they do not realize what they're dealing with. That the red guard, I don't think, fully understood what it was getting into with Mao, for example, after Mao got his power back from Liu Shao Chi at their, due to the efforts of the Red Guard, he sent a PLA after them and got rid of them. I see frequently when you were asking me about that part, about if the leftists know what they're tangling with with Islam. I don't think to know what they're tangling with with any of the things that they're tangling with. In particular, you can see what, you know, there's these videos going around, like, what are you going to do after the revolution?

Starting point is 00:43:31 And they talk about how they're going to curate books and they're going to do all this kind of artsy-fartsy stuff. But Marx wasn't ambiguous about what they would do after the revolution is that you were going to work. You're going to do labor with a hammer and a sickle. peasant work, factory work, stone work, and so on, until you learned the value of work until, I think, as phrasing is something like, the labor becomes your prime reason for being or something like that. And that was what the point to the gulag was. They have no idea what they're tangling with at all. It's all very whimsical and airy-fairy and idealistic and utopian until the rubber meets the road. And this is exactly what the case is. I think that the people in Ammas,

Starting point is 00:44:16 the radical Islamists, the people who would have been Taliban or Taliban still completely understand what they're messing with, whereas the wokes who are supporting them have no idea what they're dealing with. And they think very much so that they're going to be able to just come in and absolutely, once the revolution has taken place, once constitutional protections of belief have been destroyed. They're going to be able to come in and force, convert, at the sword like they've always intended to. And I think there are historical precedents for that in the Arab region where the socialists helped the Arabs get there, or the Muslims get, I should say Islamists get and take over power. And then they turned around and immediately

Starting point is 00:44:59 said, convert to Islam or die, Islam or death. Those are your choices. And those are not socialist countries today. So I don't think they know what they're dealing with. I think that the idea of queers for Palestine or sex workers for Palestine or even feminists for Palestine completely reveals that they don't know what they're working with, that there are more brutal totalitarian ideologies out there rather than their utopian, you know, love is love kind of picture of the world. And I don't think they're going to win those hardliners over. They're going to get bold over once the protections that they have that they have now turned against and they're angry at and they're rallying against or removed thanks to the revolution

Starting point is 00:45:42 that they're championing. So there's this weird, like, tragic, pitiful side to this whole story that the useful idiot is, you know, it's the bullet too, frankly. Yeah. And you actually do. I don't want to just say that it's people on the left. I've certainly seen people on the right who are, I would say they're basically, and we're talking about, I don't even know how. to exactly describe this. And it feels weird even saying this because it's so often used by left-wing activist towards people like me or you. But truly, like, they're far-right people who I would say are also kind of, I don't know

Starting point is 00:46:24 if I would say they're anti-West and anti-civilization the same way the left is, but they certainly seem to be cheering on what's going on in Muslim countries. There's a weird, like, pro-Islam faction kind of growing in almost the, like, manosphere of the far right because they see them as fellow champions of traditional values, which is just crazy. And, like, that they would link arms with them and being, like, anti-feminist or whatever. But I would say those people are equally diluted. Like, you are also going to be put at the edge of the sword in this kind of, in this kind of situation. Okay. aren't the far right. They're not the far right. This is what we call them because they are

Starting point is 00:47:08 the most vigorously anti-left, which then by default makes us define them as far right, but Hamas is not far right. The Nazis were not far right, although that's how they get characterized. And yeah, Hamas is using an extraordinarily traditionalist, if you will, or as you might phrase it, right-wing interpretation of Islam. But the fact is, is what they are is that this, that reaction is the right hand of the left. And people just don't understand that. It's still this dialectical, progressive mentality, this totalitarian mentality that's against liberty. What they are is they are the necessary reaction and foil that the left creates so that it can do another round of damage and conflict in society.

Starting point is 00:47:53 Using similar methods with a different ideology, or as Hitler put it in my conf, literally, I learned the tactics of the Marxist so I could drive home my own firm conditions. sorry, my own firm convictions. And that's literally a chapter, chapter two of Mind Kampf quote from Hitler. And so they are the right hand of the left. And people don't understand that. They think it's, oh, these far right guys are cheering this on, blah, blah, blah. Well, no, they've signed on to the exact same what's ultimately distributist model of socioeconomics that they want to go back to, which is the same thing that the left wants with its communist program.

