Going After “Groomers” with Dr. James Lindsay and Lauren Chen
In another conversation brought to you LIVE from Turning Point USA’s Student Action Summit, Charlie sits down with new TPUSA Contributor Lauren Chen to discuss the 47 Republicans voting against their base and abandoning the idea of Traditional Marriage, the massive aftershock we’ve felt following the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, and together, they discuss the next moves that Democrats in DC will make to hold on to power. They also tackle the absurd censorship debate surrounding the word “groomer” and how tech platforms are classifying what is an accurate descriptor of many on the New Left as an LGBTQ “slur.” Next, Charlie is joined by Dr. James Lindsay, who was just banned from Twitter for using the word, to talk about his new book “Race Marxism,” as well as his modern classic, “Cynical Theories.” They cover the concept of “Queer Theory,” the next Marxist movement, religion in politics, and so much more.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Hurting Individual Families00:10:13
Hey everybody, today the Charlie Kirk show, Lauren Chen, and James Lindsay, who is the author of Race Marxism.
Join me live from Turning Point USA Student Action Summit from the Rumble Booth.
Email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com and support the Charlie Kirk Show.
Type in Charlie Kirk Show and subscribe in the upper right-hand corner.
Buckle up.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning Point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandTodd.com.
With us is Lauren Chen, who is now a Turning Point USA contributor.
Congratulations.
Welcome aboard.
Thank you.
I'm so happy to be part of the team and also here at SAS.
This is amazing seeing all these conservatives, all these media outlets covering.
You guys are doing an amazing job.
So happy to be part of the team.
We're honored.
You're a great talent.
And kind of the first time we met, I think, was at our Young Women's Leadership Summit.
And I told Andrew, she's super smart.
Let's do something together.
So a lot of things we can get into.
I do want to kind of piggyback on this conversation that we were having with Lauren Boebert about 47 Republicans that voted for this bill, inexcusably voted for this bill.
You have a unique kind of take or twist on it.
What is that?
So here's the thing.
Ever since Roe was overturned, we automatically started hearing all these leftists say, oh, they're coming for gay marriage.
Not only that, but they're also coming for interracial marriage, which is pretty crazy, especially since the boogeyman they're trying to conjure is, you know, Clarence Thomas, who is in fact married to a woman.
Interracially married.
Exactly.
And that's really frustrating to me because, I mean, not only if, you know, if you're a libertarian, you should agree that marriage should be left up to the states, right?
Even if you're not socially conservative.
But what they're trying to do with equating gay marriage to interracial marriage, I think is honestly a mockery and an insult to anyone who's in an interracial relationship who comes from an interracial relationship.
You know, my parents, one is white, one is Asian.
My husband, he's like part native and part white.
So I would say I'm in an interracial relationship as well, trying to compare what I have to same-sex marriage.
That is not the same thing.
You know, traditionally, historically, there's nothing about interracial marriages that has gone against the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
And so I feel like trying to throw interracial marriages into the mix is just a way to scare people to try to make the GOPC more extreme.
And it really doesn't make any sense if you stop to just think about it for two seconds.
But we know that the media, they're helping to gin up this hysteria.
And is that the reason these 47 Republicans voted for this?
Is that right?
I mean, I can't imagine.
I know probably if you're a Republican and vote against this, the media would be likely to say, oh, you're against interracial marriage or something like that.
But there's not a person that is advocating.
The only people I know that's advocating against interracial marriage are professors that are advocating for blacks to only marry blacks.
That's a real thing.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised.
There is a black nationalist group of people that are like, you shouldn't intermarry if you're a black person.
Keep the black race pure.
Happens a lot.
We've documented at our Turning Point USA professor watch list.
Outside of that radical extreme fringe, there's not one person in decent society that is arguing against that.
And so the question also is just why are Republicans always so enthusiastic about giving ground to the left?
What is that?
Is it just, I need to appease them?
Why?
So you get 30 minutes of reprieve?
I guess I can't really imagine anything else.
I mean, I understand there are some people who voted from it.
They come from maybe more purple or swing states.
Probably doing it to appease some of the voters back home.
But we know that's not the case across the board.
