Yes., Revenge can be a powerful deterrent. A keeper of peace. If they feared retaliation they would think twice before doing it. But so far they have been pushing with no opposition almost, no one to force the radicals to the negotiating table. On the contrary, and demand they had the other side bend the knee. So naturally they ask for more and they get it. Leading to more and more. Eventually people will create resistance movement. And its hard to see how some kind of civil war can be avoided. Unless the radicals are forced to negotiate and some kind of compromise can be forced out of them.

Consequences of the poison that is identity politics. Thanks for sharing.

Content of character not color of skin. Yeah. They heard it before, but what happens when civil rights movement gets them what they demand? They can't stop, they are no after justice they are after power, so they have to come up with new terms.

“Racial stereotyping. For Martin Luther King, Jr., and other civil rights leaders, the sin of white racism was stereotyping all black people as inferior. It was a prejudice to be sure, but it was predicated on the assumption that all blacks were the same. King objected to stereotyping because he wanted blacks to be treated as individuals and not reduced exclusively to their racial identity (hence the meaning of his famous statement about the content of one's character taking precedence over the color of one's skin).

The postmodern left turns the civil rights model on its head. It embraces racial stereotyping - racial identity by any other name - and reverses it, transforming it into something positive, provided the pecking order of power is kept in place. In the new moral scheme of racial identities, black inferiority is replaced by white culpability, rendering the entire white race, with few exceptions, collectively guilty of racial oppression. The switch is justified through the logic of racial justice, but that does not change the fact that people are being defined by their racial characteristic. Racism is viewed as structural, so it is permissible to use overtly positive discrimination (i.e., affirmative action) to reorder society." ― Kim R. Holmes, The Closing of the Liberal Mind: The New Illiberalism's Assault on Freedom

Lets assume they get to power and take out all the white people. It won't stop there, now they will be plenty of uncle and aunts tom to guillotine because they are not black enough. We have seen this all before.

“The revolutionaries of today are the conservatives of tomorrow.” © Gerald Dunkl

For the revolutionary of every kind – as soon as he, she or they have accomplished the goal, must turn to the preservation of the new achievement and immediately become a “conservative”. Thus revolutionaries in due time always become conservatives – we may remember that the industrial conservatism of our time once was a revolution against the feudal system – liege-lords and manors.

Therein lies the reason for the old adage that all revolutions devour their own children – see Trotsky, Danton, Robespierre and all the others.

Thereafter, a new – post revolutionary – status quo is established, against which opposition arises. This is why each and every revolutionary movement necessarily creates its own counter-revolutionary movement – as inescapable as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

On the resulting – logically consequent – reverse instrumentalization of terror by the new “conservatives”.

In 1793, in French Revolution the divisiveness in the Convention was even more apparent. The fledgling government was overturned in the name of counter-revolutionary paranoia. Led by Robespierre and Danton, the Jacobins arrested the remaining Girondins in the Convention, claiming that they were supporting counter-revolutionary activities.Eventually Robespierre and Danton were executed as well, from their own , fearing their growing paranoia.

Hence the expression "Revolutions devour their own children"

“Nothing is more powerful than a compelling story, especially in the framework of a revolution, which entails a struggle to create new symbols, new vocabularies, new ways of looking at the world, new identities, new myths Party thinking equated Bolshevism with the movement of history and thereby made all critics into counterrevolutionaries, even if they were fellow socialists.” ― Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Volume I: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928

“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” ― Mikhail Bakunin

@Serg97 Sure it would be nice to get rid of welfare state, but first you have to get rid of feminists who depend on it and all the majorities that are slowly becoming majority and are in many key positions of power. This didn't happen over night. And it won't go away over night unless civil war is declared but than you have the same problem. Who replaces them? It all sounds so simple on paper, doesn't it?

@Krunoslav It is simple, JUST DO IT, people will learn that THEY have to take care of themselves and theirs in short order!!!
No, it will not be easy, but if we want to turn this SH-T around it has to be done!!!!
Are YOU ready?????

@Serg97 Well first of all its not that simple, simple go and so something with no sense of what or how is how the rioters on the street operate. It needs something more than you you propose. Also no need to use all caps, it signals yelling and that really will not help. And finally am I ready? I'm not in America, so my way of participating in this is online in forums such as this one.

@Krunoslav Have you ever lived in a Democratic Republic???

@Serg97 Have you ever heard of Croatia or Wikipedia? Asking for a friend.

The politics of Croatia are defined by a parliamentary, representative democratic republic framework, where the Prime Minister of Croatia is the head of government in a multi-party system.

And than you notice all the white people in the audience. I wish this website had a facepalm emoji.

