James Lindsay - The Neo-Marxist Cultural Revolution Engulfing the West

This episode we are excited to welcome James Lindsay, a bestselling author who has spoken and written extensively against the woke onslaught.   
His recent speech in the European Parliament looking at the Neo-Marxist Cultural Revolution that is engulfing us all has really gone viral. 
In this interview James looks at the Marxist thread that runs through Critical Race Theory and Queer Theory and we end by looking at his latest book "The Marxification of Education".

James Lindsay is a professional troublemaker, mathematician, author, internationally recognized speaker and the founder and president of New Discourses. 
James is a leading expert on Critical Race Theory and is best known for his relentless criticism of "Woke" ideology, the now-famous Grievance Studies Affair, and his bestselling books including Race Marxism and Cynical Theories, which has been translated into over a dozen languages. 
In addition to writing and speaking, he is the voice of the New Discourses Podcast and has been a guest on prominent media outlets including The Joe Rogan Experience, Glenn Beck, Fox News, and NPR.

Connect with James...
GETTR:                       https://gettr.com/user/conceptualjames
Twitter:                       https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames
Gab:                            https://gab.com/ConceptualJames
Truth:                          https://truthsocial.com/@conceptualjames
Facebook:                  https://www.facebook.com/ConceptualJames/
Minds:                        https://www.minds.com/conceptualjames/
Amazon:                     https://www.amazon.co.uk/James-Lindsay/e/B009BBX7BI/ref=aufs_dp_fta_dsk

Connect with New Discourses...
Website:                     https://newdiscourses.com/
Twitter:                       https://twitter.com/NewDiscourses
Facebook:                  https://facebook.com/newdiscourses
YouTube:                    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg
Podcast:                     https://open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp

Interview recorded 2.6.23

Audio Podcast version available on Podbean and all major podcast directories... 
⁣https://heartsofoak.podbean.com/

Transcript available on our Substack...
https://heartsofoak.substack.com/

To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... 
https://heartsofoak.org/connect/

Please subscribe, like and share!

Transcript

(Hearts of Oak)

Hello, Hearts of Oak, and welcome to another interview coming up in a moment with James Lindsay.
Of course, the founder and president of New Discourses, and I was delighted to get him on after seeing him at a number of conferences over stateside.
And it was his recent speech in the European Parliament, which really intrigued me.
I know that has really gone viral.
And I think the title was the Neo-Marxist Cultural Revolution Engulfing the West, now known as WOKE.
What a title, what a topic to bring to the European Parliament. So he discusses the kind of response on that and how a lot of the battle lines that we are on, the
Critical Race Theory and also the Queer Theory, how those fit under that socialist Marxist umbrella. He unpacks that and then we end up on education. He's just written a book, the end of last year, on the Marxification of education. We have no time to get into the topic, but I just wanted to get his thoughts on why he'd put pen to paper on a book specifically focused on education. So much packed in. I, know you'll have followed James for a long time. I know you'll enjoy listening to his thoughts on speaking in the European Parliament on such a topic and unpacking some of those other issues. 

And hello Hearts of Oak. Today it is wonderful to have a best-selling author with us of many titles. We'll refer to some of them, The Marxification of Education and Race Marxism, The Truth About Critical Race Theory, amongst many others. An internationally recognized speaker, the privilege of hearing him first at the American Freedom Alliance conference back in June last year, and the founder and president of New Discourses, and that is James Lindsay. James, thank you so much for your time today.

(James Lindsay)

Hey, I'm glad to be here. Thank you.

It's great to have you and your handle there @ConceptualJames on Twitter, Gab, Truth, GETTR, and newdiscourses.com is the website. People can find everything there.
Before we start, James, could I just ask you to take a moment and introduce yourself before we get down to the issue?