Starting point is 00:48:29 just they want different people with a slightly different ideology controlling the social credit system and the totalitarian mindset. So it's better to think of these people as the right fist of the left than it is to think of them as the far right, just to be completely blunt about them. You know, we're saying anti-West, anti-America, anti-Sivisization, and I guess you could say it's all those things. But of course, I see within that anti-Christianity. And I know we're talking about anti-Semitism, but you can't really talk about. talk about Western civilization without Christianity. Christianity is what drove Western civilization. I don't think we would have Western civilization or the rule of laws we do today without Christianity. So, I mean, I know that you don't have the same theological convictions that I do, but it's hard for me

Starting point is 00:49:26 not to look at the left and like their complete delusion when it comes to what Islam is and like what their movement is about without seeing something profoundly spiritual about it. Like without seeing that, oh, like, they don't have eyes to see or ears to hear or a mind that understands, like, as scripture says, like, it's right in front of them. It's right in front of them what is really going on. It's, like, it's obvious that terrorism is bad, or we think it should be obvious, but really, it's not obvious without this, like, the premise of Christianity that all of us are privileged to be able to access here in the West that I think all of us take for granted. And that's another thing.

Starting point is 00:50:08 I don't think that the left realize once you've destroyed Western values, once you've destroyed Christianity, you don't have all of the things that you hold dear, that you think just exist, I guess, in a vacuum. You don't have the free speech to talk about the things that you want to talk about. You don't have the right to defend yourself. You don't have the right to believe what you want to believe. All of those things were born from the basic principles of the Bible, the basic principles of Christianity.

Starting point is 00:50:33 You don't have to live in a theocracy to know that and appreciate that. So, yeah, I think it just seems also spiritual to me. It seems like a battle between darkness and light in a lot of ways. It really is, Ellie. I'm not using the word cult here to be glib. I'm meaning it quite technically. And I know that we've talked about it some in the past. I think that these leftist things are all manifestations of the ancient Gnostic heresies against Christianity.

Starting point is 00:51:03 They're perversions of the Christian beliefs. system. They are therefore anti-Christ or anti-Christian in their orientation explicitly. And this isn't hard to find in their literature. I mentioned France Fannin earlier. When John Paul Sartreth summarizes Fannin in the preface that he wrote to the to the wretched of the earth, he explicitly explains that the project of decolonization is a ritual rebirth of the native through murder of the settler. And so that's a spiritual rebirth. So when you say that, that they don't have eyes to see or hear to hear, which is obviously a biblical precept, you actually read in Marx in the economic and philosophic manuscript he wrote in 1844,

Starting point is 00:51:45 which is I think his primary religious manifesto, and you can't understand Marx without understanding first that document and that it's his religious manifesto. He says the exact same thing. He says that you have to, when you become a socialist, you have a transformed consciousness. So that's also the idea of this ritual of rebirth. So the transformed consciousness, he explicitly says, gives you an eye that sees differently and an ear that hears differently. And so this is a literal perversion and inversion of Christianity because rather than worshiping God and humbling yourself or Christ, as it were, you instead are worshiping yourself.

Starting point is 00:52:25 And again, we can turn to Marx explicitly. We're not trying, I'm not like trying to write something into Marx that's not there. The year before he wrote economic philosophic manuscripts, he wrote his critique of Hegel's philosophy of right. So the first page of that is the very famous part where the religion is the opiate of the masses that everybody's heard. But if you read just a couple paragraphs further down, what he explains is that religion sets itself up as a false son for humans to revolve around. But the goal is to use the critique of religion to set yourself up as the true son that revolves around itself. And so it's literally a spiritual battle between worship of God, which is based in humility and fear of God and love of truth, as opposed to, in this case, a worship of self to elevate the self above all else, which is rooted in hubris, arrogance, and narcissism. And so it is a spiritual battle between light and dark and an extraordinarily real way that's extremely easy to articulate.