Terrible. Beyond being completely inaccurate its clearly meant to do only one thing accurately. Promote violence and hatred and self-righteousness. Pretty disgusting.

@CharliePrime I suppose at this point it has very little to do with what Marx wrote, except the basic concept. Alienation theory. Which is self portrait of Marx and not really a valid theory of society, but because so many people alienated , even today, it's just as good of an excuse for them as it was for Marx. Problem is that modern collage kids live high standards of living so they can't really use Marx directly, they have to add new excuses why its all someone else fault. And along the way they attach all kinds of crazy ideas from other alienated authors and cook up something that they now call Critical Race Theory. Trying to logically explain it is a problem because we are not dealing with philosophy, economy or politics here, we are dealing with religion and psychology.

@CharliePrime Yeah, but it has nothing other than alienation theory in common with what Karl Marx wrote, and its not like this fruitcakes are some intellectuals, they needed a dumbed down version of everything and they striped always much of what others said with each new generations of writers reducing the ideas to even lower common donaminators and simplifying it. What is though in universities today is as about intellectual as food label on Can Chicken Soup in a supermarket. Its just a bullet list at this point. Something easy to share and get to the point, no matter how wrong the point is. Anything more sophisticated and no one would follow it. What is shared today is cooked up by collage kids. It has to be like that or it would not work, it would be too complicated for rioters on the street who think 2+2 = 5.

@CharliePrime Just to be clear are you talking about Critical Theory or what the now call Critical Race Theory because that is basically intersectional feminist theory. I guess Critical Race Theory just includes more candidates for oppression. Still, neither of those really have much in common with Marxism , except alienation part. Although Marx didn't claim oppression in the same way today is claimed, he claimed that in the material world people feel alienated and that its the problem of the capitalism system, but he wanted to replace the capitalism system with communist one by having workers take over means of production.

Its far fetch to link what we have now with Marx, he was what you would call today Racist, lol What we have today is something differnt, and it snot Critial Theory becaues that too was something else. I guess the newlly labled Critical Race Theory is something we might use. But its just a lose base of ideas that non of these fruit cakes can argue for, its really understood similar as you said.... however you call it.

Which begs the question, why are all the white people protesting if they are evil oppressors ? They would not be part of the protests if that was all that there is.

It really makes no sense, but I guess it does not have to make sense. Its fanatical religious movement.

@CharliePrime "Critical Race Theory is a sub-set of Critical Theory. Both were developed as weapons against White People."

That can't be right. Critical Theory was developed by white people and not on racial grounds, but on ideological grounds that combine multitude of ideas not really based on race , but on cultural and religious traditions. It was already a mix of cookie ideas when it was proposed.

Critical Race Theory adds many more ideas from all over the place and beyond the name it has very little in common with the original set of ideas, with the exception of alienation theory. But that core idea is always present with all of these ideologies because it gives them sense of self righteousness.and someone to blame. Today they call it oppression.

Marxism is not about race, and even Critical Race Theory is not about race, its about power. Race is a mask for dumb people who cannot understand the other parts., but it was never about race or even class , it was about power. Political power. And I'm not saying that as some generalization, that is what the message is in the way these theories are though to university intellectuals. When you get to modern Western collages and dumb ass students who barely can read and write or you talk to rioters and activists on the street, you are not talking about theories that requires education, you talk about racism, that is easy to follow and it creates hatred, a unifying agent.

When you say Critical Theory is....

Non-White People = The Oppressed

White People = Evil Oppressors who must be destroyed.

...you too are adding legitimacy to something absurd, and you also happened to be using wrong terminology. If its easier for you to understand it by simplifying it, I get that, but you can't make that argument on academic level, you can only express how you feel about the ting. Which I might add, is also dangerous because you too have accepted the identity politics making it about race. That is dangerous.

Its not about race, its about power. Race is convenient mechanism, a mask, which works in America but not in say China because everyone is Han Chinese. Its the Marxist worldview they adopted but class, race, gender, all that nonsense is just tool. Critical Race Theory is not the same as Marxism or Critical Theory, and connection to it at this point is very loose.

You also didn't explain why do Critical Race Theory believers allow white people to protest with them and to be on key positions of power in politics, and media etc. If its only about race and nothing else, why does that happen?

@CharliePrime Oh, please. No Jews are not guilty of your world view. That is your problem. And no it was not about race. Leave the Jew conspiracy for someone other group.... I'm sure one or several thousands exists on this website. Getting to be really annoying. Jews are Jews. They are not the devil.