That's actually a hard thing to do. I'm a very kind of peculiar character, I think, and kind of the whole thing.
But the long and short of it is that my academic training was in mathematics.
I received a PhD in mathematics, or completed one, I suppose.
They didn't give it to me. They don't give those away.
But I earned a PhD in mathematics in 2010.
I immediately left academia after finishing my doctorate. I became disillusioned with the course that it seemed to be on at the time.
Then I just worked for myself at a small private enterprise for a number of years.
To be academically engaged, I got involved with fighting with people online basically.
This led to discovering the woke movement quite early on.
This led to my participation in what was called the grievance studies affair, which I'm fairly well known for, which is where we wrote a large number of at fake academic articles for feminist journals in 2017 and 18 for whatever it's worth there's a new film that just came out telling the backstory with all of that a man named Michael Nayna put that out and it's called The Reformers, so you can find that on his substack, which I think it's michaelnayna.substack.com, The Reformers is the name of the film.
John Cleese apparently saw it the other day and loved it, so that's a pretty ringing endorsement.
From there, I went on to write, actually, Cynical Theories next, which is a book that did extremely well at getting some of this information into people's hands.
It's actually hit somewhere around a quarter million sales, so a lot of people had a chance to encounter these ideas, which is the ultimate goal.
And then I built New Discourses from there and I spent all my time researching, studying.
Basically the woke movement and all of its kind of intellectual, intellectual is a generous word for them, antecedents and forebears.
So I created New Discourses with the goal, it says all fancy on my website, shining the light of objective truth into subjective darkness.
But the fact, that was my business partner's idea, honestly, the goal was I want to study woke and understand woke and expose woke and everything that's tied to it as fast as I can create and publish materials.
And so that's what it's for. So it hosts mostly three different podcasts that I have in-house as well as articles that I write, videos that I do, and you can find links to the books that I've written, which which we tend to publish in-house because publishers are so slow and this is moving so fast. So anyway, that's me. I don't know how many books I've technically written now because some of them are blurry and they're, you know, things I've done with other people and some of them have been translated into a large number of languages.
Those are the things that people care about. A lot of people know me because I've been on Joe Rogan's podcast three times also, which gets you kind of in the public eye a little bit.

Okay, well, it's that criticism of woke ideology that I saw two months ago. You were in the European Parliament. You delivered a short address at a conference there, Woke a Culture War Against Europe. How did that come about and kind of how was that received?

Well, they just reached out to me. Apparently the group there, which is a European-wide political party called Identity and Democracy or Identity Democracy Foundation, something like this.
I don't quite know the organizational structure of these things. They invited me because they put together a three conference series to be held there at the European Parliament in Brussels and asked, they thought that I would be a perfect voice for the inaugural of the three, the first of the three. And so they invited me to come to Brussels and speak at the parliament.
And so I gratefully accepted and went over and somehow or rather luckily delivered what I believe is given the fact of the significance of the room that I think I delivered my best public address I've ever delivered, which worked out pretty good because I could have bombed that sucker.
And it was very good and very succinct. Part of it was that I realized the night before talking to another audience that there's a language barrier that kind of cuts across my humour, so I had to be very plain spoken. Maybe I should take notes on that and deliver more plain spoken addresses in the future. But it was received extremely well. Now, of course, the room was largely composed of MEPs that are of that party, so you would expect them to be interested in these ideas.
It was also, there was a group there, the other speaker was Frank Ferretti, and a fairly well-known guy.
And so his organization had a contingent there. And other than that, it was actually kind of timed to correspond with a youth conference for the ID Foundation.
And so it was primarily a lot of people in their twenties, political interns and people interested in political party, young people. So most of the people were in their twenties, they were younger.
And of course, their energy is really good, really, really a positive reception there.
It came out online and they got a little bit of attention. And then for whatever reason, I don't know why a month later it went viral and it has just blown up everywhere. And the reception online has been extraordinarily positive. I'm sure that there are people who are very unhappy that that happened, but I haven't heard much from them. 

Well that group, the ID group, is a fantastic group, probably the best bulwark against what is happening in Europe, and I've watched them closely through all my involvement of politics over the many years. But could I ask you, what was it like going into the, I guess, the ruling chamber in Europe and helping them understand the danger of socialism, which many of them call themselves socialists. They really do believe the state knows better than the individual. What was like kind of going into that? Obviously the ID group are on side, but as a chamber, as a parliament, they're very much against anything that will shine the light on the evils of socialism. So what was that like, kind of explain to them the dangers of socialism? 