Starting point is 00:53:31 just by reading just a few pages of marks and comparing it against what you actually see in the world today. Yeah. Wow. And I know we've talked about this before, and I always have to resist the temptation to re-talk about everything that we've talked about in the past, especially with this idea that social justice and critical race theory is it cannot be a compliment to Christianity because it seeks to replace Christianity with something different. It has a competing idea of the origin of man, of the nature of man, the nature of man, the nature of man. nature of sin, what salvation is, what redemption looks like, what sanctification looks like, what morality is. It's got competing definitions of all of those things. And one of the things that always strikes me is that it has a competing eschatology too. So it has a competing idea of like what God's kingdom looks like. It has a competing idea of what the in times look like, whereas Christianity says that nothing's ever going to be perfect here on this earth. There's always going to be injustice. There's always going to be sin, sorrow, sickness. And

Starting point is 00:54:31 It seems like the leftist believes that with the right revolution and the right ingredients and defeating the right enemy that we will finally achieve true equity, true equality, we will alleviate all sorrow and wrong and injustice and everything. We just have to get the revolution right and kill all the right people and destroy all the right things. Then finally everyone will live in harmony. And they believe that they can accomplish that through social justice and violent revolution. And there's also like, it's very strange because I see this desire to demolish civilization and also their fixation on like romanticizing time before civilization. So like they romanticize how Native Americans lived or how indigenous people lived or how barbarians lived or

Starting point is 00:55:22 how pagans lived, the Aztecs lived as if there wasn't. I mean systemic oppression and child sacrifice and all of those things. They really romanticize that. They almost want to go back to that to a time before civilization. And I think about that. I'm getting to my points taking me a while because I'm like thinking through it as I'm talking. But that also goes to like, okay, so that is a competing narrative to Christianity and

Starting point is 00:55:49 that Christians are in some ways going back to the garden, a time when we walked with God in time when we were like fully reconciled to God and could have a relationship with him and weren't separated by sin. But the difference is between our like origin story and our eschatology, the difference between ours and critical race theories is that they're going back to a time when there was no order, when it was all chaos and it was all anarchy. We are going back to a time when there was order. Like they want to go back to a time of pre-civilization, whereas Christians we see our end time,

Starting point is 00:56:29 in our end result as being in the city of God, a city with walls as it's described, where God is dwelling with us and walking with us as he did in the Garden of Eden. So it's also that competition, like that opposition between the origin and the end times between Christianity and CRT, they want to go back to a time of

Starting point is 00:56:51 disorder without the rule of law. We are going back to a time of ultimate order. Like when everything was ordered perfectly according to the God who made it, that is what the city of God is going to look like in the end times. I don't know if that made any sense. Anyone who like knows the Bible, I think, could track with me. It maybe was a little bit of like stream of consciousness. But the order disorder dynamic in opposition is interesting to me, especially as it relates to how we view the trajectory of mankind and the universe. Did that, did you track with that at all? Yes, all of it actually. And it was very good. And I have so many different things I kind of want to say. Go for it. This kind of back to chaos or back to the primordial state mentality, you know, we talk a lot about

Starting point is 00:57:41 Marx, but we don't talk a lot about Rousseau. We should talk a lot more about Rousseau because Rousseau was the inspiration for Kant and Hagell and Marx in many, many ways. in very significant ways. And it is ultimately that mentality, which we really should call, where it became the fusion of Rousseau's romanticism. And then these thinkers like Kant and Hegel, who were what are called idealists, German idealists, and Marx pretended that he took it material,

Starting point is 00:58:09 that what we're dealing with is this project that we should really call romantic idealism. They're looking back to this idealized, chaotic, primordial state. And Marx's phrase, was that what you're going to do is you're going to return to the archaic form on a higher level, which is, of course, a cult spiritual project of transformation. That's what he thinks that you're going to do. So you're going to resurrect that primordial state, and you're going to return to it on a higher level.