And I honestly think that the Overton window has shifted to the left so much that now, even within the Republican Party, it's kind of becoming taboo, kind of becoming unpopular to say that no marriage is between a man and a woman.
And look, to our libertarian friends out there, which I am not, but thanks for watching.
But even if you are, you know, saying, oh, well, this is great because equality, I don't care what you do, why should this be the purview of the federal government?
Well, that's the whole thing.
I said that earlier, which is fine.
You can have your own views.
Why can't you allow states to define something?
And so somebody sent me an email and they said, well, Charlie, how does this issue affect you?
Why do you care?
And I said, wait a second, why do you think my politics is only about me?
Yeah.
My politics is about the country and society and future generations.
It's not just about myself.
It's not just about my own agency.
It's about the health of the nation as a whole.
And that's a moral question, isn't it?
No, absolutely.
And I think if you are a fan of small government, you have to believe in strong family values.
Historically, the family has been the building block of society.
When we're able to kind of operate and care for each other within these familial bonds, we don't need the government to step in and do things like welfare or all of these things that they've since kind of taken upon themselves as we've crumbled as a society.
And I think by cheapening what marriage is, that absolutely affects society as a whole.
So it's not just a question of does this affect you personally right now in the second.
This is going to affect the society that we're growing up in, you know, that our children are going to be growing up in.
So absolutely, this matters for everybody.
Yeah, it really does.
Republicans seem willing to go along with that.
So I want to play some pieces of tape here.
There's a lot of focus recently on the environmental issue.
Yes.
What is it that drives the environmental fervor on the left?
Well, I think for some people, they are true believers.
They have drank the Kool-Aid.
They are, you know, Greta Thunberg fangirls.
They really honestly believe it.
It's almost become a religion to some of them.
Paganism.
Yeah, absolutely.
And then, you know, for others, I do think that there's a tie-in to Marxism here, where they see environmentalism as a way to chip away at capitalism.
And we see that with intersectionality, all of these things are tied together.
When you look at extreme environmentalist groups like Extinction Rebellion, they like to tie in things like this is also due to the patriarchy and capitalism.
So if you notice that a lot of the green agendas, specifically the Green New Deal, if we were to take that as an example, they include socialism as kind of this de facto cure for climate change.
So, I mean, when it comes to people like, I don't want to say AOC because I don't think she has a lot going on upstairs, but maybe whoever is kind of like guiding her.
Yes.
I do think that this is a way to sneak in big government policy.
So yeah, I want to ask you, is the climate a means or an end?
I think it's a means.
I absolutely think it's a means.
For, again, for some people, it is an end.
Yeah, the random like white liberal middle-aged moms in the UK who are blocking traffic, I think they probably do believe in it.
But for the politicians that are pushing it, the ones that are taking private jets that own beachfront policy.
They don't actually believe this, though.
They don't actually believe it.
But they look at it as a hyper-emotional issue that can get them more political power.
Yes.
And it also makes them feel really important about themselves and galvanizes their base, gets activists in the streets.
There's probably a quote-unquote climate emergency coming.
Joe Biden to sign an executive order on it.
The regime needs climates and they need crisis emergency.
They need emergencies.
It's necessary.
And so I think this is another one of these issues, though, where Republicans are not properly suited because we always kind of get into this debate of like, well, I'm not anti-global warming.
What's the proper way we should respond to these pagan environmentalists?
Well, I think it's important to stress that regardless of how you feel about climate change, pollution is not a good thing.
Like, I mean, I look at plastic in the ocean.
I don't like that.
You know, so there is that.
There's also the question of like the commons, right?
When you have something like the ocean or overfishing, how exactly do we tackle that?
I think Republicans need to be very clear, though, that when it comes to trying to do anything like a carbon tax, it is an attack specifically on the average family.
This is not about tackling global warming on a higher scale.
Otherwise, we would be addressing China and India.
This is specifically about hurting individual families.
And I think doing it because the green lobby also spends, you know, a lot of money ensuring that they get some kickbacks from the government.
We saw that starting really under Obama.
Yeah, and I mean, I just, it's a terrible place where our politics is right now because I'm so inherently distrustful of anything they propose when it comes to the environment that I immediately think that it's a means to sort some sort of Marxist, global, you know, great reset.