Well I mean it was surprisingly, again surprisingly positive, I thought it might be quite hostile. I thought there might be at least some people who would come by,
you know, interested to see what people against their view might say.
But I don't get the impression, or at least anybody who did stayed very professional and very polite.
It was a very I mean, I don't want to say it's a very bureaucratic building because I don't know that I got that impression.
But it's a very, very professional environment. So that wasn't, it wasn't like where I spoke at North-western University a month ago and got heckled and yelled at and protested the whole time or anything like that.
The building itself was more interesting than my experience inside of it, I don't know if you visited Brussels and seen this but so walking around there's a... Brussels is, I'm sorry any Belgians watching is not the most beautiful city Down in the older part of the city the older the where the castles and things are that part is quite nice but over by the Parliament is, it's just kind of plain European city. It's not particularly beautiful. So but there's a little park there that's okay. And I found it striking that right outside the backside of the European Parliament building, there's a small grassy area with a number, maybe a dozen, maybe two dozen, somewhere in between statues in the grass. And what they are, when you look at them at first, you think, what are these? Are these aliens or something very peculiar?
And you look closer, but no, they're ostriches with their heads buried in the ground, all of them. So it looks like a three-legged thing, but it's not. It's an ostrich with its head buried in the sand and there are you know dozens of these and I thought that's a weird installation to have, you know, on on site then you come around to the front to go into the to the actual Parliament building which you can't do without passes and a guide and all these things you can't just go in, but there's this statue right by the door that I found very striking and it's of this kind of very angry almost Soviet looking woman holding up a very sharp, angular, I'm trying to dig into the semiotics here like aggressive European and, you know, Euro-e.
And she's standing triumphantly over a man that she seems to have conquered, who looks quite dejected and broken and so, you know, there's there's this weird vibe about the place, plus it's this weird building of steel and glass and an otherwise kind of fairly quaint European city, that just this kind of this glass. It's not the scary circular one that's in Spain or wherever that is. It's but this is, you know, intimidating steel and glass structure, that is just so out of character for the rest of the city.
But as far as being inside the building, we went afterwards, after it was all people that were on site. And then after the talk, there was a little reception out in the hallway. And that was all, nobody bothered us.
And then we went upstairs to do some interviews.
And there was at the interview area with all the cameras, the media area, with the good lighting and all of that, There was another group, and I don't know who exactly they were, Renew Europe or something like this, I think is what it said, and they had a European Union flag with the stars.
But instead of it being solid blue, that kind of deep blue that they use, it was rainbow.
I think the stars might have not been in a circle, but might have been in a heart or something silly. So I asked them, and so obviously these people are not my people, so I asked them, I said, I love your flag, can I borrow it for a picture?
And they were quite accommodating and they had a friendly chat with me and they don't know my views, but they were polite and professional as one would expect in a building of that sort.
So I didn't find it's, I find more hostility going into American government buildings from Democrats here in the US than I experienced in the EU.
But that might've just been stroke of luck or something like that.

Just before I move to the issues, how do you see it? Because as an American, there is a culture where there is a battle happening, and it is one side against the other.
When you look at Europe, it's much more one-sided than it is in the US.
In the US, we look across the water and see the battle amongst the side of truth as being positive, strong, having arguments and holding the line, where in Europe, even the good countries have been succumbed into that EU of hating themselves and of rewriting history and all of that.
How do you see that as an American?

Well, I'll point out first, because I do agree with you generally, not the Flemish, the Flemish do not have that attitude.
For certain and I found that I was spending quite a bit of time with it with Flemish men and women and some of the Italians do not have that attitude and they were very nice to spend time with, even a few Germans would they're very German, you know, everything must be according to the protocol, you know, very, I love Germans, but no, the fact is, what I see in Europe is that Europe is far more tipped to socialism, far more tipped to kind of this overarching, less accountable or even unaccountable governance.
This bureaucracy that's beyond the reach of the people, and it knows better, and therefore, you know, it's going to deal with the people for them than we see here in America.
But it's not nearly as woke and that was actually kind of the crux of this conference that they wanted to put together is yes, yes, we know we're very socialist and we know we're very far down that road, but whatever's happening in the Anglosphere, so the UK is actually heavily included in this, it's a very different animal than continental Europe, is very crazy.
It's properly almost insane. There was no confusion that I ran into among virtually anybody, about what a man and a woman for example, and in the European context. But the idea that the taxpayer money would just be wasted on everything that they want to do is, you know, just kind of taken for granted. It's just something they say, of course, this is how things work. Of course, the taxes will be crazy. Of course, we'll waste money on flying a stupid American over here and giving him lots of beer or something like this, you know, to show him a good time in Belgium. So it's a very different attitude. Europe is very dangerously tipped toward favourability toward socialism, but it's still repelling, and that was really again the crux of the conference, it's still repelling the very almost antinomian, insane, woke kind of, whether it's race, race politics is actually the most relevant. The sex and gender politics, people are a little bit naturally repellent to that still, but I don't think that that can last if they open the doors. So my goal was to warn Europe, like, yeah, you guys are already pretty well screwed up with socialism and maybe, you know, talking to the Flemish, maybe you can turn some of this around or do something with it in the future, but you do not know your danger if you think that you can kind of just not be proactive in keeping the woke ideology out.

Yeah. You end, I don't know if it was actually the end or in the middle, telling them that according to Marx, socialism was not economic but religious in essence. Do you want to just kind of unpack that and is that why we are having this difficulty because it is religious in nature?