Also for crying out loud, Antisemitism is 19th century invention. Jews were people who followed Jewish religion. If you converted to some other religion you were no longer a Jew. It was not until racial theories in 19th century that it started to change and took root as something else. But Antisemits are stubborn so I won't argue. Lets agree to disagree.

@CharliePrime It would take too long to explain the whole thing and I've already written so much and I would not mind writing more, but I don't think we would agree on this.

Yes there are ways in which today one can be non religions and consider himself or herself a Jew and there are many reasons for this, that are practical not conspiratorial.

You seem to follow another Critical Theory of race, where Jews are guilty of everything. Didn't that what Nazis though? Are you saying you are a Nazi? Or maybe Jews living in Diaspora, like to be linked to their heritage, family and cultural background and not be interested in planning to overthrow the free world at every chance. Hmmm.

Its pretty long sermon, but luckily someone put timestamps about the key points. I must say that Voddie Baucham has some things correct, but he has also many holes in his understanding of the ideas and its application and reasons why they came about. So much of his presentation felt like a second hand smoking. You can smell the smoke but you can't taste the cigar.

I'll just mention one thing he said that shows he lack understanding of what it is. He said there is difference between Marxism and Cultural Marxism. And that is not really true.

First thing is that Marxism didn't exist during the life of Karl Marx, much like Christianity didn't exist during Jesus lifetime. It is set of ideas that get interpreted later , after the death of the Messiah. And just like Jesus inspired his followers to spread the Gospels, so did people after the death of Karl Marx started interpenetrate and misinterpreting what Karl Wrote in his books. I'm not saying this to exonerate Karl Marx, he was a loser in every way you can imagine and wrong in all his ideas, but what I want to say is that Baucham used the term Marxim, and than talked about it as if its the same thing that Karl Marx preached. And its not.

Karl Marx wrote few books and many articles. The most famous of which are Communist Manifesto and Das Capital. He talks about alienation, he talks about economy in ways that are innacruate to say the least, because he was not an economist.

Baucham described Karl Marx as primarily an economist. Which he was not.

“Marx wrote about finance and industry all his life but he only knew two people connected with financial and industrial processes. One was his uncle in Holland, Lion Philips, a successful businessman who created what eventually became the vast Philips Electric Company. Uncle Philips' views on the whole capitalist process would have been well-informed and interesting, had Marx troubled to explore them. But he only once consulted him, on a technical matter of high finance, and though he visited Philips four times, these concerned purely personal mattes of family money. The other knowledgeable man was Engels himself. But Marx declined Engel's invitation to accompany him on a visit to a cotton mill, and so far as we know Marx never set foot in a mill, factory, mine or other industrial workplace in the whole of his life.” ― Paul Johnson

He was not even a political theorist , because no one really took his ideas seriously to try them out. He was thrown out of three countries for sadition.

Communist Manifesto is not a book about economy its a book about revolutionary movement, class struggle and pretty appealing ideas about what to do about imagined oppression, but not with an idea what to do once revolution is over. It would take someone like Lenin to come along and write the second half of the Communist Manifesto, sort of speak. What happens when you take over the country and what to do when you are in country like Russia which was not industrial nation.

“The problem began when the central prophecies of Marxism failed to occur. This created a massive crisis within the Left, and essentially Marxism split into two camps: the first became Leninism and Bolshevism, and the other became fascism and Nazism.

And so each of these ideologies had a man who wanted political power, absolute political power. And they went about it under different names but they applied the same basic principles. Get people to hate those in power, and use the "useful idiots" as leverage to obtain that power. Than become worse and more totalitarian than the regime you replaced, to make sure there are no revolutions against you.

And so neither Communist Revolution in Russia and later China or Hitler or Mussolini followed what Marx wrote, because Marx didn't provide ideas on how to overthrow countries or what to do after words. He only gave ingredients to spark the hatred of those in power, via his religious rhetoric found in Communist Manifesto. And he provided moral justification for it, by pretending its a scientific system. That is why he wrote highly biased Das Capital, where much like lefties today he uses statistics only to support his view and ignores the rest, and he writes about exploitation of children in the factories, because he wants to leverage sympathy for children in favor of his political cause.

“The appeal by twentieth-century pluralists to scientific method was also ideologically—and even messianically—driven. It ignored scientific data that interfered with environmentalist assumptions and misrepresented socialist faith as “scientific planning.” ― Paul Edward Gottfried

Just like we have Communists hiding under environmentalist and climate change today. How dare you use little girls from Sweden as human shield. I guess Marx would be proud.

The Fabian society were group of activists that wanted to do what Marx did, economic change and help the workers, but they wanted to do it not with violent revolution but trough political reforms. Marx didn't really want change he wanted personal satisfaction. He was deaply self hating man, feeling alienated from societies he lived in and so he wrote his demons on paper, and because that alienation is so relatable its with as today and we call it Marxism.