Yeah.
I just inherently.
Well, instead of green subsidies, why don't we do tax breaks for like companies that do make an effort to stop their own pollution and things like that?
I am against any form of nationalization or anything that the left is proposing, but I'm more a care to say.
I love the environment.
I love nature.
Of course.
As long as it serves man, I don't want to serve nature.
Right.
I mean, we're stewards.
That's in the Bible.
Yes.
And but nature is there for our benefit.
And part of the benefit of nature is the other to go hiking to be able to dwell and be in peace at nature, have clean water and clean waterways.
No decent person is against that.
What we are against, though, is sacrificing the flourishing of a human being for some abstract environmental aim and goal.
Right.
And I think privatization, kind of getting to that, is a great way to ensure that things like forests and even waterways are kept clean because they have an interest in it.
Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
Right now, court packing is the real danger to our country.
Make no mistake, court packing is a coup.
The radical left is working overtime on new plans to pack the Supreme Court.
Look, if we do not stop them from installing four more justices so they can rig the system in their favor, it'll be catastrophic for our court, our country, and the American way of life.
We cannot let this happen.
I will not let it happen on our watch.
That's why I need you to join us.
We're gathering a coalition of one million patriots to say no to court packing, no to the left-wing agenda, and no to the Supreme Court coup.
Anti-Child Grooming vs Freedom00:05:22
Franklin Graham, former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese, Dr. James Dobson, the Family Policy Alliance, and more, and over 400,000 people like you are all on board.
Please sign your name now.
Go to SupremeCoup, that's C-O-U-P.com to sign First Liberty's Letter.
First Liberty is a great organization run by a dear friend, Kelly Shackelford.
Go to supremecoup.com and God bless America.
What else do you have to plug for our audience that you're working on?
So, as always, you guys can find me on YouTube, Lauren Chen.
You got a sizable following there.
Yeah, I mean, it's been kind of frustrating because lately, I mean, not lately, really the past several years, but YouTube has really been shadow banning any conservative channel with any amount of reach.
So, that's frustrating.
But, you know, we still post.
That's good.
I'm going to have to talk louder.
And if you'll do the same, because I can't hear what you're saying.
So, sorry about that, guys.
And so, what else is on your mind?
What other stories are you following and doing?
Well, something that I've been very passionate about, especially as a new mom, is the LGBTQ plus indoctrination in schools.
Yes.
And recently, what we have seen is that the left actually hates the term groomer.
Like, this is something that really gets under their skin.
So, why is that?
I think because it's accurate.
I think because it's accurate, honestly.
The left is never more upset than when the right is actually being effective.
So, for nothing else, then they're angry about this term.
I think we should keep using it.
But, of course, the left has institutional power that the right does not.
And now we see that Reddit and I think Twitter are banning the term groomer as an anti-LGBTQ slur.
Well, that only confirms.
Yes.
I mean, so now they're admitting that groomer and LGBT are now connected.
Right.
And it's ironic because I criticize, obviously, the attempts to normalize pedophilia, the grooming efforts, and I get called anti-LGBT.
And it's like, isn't that interesting that you're the one equating those things?
And so, but they're now banning people off of social media for that, right?
Yes.
Yeah, I think James Lindsay, he either got a suspension or a ban.
I'm not sure for the whole okay groomer thing, which is very frustrating.
But honestly, this is one of the most important issues I think around today.
I don't know if you saw, but there was this file clip that someone shared with me of this essentially a trans stripper fully naked except for a thong and some nipple pasties with what looked like a maybe four-year-old girl.
This is child abuse right now, and the fact that this is even legal that we're not doing more to stop it.
What was this?
This was in Miami.
So Ron DeSantis.
Parents are bringing kids to that?
Yes, they are.
So Ron DeSantis looking at you, something needs to be done about this.
I don't care if, oh, the parents think it's okay.
So why do you care?
But yeah, parents aren't allowed to abuse your kids.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Children have rights and they have the right to not be abused.
Yes, that's right.
And so parents' rights are not unlimited.
Right.
And parents' rights stop where the abuse begins.
Yes.
You don't have the right to abuse your kid.