Well Marx made it, he tried to make it look very much like it was economic. But if you read his earlier works, which sort of set the foundation and you catch the flavour of it throughout his as later works, Marx was very invested in this idea of understanding the world and man at a fundamental level. What is man? Who is man? And to answer these deep fundamental questions, and what does it require of man to do this? And so I actually think that he's more of a theologian in a kind of an anti-theology way. He's casting down God and replacing God with not man, but man enlightened to the secret truth of reality, which is that man is a social animal, a perfectly social being that lives not for himself but for the species when he's properly awakened to who he is.
My contention is that if you take that as a fundamental substrate so that then it separates the world into the people who have access to power and the people who do not have access to power, then that they're intrinsically in conflict so that the underclass has to to awaken to its nature's true historical agents of change and seize the means of production, that the means of production are, in a sense, fungible.
You can change them out.
But the idea is that what are you producing? And everybody thinks it's, oh, it's economics.
You're producing in the factory with goods and services. You're producing in the field with food and agricultural goods, and that's the hammer and the sickle, obviously.
But no, you're producing man.
You're producing man as who he's meant to be, which that's a fundamentally theological project, not a fundamentally economic project.
And Marx believed that economic conditions to determine who man is.
But if you were to say, well, it doesn't work, obviously in Britain and obviously in the United States and in Canada, economic conditions were not successful at agitating people into the historical class consciousness as change agents of history. But if you say that race or sex or gender or sexuality or whatever, those are actually the determinants. When you have material comfort.
When you have, as some of the Marxists in the 20th century put it, an advanced capitalism that delivers the goods and allows people to build a good life, you are not going to get them on economic conditions. Economic conditions are not determinant of who they are. They are, but on a deeper level that they don't perceive. This is the thesis of Marcuse's one-dimensional man. You've been made one-dimensional. You can't even perceive the fact that economic conditions are relevant to your life. So instead, you have to come where it matters, which is in personal identity. If you're comfortable, where do you turn? You turn to yourself and you think about your identity and who you are in the world. And so identity politics became the weapon that allowed to subdue the West. So if you take out economic conditions as the producer of man, where the means of production have to be seized and you put in cultural issues around race or what it means to be a certain sexuality or what it means to be man or woman in terms of sex itself and gender, then you can just kind of get these other dimensions, whether it's critical race theory or queer theory or feminism as a kind of a Marxist flavour of feminism or within what they call critical pedagogy in education. It's who gets to be a knower and who doesn't. So being considered knowledgeable becomes a form of social property that has to be challenged by the people who are excluded from it by the existing knowing system.
Listen to the way the woke talk. It's all about other ways of knowing and knowing systems and all of this. That's where this comes from. But it's the same fundamental architecture. It's, you have this theology of man, or maybe I think the technical word is an Anthroposophist, I can't even say it, anthrosophist, something. Anthro for man, sophi for, you know, sophistry.
Sophistry of mankind.
Somebody else can say it for me. I can write it.
Type it out on the screen for you, but it's technically that, but you have this theology that has at its heart the idea that man is producing himself by some mechanism, and that mechanism can be seized by the underclass of its dynamic and taken over to transform what man and society is.
And every one of their theories just, once you understand it that way, every one of their theories just falls out.
So you can start making very keen guesses on what's going to happen as this progresses and develops.
Here's one, I think I mentioned this in the EU, and I think it's very pertinent for the both European but also the UK context.
So if you'll forgive me, just for simplicity, I'm going to consider the UK part of Europe.
I know, we can't do that, but I don't want to have to say UK and Europe over and over again.
So the broadly European, maybe I'll use broadly European context, that side of the Atlantic context, what you actually have, you guys live in, there is actually a text you can read.
If you want to figure out what's happening in Europe, you read Douglas Murray's, The Strange Death of Europe.
There is a single text, it's not that long, that you can read to fully understand whose Europe you live in, and it's John Paul Sartre's Europe.
He wrote the foreword to Franz Fanon's Wretched of the Earth, so you're not going to go find one of Sartre's books.
You're going to go get Wretched of the Earth, which is by Franz Fanon, who was a post-colonialist in the 50s and 60s in France.
You're going to go get his book. And then he is from, I always get it wrong, Martinique. He's
from Martinique. And so he was in this kind of colonized condition, but also a French psycho analyst. And so that forward though has a very important part. The book is all about, the colonial condition. So who's a native and who's a settler. And now you have that same dynamic, that same mentality, the same exact structure of how it creates who you are as a person.
And Fanon argues that violence is the only way to overcome the colonized condition.
And Sartre writes in the foreword to this that Europe, he has a letter to Europe, and he's like, Europe, you better listen. The payment for colonization is coming.
And this is in the 60s. What you need to do, early 60s, you need to do is you need to decide, are they gonna get it by violence or are you going to propitiate yourself and give it away and hope that the violence doesn't come?
And he urges Europe to start giving away their society to their former colonies.
When they come and make a claim on your society, give it to them.
Maybe they won't be violent. Maybe they'll spare you.
So in the kind of very Trumpian, I see a Trump hat behind you, so very Trumpian kind of slang language of the 2020s, go ahead Europe and cuck yourself before the people who you previously colonized, give your societies away to them or else there'll be blood, is the message.
And that is literally the message that Europe adopted. So while you haven't in Europe broadly construed, although the UK has taken up with quite a bit of woke. Scotland is, in Ireland or Scotland especially, is particularly bad. You guys have taken up quite a lot of this, but the element of the broad woke pantheon of powered gods or whatever that really strikes hardest is this post-colonial status, which has allowed you or made it so that not only have you guys opened your borders utterly, but that the entire social welfare state that you guys have built up around your socialist sensibilities pours into this yawning black hole of need. And the reason is discoverable in a French existentialist Marxists
wailing about a post-colonialist saying that there must be blood to pay for colonization, which is a very obviously you're not allowed to even say these things, but a very one-sided understanding of, the impacts of colonialism. Yes, bad, but also you're not even allowed to mention that yes, good, too. It was a mixed bag brought through brutality and much injustice for certain, but at the same time time. Ethiopia famously is the least or the only completely uncolonized, if I remember right, country in that area of Africa. And they're also the ones that have been struggling the most and the most backwards in many regards for so long. They were the Somalia and Ethiopia where when I grew up as a kid, it was, you know, the starving kids in Ethiopia, eat your peas because the starving kids in Ethiopia don't have any, you know, they were the, they the poster child of backwards and broken. Maybe that was a meme that's not true, I don't know, anyway, Europe has that on its plate, and I think that's comprehensible. I actually think the strange death of Europe is utterly comprehensible out of the foreword that, Sartre wrote. If you read any of Sartre, who the hell wants to live in his world?
What a nightmare. Well, you do, and what a nightmare.