Starting point is 00:58:35 He says you get there through critique, you get there through the criticism, and the all true criticism starts with the criticism of religion, because religion holds up this idea of perfect order and of humility. So he wants to cast down God and say that man was always what, made man. And so man is at the center of his own creation and being. And man is the beginning in the end, the alpha and the omega of man. And so he creates this self-centered man-centered religion in place of Christianity. But these other kind of icons you brought up are strewn throughout their literature. So I, you know, did a lot of work on the Brazilian Marxist educator

Starting point is 00:59:11 Paulo Frady, who wrote the pedagogy of the oppressed. And he wrote politics of education. And another one of his disciples, Henry Juro, a communist educator, wrote the foreword to the politics of education. And he literally calls Paulo's work a prophetic vision and says that it's prophetic in that it calls you to, to, these are his own words, to create the kingdom of God here on earth in solidarity with the oppressed. And so they are literally believing that they're summoning the kingdom of God. You see this also in the writings of the most famous and influential neo-Marxist Herbert Marcusa. And his earliest major work that people know about, he had some before that, but his biggest first major work was Eros and Civilization. Eros and Civilization is a very peculiar book. It's where he tried to mix Marx and Freud into a new, you know, psychosocial analysis of critique.

Starting point is 01:00:10 And in that book, he explicitly says that the goal is to get back into the garden. And he says that the method for getting back into the garden is to take a second bite of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which would allow you to develop a critical consciousness. And so it's an explicitly religious motif. It's an explicitly religious project. And it's an explicit repudiation of Christianity. So there can be no harmony between this and Christianity whatsoever. Every Christian should be appalled that, that the idea that you have a birthright to enter back into the Garden of Eden on your own terms and that you do so by flaunting God and getting to the tree of knowledge of good and evil and taking another bite of it so that you can rise up above, you know, God himself and displace him and set up man as his own true icon and own true son to revolver. I mean, this is fundamentally incompatible at every level, whether it's critical race theory, queer theory, radical feminism is a kind of a Marxian analysis. or any of these other things on down. These are all completely and fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. On the most fundamental level, there is no mixing them. To mix them is just to bring poison into the soup,

Starting point is 01:01:28 and you're going to end up poisoning everybody who eats it. It's just, it's staggering to me that Christians have taken so long to arrive at the discernment here. And I think we, as civilizationally, I think we were really needed to be counting on But the subversion of Christianity has been going on for 100 years as well, very, very effectively. And it's been very difficult for people to start to get their heads around this. But there's – I hate to, you know, step into the world of religious motif too much, lest I offend somebody or something. But the truth is, this is as antichrist as you can get. This is as anti-Christian as it's possible to be.

Starting point is 01:02:10 It is a complete, like I said, inversion of the entire Christian project to turn what should be the worship of God and the acceptance of Christ and total and abject humility into a project of arrogance and narcissism and ultimately the worship of self. But because self is empty, this turns out to be a completely awful and self-loathing project that then gets projected out to the world and causes destruction everywhere it goes. Yep. And you said that it's taking Christians this long to kind of wake up to this, which I agree there are more Christians awake to this than probably 10 to 20 years ago. But as you know, there are so many Christians who are not awake. They don't understand this at all. And my next book is on this. But it's really kind of the playing upon empathy. It's the exploitation of empathy. It's Christians confusing empathy for love. not realizing that love and truth must go hand in hand, but allowing their empathy to be completely exploited into supporting things that are not biblical, true, good, or wise in any way. And as you were talking, I thought about James Cohn, who is obviously the father of liberation theology, black liberation theology, and he has had a big effect on what you might call black Christianity, but I would say just like progressive Christianity in general. And this is that

Starting point is 01:03:41 example of replacing biblical doctrine with Marxist doctrine until it doesn't look like Christianity at all. But he uses Christian terms, which is interesting. He says this. He says, the coming of Christ means a denial of what we thought we were. It means destroying the white devil in us. Reconciliation to God means that white people are prepared to deny themselves, whiteness, take up the cross of blackness and follow Christ into the black ghetto. So that's just one example. And he's just outright about it. We are replacing how the Bible defines these things with how our version of, I don't know if you would call it racial Marxism, critical race theory defines those things. So that is still affecting in one way or another. I think Christianity today and has diluted

Starting point is 01:04:27 people into believing in this oppressor oppressed dynamic, not defined by facts, but defined by this very dangerous collectivist mentality that doesn't lead to justice at all, but just leads to resentment and death and destruction. Yeah, I couldn't have said that better myself. And you're absolutely right. So Cohn being the father of black liberation theology sounds very much like the liberation theologians. In particular, I would assume he sounds very much like a very influential liberation theologian called Dom Elder Camara, who was a Catholic bishop, the so-called Red Bishop of Receife, Brazil.