You don't have the right to starve your kid?
Yeah.
You don't.
You don't have the right to torture your kid or any of that.
And so, so, Lauren, what are most people supposed to do about that?
You know, when they encounter these sorts of issues?
Well, I think first off, if you are a parent, you need to be on top of your children's schooling.
Do not assume that it is just hunky-dory what it was like when we were younger because it's not.
And this is even happening in red states like Texas, which is becoming more purple by the day.
So do not take for granted that this is not happening.
Go to your, you know, your PTA meetings.
Stay on top of what your kid is bringing home from school.
But also let other parents know about this as well, because what we saw in Virginia is that parents speaking up can have an impact.
And you know, if you're not a parent and you're just, you just happen to be anti-child grooming, which I would hope we all are, talk to your like local representatives, you know, because there are people in power who could do something about this.
But I think sadly, far too many of them are either okay with it or they're actually pro-it because they see it as like LGBT activism.
We're told by like David French and people, oh, this is a small minority.
It's a blessing of liberty.
Isn't this a blessing of liberty that five-year-olds get to go see naked trans people all the time?
No.
No, absolutely not.
And I think trying to conflate the issue of, oh, you're just anti-freedom.
But that's not freedom.
Yeah, that's not freedom.
Freedom comes with responsibility.
And again, children have rights.
You don't have freedom as an adult to sexually abuse a minor.
Yes.
I don't understand why this is so hard for some conservatives to wrap their heads around.
They're like, well, I don't like using the power of the state.
I don't either.
But there is an appropriate part for the state to prevent children from being exploited.
Right.
And even if you believe like strictly the non-aggression principle, I would say that trying to trans my kid is pretty aggressive.
I have no problem using the government to stop it.
And if not the government, who?
Are you going to Disney's going to stop it?
No, actually, they're participating.
They're participating.
And they love it.
Especially on a state and local level, it's incredibly important.
Right.
And to any libertarians who are like, no, it's fine, keep in mind that this is taxpayer-funded indoctrination for no other reason than the fact that taxpayers are funding this.
You should be opposed to that.
This is exactly right.
It's such a smart point, which is when you involve taxpayers, it becomes their business.
Yeah, this is the lie of neutrality, right?
Where they say, well, I just want taxpayer stuff to be neutral.
Okay, then what is good?
Right.
You need to have some sort of standard.
And they have their definition.
It's not neutral.
It's trans.
It's LGBT.
It's secular.
It's anti-American.
They're like, oh, it's just us being neutral.
No, you're not.
Yeah.
And maybe it's time for us to start to realize we have to respond to all that.
The Lie of Neutrality00:14:42
Look, there's a must-see movie you got to check out at salemnow.com called Michelle Obama 2024, Her Real Life Story and Her Plan for Power.
Film director Joel Gilbert, I know Joel, great American, takes a deep dive into the life of Michelle Obama from Chicago to Princeton to Martha's Vineyard.
He says Michelle Obama will run for president in 2024 and base her candidacy on a life story that is more racially divisive and nearly as fictitious as that of her husband, Barack Hussein.
Check out the stunning new movie on Salem Now, Michelle Obama 2024.
Michelle is following the same formula as Barack to become president, a best-selling autobiography, the keynote convention speaker, and a voter registration organization.
First, Barack and now Michelle want to transform America.
Michelle Obama 2024, now playing at SalemNow.com.
This new movie has stunning, game-changing revelations about Michelle Obama's past.
The film director says only the truth can stop her.
Michelle Obama 2024, watch the movie on demand or buy the DVD on SalemNow.com.
With us is one of my favorite American patriots, super smart, and is doing a phenomenal job exposing CRT, wokeism, and postmodernism.
He knows better than anybody else, period.
There is no one like James Lindsay.
James, welcome back to the program.
Hey, great to be here, Charlie.
You've done more in the last couple of years than almost anybody else, actually, than anybody else on this topic, yeoman's work.
And you have now, you've been more and more outspoken on this idea of queer theory.
Yeah.
Get as close to the mic as you can because it's super loud.
What is queer theory?
Queer theory is an assault on the normal.
It is the belief that the assault on the normal.
Yeah, yeah.