Tell us, because you mentioned colonialism, that's one of the battle lines, the critical race theory is one of the battle lines, you talked about that and how that fits under socialism.
I know it was last year you published Race Marxism, the truth about critical race theory and people can get that.
The links will be in the description for them to get hold of that and to go deeper into it. But how does critical race theory fit under the umbrella of socialism or Marxism?

Well, it's a redistribution of cultural capital that ties into actually redistributing material capital.
So the idea is that there's this form of cultural property that white people erected for themselves during the colonial eras, particularly to justify colonialism and to justify slavery in the 17th century, primarily 16th and 17th centuries, going some into the 18th century.
And falling apart in the 19th century. So this idea of whiteness as a cult form of cultural property that generates white supremacy and racial superiority and even racial identification was created by white people to enshrine their own power and to impose, racial identity and inferiority, social and cultural and even economic inferiority on others.
So-called people of colour, but particularly blacks and critical race theory builds out completely from this.
And the goal then is to seize the means of cultural production around the ideas of what it means to be a member of a certain race.
And it's actually a very interesting theory because it's still, unlike some of these other woke theories which seem just off in the air, it's got one foot very firmly still rooted in material reality.
It's in a sense a lot more, not explicitly Marxist, but much more critical and materialist.
And if you read their early writings, in fact, if you read virtually all of their writings through the 1990s, and I expect, so 70s through the 90s, and I expect we're gonna see another rash of this writing coming now, given what's happening in the United States Supreme Court.
It's a very American theory, by the way. It doesn't really fit in other contexts, and Europeans have noticed, as have Brits.
Like, we didn't do this, what are you talking about? But the fact is what it's really centered around is seizing the means of affirmative action, is what it's ultimately about. And I don't say that to be cheeky. If you read their books, affirmative action is brought up as a core and key issue
hundreds of times. It's not mentioned kind of tangentially here or there, it is a central issue that comes up again and again. And their goal is that they're seeing affirmative action gaining public disfavour through the, say, the 80s. They see, you know, the Supreme Court starting to say, well, maybe it needs a time limit. And they explicitly say, no, it doesn't need a time limit. Not only do we need to maintain it, we need to expand it. It needs to be bigger and more and more and more. So it's like it's very materialistic, seize the means of opportunity redistribution, I guess, in material resources. This is where the reparations conversations come in. And so it takes the entire architecture of literally of Marxism, infuses it with the later critical theory, and then recentres it in race. And in fact, you can find authors like Gloria Ladson Billings is a famous critical race theorist. In the 90s, she writes a paper called Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education. And what she says is in that paper, and I can't quote it from memory anymore, I used to do it a lot, but she says that, the point of critical race theory is to make race the central variable for understanding all inequality. So is where a classical Marxist would say that access to capital is the central concern that determines all inequality, and that's the production of man for critical race theorists, is that race actually supersedes that. And there's a wonderful book explaining all this that I thought was extremely clarifying and elucidating. It's one of the better books that I've read.
It's by a former philosopher of race. I've been told I'm not allowed to call him a critical race theorist, technically. His name's Charles Mills, very famous guy. He wrote a book called The Racial Contract, which takes Rousseau's social contract and turns it into a racial phenomenon. But he also wrote a book called From Class to Race, where he explains how he moved from being a classical Marxist to a critical race philosopher. And he argues that he became convinced that at least in the American context, when we understand what Marx was really saying, what he really meant by ideology, what he really meant by social structures, superstructure, infrastructure, the base, and how they interact to create a structure of society, that race is by far the more relevant variable in American society, in American history. So he moves from, it's a book about his own philosophical journey, From Class to Race. And it's the title of the book, From Class to Race, by Charles Mills. It's a staggeringly interesting book. The first chapter was so eye-opening to understand Marx. It's one of the top three most important things I've read to understand Marx.
And he's got a very heterodox view, according to Marxist standards. So people criticize my view of Marx, as I've largely derived it from Charles Mills, who's a Marxist, just a fairly heterodox one. He's late Charles Mills to be clear. I don't know if I mentioned he died a few years ago.
But that's, in a nutshell, what critical race theory is. Rather than capital being the special form of private property that basically appropriates every deterministic thing in society, including who you are as a person, race becomes, whiteness in fact, becomes the central piece of private property.
This is based off of a paper explicitly called Whiteness as Property, written by Cheryl Harris, a famous critical race theorist, in 1993.
I think, they're always in really big ones, I think that one's Harvard Law Review. It might be Cornell Law Review. I have to always kind of look up and check where it was published, but it's one of these very big universities law review.
And it's a very, it's like 93 pages. It's a very long article arguing that whiteness functions in parallel to the way that Marx lays out capital as a form of bourgeois private property. She even uses the phrase bourgeois property a few times in the paper, that the white people have set themselves up as a racial bourgeoisie and everything just kind of follows from there.
And so critical race theory becomes this, that's why I titled the book Race Marxism, as a matter of fact, this Marxist theory of race. It latches onto that post-colonial, just for you broadly UK, European context folks, it latches onto that because there are often racial components to colonialism. I mean, if you've colonized Africa, most of the people you've colonized happen to be black. If you've colonized Asia, most of the people you've colonized happen to be Asian.
So you can understand why they would attach these arguments about whiteness and race back through, and that's kind of the back door there in the UK-European context, is that they're using the colonial context and then saying, well, the real reason for all this was racial, where it's not, it's straight up, it's directly, openly, unabashedly, historically, imperial.
It's the British empire was proudly an empire.
The Spanish empire was proudly an empire. You know, their goal up until World War II, I think every European country threw on its hat to try to conquer the world of its empire.
And then finally we realized with nuclear weapons and machine guns and jet airplanes and things like that, carpet bombing, maybe that's not good anymore.
Maybe military colonization is not a functional approach for a humanity that wants to survive, into the 21st century.