Starting point is 01:05:06 Yes. And I say that because Camara had a gigantic influence on Paul O'Fraidy, and what you just read from Cohn sounds identical to what Paul O'Freddy said in politics of education. If you get the chance, you really should, even if you only read chapter 10, get a copy of the politics of education and read the 10th chapter. Every Christian should. It's shocking what he says, but he says that the call is for every person to undergo their own personal Easter. That's what it means to be conscientized or woke. You have to go through your own personal Easter.

Starting point is 01:05:41 You must die and be reborn on the side of the oppressed, which is exactly what Cohn said, by the way. And just with a more specific context of what that means, he says that the Easter that Christian celebrate is just a commemorative date on the calendar that's devoid of meaning, that it's actually death-loving instead of life-loving, unless that you go through this own personal death and rebirth cycle to be resurrected on the side of class identity, which is to say that you have to be reborn as a Marxist and that this is allegedly the true meaning of Christianity. By the way, the 11th chapter of that book, so as long as you're picking it up and reading chapter 10, the 11th chapter of that book is a very, very short, like two-page kind of note of praise to James Cohn and the work that he's doing in Black Liberation theology. So they were certainly aware of one another.

Starting point is 01:06:36 But what you're seeing is the attempt to replace the entire Christian mentality, the entire Christian tradition with this rebirth into Marxism. And that's exactly the perversion that Cohn was pushing, that Freddie was pushing, and so on. And I would just urge Christians to remind themselves. First of all, don't beat yourself up. If you've fallen for some of it or taken some of it on board, the devil is the deceiver. And so being deceived is something that happens to people. That's the objective is deception and that there is a path back. Christians have it, you know, understand it better than almost anyone, which is repentance and squaring back up and loving and fearing the truth.

Starting point is 01:07:21 And forgiveness comes on the other side of that. And so I would strongly urge people to understand that it's easy to become deceived by this. Many people, the word that I think Mark's used, but he wasn't. He was talking about everybody by himself, but its projection is mystification. They mystify you. They tell you that love your neighbor means something that it doesn't. I like how you put it, Allie, it's perfect that there is no love without truth. Empathy is a way to pull your heartstrings and get you to miss the truth and thus fall out of love into enablement and harm.

Starting point is 01:08:00 and I would encourage people to to take a look at that very seriously. And, you know, if you got deceived, you got deceived. If you got mystified, you got mystified. It happened to a lot of us. And it's time to just repent of that and find forgiveness, move forward and be more productive going forth. Amen. Well, that's a more hopeful note to end on. There was a period in there when I was getting, I was like, oh, man, this is dark,

Starting point is 01:08:27 thinking about the direction that this goes, that inevitable. conclusion, but the only thing that we really have control over is what we do. And as you said, even though we don't share the same faith, you're right. It is repentance. It is redemption. It is taking kind of a phrase that I think has been manipulated and exploited by the left, doing better, knowing better so you can do better, but in the real sense, in the true sense. And I will never panic or give up hope because I do. One, I believe in the grace and the miraculous power of God, but I also believe in people's ability to wake up to reality.

Starting point is 01:09:09 And you play a big role in helping people wake up to reality. And that's why I am very thankful for you. So thank you so much, James. I really appreciate you taking the time to come on. And I'm sure that we will talk again soon. Now, I look forward to it. Thank you, Allie. Thank you.

Starting point is 01:09:30 Hey, this is Steve Dase. 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

Starting point is 01:09:45 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

Starting point is 01:10:01 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.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 909 | The Left Is Falling in Love with Osama bin Laden | Guest: James Lindsay

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.