Like, so Karl Marx set up this idea, you know, a century and a half ago that like having money is this terrible thing, right?
Well, imagine it's like a special kind of property certain people have.
Imagine that being considered normal is a special kind of thing.
Certain people who call themselves normal, this is what it means to be normal, said, well, we're going to define what normal means so that we get to be normal and you freaks don't get to have any power.
And queer theory is like, we're going to break that down using exactly the same methods that Karl Marx defined.
What are those methods?
Non-academically, how someone can understand it.
The main thing that they do is they call it not, it's so hard to talk about this because it sounds like you're making fun of it or saying something inappropriate.
They call it queering something.
So they make it weird.
They come in and they make it weird.
So they'll show up wearing weird clothes to an event that it's inappropriate to wear those clothes to.
It's interesting.
They will, you know, dress in the wrong gender's clothing and maybe be in the Biden administration.
Is that part of a strategy?
A philosophical synthesis?
Yes, that's exactly what it is.
The idea is to introduce a little bit of something different into the definition of the main thing so that the main thing loses its definition.
That sounds crazy, right?
But what is a woman?
Well, sometimes men can be women.
So you add a little bit of complication to the definition of woman until nobody knows what it is, except they know what it is, so they get the power to determine who qualifies.
So what you're telling me is all these sick degenerates that walk around in front of children, do they all know they're participating in this?
Or they, I guess it's a mixture of both.
Yeah, it's a mixture of both.
I would say most of them don't.
I would say that many of them do.
Queer theory has been around for 30 years.
It's been more than 30 years.
So it's got a lot of legs under it now.
A lot of them just know that getting out there and getting in people's faces opens the culture up.
They don't know specifically that what they're doing is complicating categories so that it hands over the power to the people who get to define those categories.
But that's what they're doing.
That is what they're doing.
So, but let's let me make sure I understand this.
They, they're basically, their goal is to deteriorate the normal.
That's right.
They want to take the idea of the normal versus the abnormal and flip it over until it doesn't mean anything.
Until there is no normal, there is no abnormal.
Nobody can judge.
There's this Saturday Night Live thing I saw before with this old skit when it was funny.
And the guy's like saying this crazy, perverse stuff.
He's like the sex educator guy, and he's saying crazy, perverted stuff.
And his tagline is, is that weird?
Who's to say?
It's that.
And yeah, so there's so many different ways we could go with this.
I am curious, though, is a lot of this rooted in kind of the virus of subjectivism.
Oh, yeah, sure, of course.
That, you know, if you feel it, if you can imagine it, as you as a conscious subject, if we're going to be more formally academic about it, then you can bring it into being and you can transform the world to accommodate it.
So, yeah, it's like activist subjectivism, though, not like just relativism or like my subjectivity matters.
It's that which I can imagine should be able to be active.
With almost evangelistic fervor.
Oh, it's a total evangelistic religion.
It is a nutjob religion.
So, what I don't understand, though, James, is that just take some of the atheist group, okay?
Yeah.
Their whole kind of metaphysical belief is not having one because they say sensory experience and science anchors us.
Sure.
By definition, that is a rejection of opinion.
Sure.
Is that right?
So, meaning it's there is only, we have to stay with the things that we can prove.
You don't get to make up your own existence.
Why is it that it seems as if there's a happy marriage between someone dissecular humanists and subjectivism?
Are you tracking with me here?
Yeah, I am.
Excuse me.
And it's the same reason that feminism has gotten taken over by queer theory and the trans issue.
And it's because once you step into the dialectic, the dialectic only moves left.
Whenever you do a, you know, you said the synthesis thing, right?
So when you do Hegelian code for you.
Hegelian code.
When you take two ideas, right?
It's a thing in its opposite, the thesis and the antithesis, and you put them next to each other, mash them together, and you get the synthetic combination of them that contains their essence but gets rid of the particulars.
That's the idea.
That's a new synthetic whole.
That's not, and this is what people don't understand.
That's not a new center.
That's the new far right.
And so it always is going to just keep going.
So this left-wing, leftist, I see the atheist movement was a critical religion theory.
Very much so.
I participated in it.
See that.
I confess to that for sure.