Well, can I, then another battlefront, and you raised this so that you didn't really go into it in the speech, is queer theory.
And I think that's where we have more of a battleground in Europe.
Critical race theory seems to be less an issue, certainly in our education system, where it is queer theory, and of course, we're celebrating the holy month of pride this month.
But tell us, how does that- How does that- 

The power be upon us.

And how does that fit under socialism queer theory?

Yeah, well, it's the same model. So if we understand this concept that there's economic conditions blah blah blah and you get all of Marxism that falls out from the Marxist kind of axioms, and then you say well if we consider economic production to be fungible for racial production as a cultural property, then you get critical race theory Well, if we consider both of those again to be fungible and we pull out that and we say well there's a certain class in society that have designated themselves by virtue of their larger numbers by virtue of having been successful and put themselves in positions of power, but they've declared themselves normal.
And other people outside of that are not normal, or they're abnormal, or they're aberrant, or they're perverts, or they're queer, queer against normal, and the kind of even old meaning of the word, then queer theory falls out in your lap.
It's just that simple. But this is a very scary phenomenon, whereas critical race theory at its very bottom has, and Marxism both at their very bottom, have a blatant visible grift involved.
We're going to seize the means of production. We're going to establish a permanent and stronger and increasing, accelerating affirmative action regime.
These are very blatant grifts. We're going to take resources and power for ourselves as an identifiable group of people or whatever.
With the queer theory, it's a very different thing. They're looking at the cultural production, it is largely sex, gender, and sexuality, but it can apply to anything. Fat studies emerged mostly in the UK, as it turns out.
So did the study of ability, what's called the social model of disability, is from a a man named Michael Oliver, who was a Brit.
I don't remember where, if he was London or where, but they actually use the same underlying architecture and engine as queer theory. So now instead of it being about sex or gender or sexuality, it's about your body weight, your health status, your ability status as a very awkward politically correct term we use to not say handicapped or whatever.

Well, in America, is fatness now a designated characteristic in New York?
I don't know how that's going to work, but yeah. 

Yeah, that's right. Yeah, I've been I noticed in December that I had some fatness going on. So I, believe, get this I started eating less and moving more and the fatness started to go away. It's incredible 

Revolutionary 

Yeah, I know you guys use fake measurements like kilos or stones or whatever that nobody knows what they are, I think I lost like I'll do it in stones. I think I lost 1.6 stone If I'm making up numbers correctly, whatever that works out to is 28 pounds.

Maybe you could get repatriations for the time you were over with at all. I don't know could be 

I hope so but the idea with queer theory is anything that kind of the broad consensus of society considers normal is, illegitimately determined so that certain people get to have power. So what they're trying to do is seize the means of production of of normalcy, what people consider within the boundaries of normal or normative or even healthy or good behaviour, presentation, being, society.
And that's very dangerous because unlike the other ones, see, critical race theory has to at the end of the day maintain its grift, right? Marxism at the end of the day has to maintain its grift.
Queer theory, the second is let's say that they get LGBT or just LGB, they get gay acceptance, gay marriage, gay equality, gay everything, full civil rights movement that succeeds.
I actually think that that's separate, by the way, the civil rights movement was more of a broadly liberal phenomenon, and I think it was separate from this very radical phenomenon.
And there's a much historical and theoretical reason to accept that I know what I'm talking about with that claim, but you get broad LGBT acceptance in society, full equality in society, etc., and that becomes a new norm. Immediately you have to attack the new norm, and they actually have names for this. They have words. Homo-normativity. You've heard of heteronormativity that has to be combated. Homo-normativity has to be combated, and homo-normativity means the the broad acceptance of homosexual people in society, that's a problem because it actually prevents them from being radicalizable.
Anything that would cause somebody to become a stable functioning member of society within the boundaries of normal has to be attacked. So every inch of ground queer theory takes, it has to turn around and wage war on its previous success to take it even further.
They have to constantly, they call it queering. They have to constantly say, well, if you actually look at the people who designated that they're normal, a lot of them are perverts and private.
So are they really normal? Or are they just repressed and have to keep their perversion in the closet?
And that's just like other people being in the closet and they blur out all these contexts.
But it's a war against normalcy. It's a war against norms.
It's a war against decency and expectations of decency.
It's also a war against any boundaries. The boundaries, you could say that, maybe it's artificial, the boundaries between heterosexual versus homosexual.
But at some point, we're not talking about artificial boundaries, the paedophilia, bestiality, these kinds of very perverse things.
The boundaries between what in the slang terms get called vanilla and kink.
There's some kind of boundary.
They say that these things are all actually, there is no boundary.
There's no meaningful boundary and their goal is to dissolve those.
So what ultimately happens is, queer theory is like a universal solvent.
It's an acid that will dissolve anything. And anything that you try to put as a container around it, it necessarily has to dissolve that too.
They even have, I thought there was just one, I looked it up, There are many papers that have some variation of queering queer theory as their title in their queer literature, Because queer theory itself had become too normative. So they have to queer that they have to make it even weirder less normative, and so it's uh it's socialist though in the sense that it's trying to seize the means of production and redistribute shares of social acceptance and opportunity, according to whether or not you're considered normal. Phrases like bring your whole self to work are very queer. Like, no, do not bring it. Leave most of yourself at home, as a matter of fact, is actually what we call professionalism. And that they would say that that's restrictive of people who say want to wear fetish gear to the office, kind of like we have in our White House happening right now. Kind of very visibly what we have. There's military officials wearing literally pup fetish, we had this bizarre character in charge of our nuclear waste and other things who was stealing women's clothing from airports and he's been arrested now three times for this.
And it turns out he's a member of this troop that's now controversially the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in Los Angeles that is doing the very antinomian religious provocation at Dodger Stadium that's all in the news.
He's not a current member, he was a former member Sam Brinton is this character's name, you know, bald, shiny head, looks like an alien, has a moustache dressed in a fabulous gown he stole from some woman of colour immigrant who built it, that you know herself.
Very bizarre, but queer theory is well, who's this? There's an old sketch on Saturday Night Live. I encourage people to look this up It's it's the character's name is sex ed. So it's sex ed Vincent. His name is Ed Vincent. He's a sex educator Everybody should look this up This is the perfect expression of queer theory and actually post-modernism where he's describing very bizarre fetishes as a joke, right?
It's very funny and he's obviously very nerdy weird guy, but then it's his tagline is, is that weird? well who's to say, and he's teaching like a class, is that weird? and everybody says like who's to say, that's the ultimate idea of queer theories is that outside of the boundaries of normal?
Well who gets to say that obviously people who set themselves up that way so we're gonna redistribute who has the power to determine what is and is not normal including drag queens in front of children and you know, provocative displays pride parades as a parade for for civil rights or even to celebrate the fact that for many years homosexuals were very oppressed in society, often viciously oppressed in society a pride parade that would just march and you know wave flags or whatever for a day, as it used to be would be one thing. This isn't what happens at all this thing is this crazy celebration that sprawls now across not just a month with a season. The entire public square turns into a rainbow for for upwards of 60 days and beyond.
It's you know, there are fetishists running around enticing children and doing crazy things. It's really turned into something like a much grosser version of carnival, and it's, their fundamental view is well, is that out of bounds?
Well, it's illegitimate if anybody but us decide, every individual should get to decide for themselves what's publicly out of bounds. So this is, literally like it to some very Jordan Peterson issues. It's the chaos monster right or the chaos dragon It's Tiamat being released on society that will ultimately tear it apart.