And it can only move one direction, and it cannot resist anything from the left.
And so it's now been sucked into this to where it has this religion of transformation that it thinks isn't a religion.
And so that is the argument for being a conservative is resisting the thesis-antithesis-synthesis process, right?
Somebody has to.
Yeah.
It has to be resisted or else it's just going to fall off a cliff.
That seems to be so logical.
Why is it so hard to do?
They have done, I call this the Jon Stewart phenomenon from the Daily Show.
They have done a number.
They have done a psyops bigger than maybe any other psyops.
And every communist takeover in history has done this, every single one.
And what they do is they make conservative a bad word.
They make right-wing a bad word.
Mao did it explicitly.
This is really happening right now for real.
Things are occurring.
No, so every communist movement has done this in history.
Mao gave five identity categories that he called the bad identities, the black identities, ironically enough, that were the bad ones versus the communist red ones.
And one of them is just right-winger.
So Jon Stewart went on TV and said, you know, BS Mountain every day and conservatives are dumb and haha, let's make fun of conservatives.
What these people are terrified of more than anything else is something that will cause their social group or their professional associations to call them conservative in any way whatsoever.
So it really does come down to nature, which is I want to be liked by my tribe.
I want to have social currency.
It kind of comes down to some of that of why this is so hard to reject and stop.
Once the synthesis gets momentum, is that correct?
Once it has force, once it has mass times acceleration, the synthesis is hard to stop.
It's very hard to stop.
It's extremely hard to walk these things back once they make these changes.
Even when things are literally like you look in New York City or you look at Los Angeles, you look at San Francisco, things are literally falling apart around you.
And people just can't seem to pinpoint.
They think it's incompetence.
They think that, you know, it's just mistakes.
They think it'll get worse before it gets better, something like this.
They honestly, it's like they believe that the promise lands on the other side of destruction.
It sounds crazy, but I mean it.
If you read the literature, they say that.
Constant criticism, ruthless criticism, Marx.
Who's there?
What?
What literature?
Okay, Karl Marx.
Ruthless criticism of everything that exists.
Herbert Marcuse, Marxist from the 1960s, says, We're going to use negative thinking.
The most influential Marxists of the 1960s, by the way, Frankfurt School.
Frankfurt School, that's right.
So he says we're going to use negative thinking, and negative thinking will necessarily become positive by virtue of releasing the ideal society that is contained within the existing society.
Critique what exists, and it'll open up the problems, and the perfect thing that's inside will grow out of it.
That's what they believe.
So, this sounds like a super oversimplification, and just stop me in my tracks.
But this sounds how deeply unhappy people would create a political philosophy: criticize everything, complain all the time.
You just left out the narcissists, but yeah, you actually, that's really what it is.
You have actually put your finger straight on it.
So, I build that out a little bit more.
It's ultimately the idea is that they see the world as something that's imprisoning them.
Trans is quite literally, see their body as something imprisoning them.
And that there are means, sometimes technologically assisted or medically assisted or whatever, but there are means that we could have of escaping the prison of being if we just applied them.
We just transform the world to be different to accommodate them.
But that's not something people who enjoy their lives, who are happy, who are successful, who are doing something in the world, and who are even if they're not successful and they're content, right?
They're stoic or any of these other things, they don't want to just bend the world to their whims.
That is a position of either deep unhappiness and deep dissatisfaction and wanting to blame somebody else for it, or that's so interesting.
I mean, we're talking about how personality and temperament can impact the entire civilization.
Oh, yeah.
If it, you know, it depends on proportions.
If a significant enough chunk of the population of the power for people are narcissists, correct, unhappy narcissists, right?
So, now you now understand what they're doing in the schools: making vulnerable narcissists out of our children so that there's more and more and more of them.
That's queer theory.
So, James, we're talking about the synthesis of Marxism.
And so, tell us, how do we slow down the synthesis?
Well, I mean, you have to stand against it.
It goes faster when nobody stands against it.
So, it's a process that's been, we were talking before we started for 50 years.
Nobody has paid attention to them.
Nobody's taken them seriously.
People thought, oh, it's just some crazy college people.
People thought it couldn't possibly go this far.