Just to finish off, your latest book published in December was an education, The Marxification of Education, Paolo Ferrer's critical Marxism and the Theft of Education. We have no time to go into the topic at all, it is there, links are all there for the viewers and listeners, but could I just ask you as we finish, why you wanted to write a book specifically on education.

Well I got sucked into it. I was gonna, I knew it was important and nobody was covering what's called Critical Pedagogy, the Critical Theory of Education.
So I read a couple of books on it, got a little informed. I thought I would do a flyby, and just, you know, a reconnaissance flyby, give some people some pictures.
And it turns out it was like trying to do a flyby of Jupiter, I just got sucked into the gravity and stuck.
It's just a huge universe, and it's so complicated.
But I wrote the book particularly, I call it, you know, The Theft of Education, because I kept encountering parents who were saying, they're telling me they're not doing this in our school, but I know they're doing it in our school, I experience it with my children.
What's going on? And so I had read enough to understand the magic trick, how they've stolen education, what the mechanism is.
And it actually is the same trick I've described. We don't have to go into the nitty gritties, but they've set up who gets to be constituted as a knower.
Who does society recognize as a knowledgeable person versus somebody who's recognized as ignorant or outside of that.
And they've created a Marxist seize the means of production program, where Paolo Ferrari did out of that.
And then he created a mechanism in education where you use the academic material as an excuse to have political conversations.
So that's how they do it.
They don't technically teach critical race theory. They show a math problem and use it as an excuse to have a discussion about racial injustice and do this over and over and over again.
Informed by critical race theory would be more accurate than teaching critical race theory.
And so I wanted to pull back the veil on how that happens and what's really going on and that this is actually a cult brainwashing program.
And the book has been very helpful to parents across at least the United States in that regard.
It's being translated into Portuguese now, so we'll see what happens with that.

Well, James, I appreciate you coming on. The issue of woke is, I think, the issue in whether society and cultures will survive or collapse, how you respond to them.
So I appreciate you coming on and sharing your insights on those.

Yeah, well, I'm very glad to talk to you, very glad to get to spread the word.
I think the European context has an interesting opportunity.
UK is a little bit harder.
You've already taken in a lot.
But Europe has actually a chance, the ID group being that we mentioned before, being a great bulwark to stand up to this particular, very toxic aspect that will, as you can see, and whether it's the UK or Australia or Canada or the United States, that will rip a society apart if you let it in.

Yeah, we're seeing that happen. And you mentioned in Brussels, their issue is immigration. 30% Islamic. 

That clash between separate ideas of what culture should be and what freedom should be is why I would never want to live in Brussels. So, sorry. 

Yeah. Well, I'll tell you the truth just quickly that this whole, if we look at Marx as a theologian philosopher-ish kind of character, A lot of his model, he says he inverted it, but he derived it from Georg Hegel preceding him.
And Hegel's belief, and Marx definitely adopted this part, was that history is this inexorable force, almost like a deity itself that has a trajectory and a purpose and a defined endpoint.
And the key part is that it moves through conflict. And if you understand nothing else about everything we've just talked about, that the people that think this way, that have adopted this worldview, understand that they move history to a desired endpoint through generating conflict.
You don't have to get into the granular details of how until later. You can understand many of these decisions. Why are you pulling in 30% of your population now is going to be a different religion with a different culture, and then you take tremendous care of them and inflame these tensions across the divide and cause these conflicts, because conflict moves history. In other words, truly their view, religiously speaking for Hegel explicitly, is that the conflict working itself out through history actually finishes or actualizes God. So God doesn't become God until the conflicts have all played out, so they have to generate the conflicts to create the finalized deity, at which point everything will be perfect at the so-called end of history with the people that live in it called the last man. 

Yeah. Well, we'll finish, James. The viewers and listeners @ConceptualJames on GETTR, Gab, Truth, Minds, wherever your preferred social media platform is, you'll find James on it, and of course newdiscourses.com. So thank you so much once again for your time, James. 

Yeah, thank you.