And then, very, very quickly, now that we're getting to the point, it's going this far.
So, you have to stand against it.
You have to say this far no further.
And you have to be willing to take whatever slingshots are.
You can't give an inch at any corner, right?
Well, if you give an inch, they're going to take two and demand three.
So, you cannot give an inch in any corner.
But what is the importance of that?
Because so many people on quote-unquote our side, they are quick to want to say, well, we have to compromise.
But they look at compromise as progress, don't they?
No, that's right.
If we're compromising to them, they look at it as momentum for their Hegelian view of whatever they're trying to accomplish.
No, the communist loves to use your values against you.
So, your values of being fair, looking for compromise, looking to find a deal or whatever.
They use that against you, and then you go home and they laugh about it because they got what they wanted, you lost what you wanted, and they're going to come back tomorrow.
Like I said, they take two and then demand three, you're going to get another inch demanded of you right away.
You said something interesting to me, which is that they're constantly criticizing everything.
That's not a mistake, that is a strategy and a philosophy, is it not?
That's exactly what it is.
Yeah, it's the idea of it's called negative thinking by the 20th century Marxists, and they're proud of it.
They think it is the way to free up the divine from its mortal coil.
Wait, wait, hold on.
That's such slow down.
Divine from the mortal coil.
What?
This is all a mystery religion.
It is not politics.
It is all a mystery religion.
And in particular, this is alchemy.
Why do you do magical things to lead to get gold out of it?
Because the seed of gold is contained.
The divine metal is contained inside the base metal.
So you mix it with some mercury and you do some potions and you do a magic spell, and the gold, you criticize the lead, the mundane, and the divine is able to grow out of it.
Just like the divine gender soul person is going to be able to grow out of surgeries and Lupron and hormones and whatever else.
So this is a metamorphosis belief?
Is that right?
That's exactly what it is.
It is to transform the world into the kingdom of God and to transform man into something that's the world.
But they don't believe in God.
So transformation is fundamental to their worldview.
Yes.
The transformation of man, the transformation of society, the transformation of norms.
That which has power can transform.
Well, I should clarify, when I said transform the world into the kingdom of God, I was quoting Henry Giroux, who was a Marxist educator, who wrote that in 1985.
So that is their objective.
But they see their God is the idealized man.
What is that, though?
It is man.
That's the ubermensch?
Is that like a Nietzschean idea?
Exactly.
It's a man made perfect.
So, like, the man is divine.
You have to make the Soviet man.
Yes.
Man is divine, but he forgot it.
And you have to remind him by making him perfectly communist.
This is so religious in every capacity.
That's Karl Marx's economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844.
I'm not making it up.
No, I'm not saying you are.
I know, but a lot of people think I do.
And it's like, no, I just read their damn books.
And you know them.
And you know, like, what, what their philosophy is, and you know where they came from.
That's right.
It's fascinating.
They wanted to say, why are we different than animals?
They wanted to answer that question philosophically.
And they used Hegel's absolute idea and replaced it with the absolute idea of phenomenology of spirit.
Yeah, Hegel had the absolute idea as God.
Marx said the idea lives in man's head.
So the idea, the ideal man has the ideal or absolute idea.
And so you have to create the absolute man.
What's the absolute man?
Marx told you it's a communist.
And everyone has a debt.
So Heidegger had a different answer of what the absolute man was.
The Übermensch is debated, but the Marxists believe it is what would be an example in really quick literature of their absolute man?
Not Christ.
No, absolutely not.
There isn't one because it's the perfect communist.
It is the perfectly social being.
That would be the abolition of man.
That would be the abolition of man.
As Lewis wrote, it's brilliant.
Dr. James Lindsay, everybody.
Race Marxism is his latest book.
His other book is really good.
Cynical Theories.
Thank you.
Cynical Theories with Helen Pluckrose.
That book is nice.
You learn a lot, but it doesn't go far enough at certain places.
So you got to go further.
James thinks I'm actually right by saying that.
Dr. James Lindsay just got banned from Twitter.
We didn't have time to talk about that.
But what we said, I think, was actually more helpful.
I agree.
Keep up the great work, my friend.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for listening, everybody.
Email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thank you so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk. com.