“Socialism preceded Marxism, and socialism has survived Marxism, in part because Marxism was subjected to a real-world test for nearly a century and failed on an epic scale. Soviet revolutionaries did not engage in Fabian incrementalism; they got their country and their empire and their worldwide movement, and they worked their will without opposition.

The contribution Marxism made to the socialism from which it arose was to offer a pseudo-scientific gloss to the ill-defined urges and impulses of those who despised the rising system of capitalism and the growing middle class to which it gave birth. Because Marxism was taken seriously as an economic theory for so long, it gave socialism an empirical patina that it otherwise lacked. But at its core, socialism remains a rationalization for a fundamentally tribal and premodern understanding of economics.

When God “died” in the 19th century, “social-ism” took the form of materialist scientism (hence the philosopher Eric Voegelin’s observation that under Marxism, “Christ the Redeemer is replaced by the steam engine as the promise of the realm to come&rdquo. It’s worth recalling that both Marx and Engels came to their socialism via their atheism, not the other way around.” ― Jonah Goldberg

“The influence that Marxism has achieved, far from being the result or proof of its scientific character, is almost entirely due to its prophetic, fantastic, and irrational elements. Marxism is a doctrine of blind confidence that a paradise of universal satisfaction is awaiting us just around the corner. Almost all the prophecies of Marx and his followers have already proved to be false, but this does not disturb the spiritual certainty of the faithful, any more than it did in the case of chiliastic sects.… In this sense Marxism performs the function of a religion, and its efficacy is of a religious character. But it is a caricature and a bogus form of religion, since it presents its temporal eschatology as a scientific system, which religious mythologies do not purport to be.” ― Leszek Kołakowski

“Hence a communist society would have a new ethical basis. It has been claimed – by Lenin among others – that Marxism is a scientific system, free from any ethical judgements or postulates. These are the essential points of ‘the first Marxism’. It is manifestly not a scientific enterprise in the sense in which we understand science today. Its theories are not derived from detailed factual studies, or subjected to controlled tests or observations.” ― Anonymous

"That Marxism is not a science is entirely clear to intelligent people in the Soviet Union. One would even feel awkward to refer to it as a science. Leaving aside the exact sciences, such as physics, mathematics, and the natural sciences, even the social sciences can predict an event—when, in what way and how an event might occur. Communism has never made any such forecasts. It has never said where, when, and precisely what is going to happen. Nothing but declamations. Rhetoric to the effect that the world proletariat will overthrow the world bourgeoisie and the most happy and radiant society will then arise.” ― Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Warning to the West

Dr Voddie Baucham says that Marxism and Cultural Marxism are not the same. And he claims Marx was economist, so Marxism must be economic system. No that is not correct.

Karl Marx wrote in Communist Manifest the need to change society on level that goes beyond economy and if were to be aver implemented it would have no choice but to change culture. He didn't however wrote how that would be done.

So Lenin did it for him and implemented his revolution based on Marx World view in Russia in 1917. This was than called Marxism-Leninism. And it change culture because that is the only way it can work. To make everyone follow the ideology you have to put the gun to their head, which Bolsheviks did. And if you are new religion on the block, you have to destroy the other competing religions , which was Orthodox Christianity in Russia.

So if one follows Marx ideas and implements it, it has to be Cultural Marxism since it changes culture. Difference would be that only time you can make a difference between Marxism and cultural Marxism is that Marxism in paper might seem like Utopia and all is good. But soon as anyone tried to apply it, its by terror tactics and it has to rework all of the culture.

Marxism though in Western universities was Marxism as theory on paper. Soon as they started implementing it in real life it became Cultural Marxism. So we might as well say they are the same thing.

I suppose you could make an argument that Marx so violent uprising of workers, and what we see in the west is not many workers, its the middle class students, and they started by reforming first the universities than trough political correctness, other elements of the culture. So I guess in that sense you can call it Cultural Marxism. But make no mistake. To implement ideas of Karl Marx means to use force to change culture.

Capitalism does not demand that you speak in a certain way or talk in certain way or dress in a certain way or workshop one religion and not the other. Communism does require that. Because communism has only one party, that must be a monopoly even above God.

Another thing to take into account about Cultural Marxism as some call it, is that it takes ideas from many schools of though not just Marx's writings. At its core its united fanatics under new religion trying to violently and by force and no patience or tolerance to take down the existing system and its cultural values. They don't know what will they use to replace it, but they naively believe it will be utopia and they will be in charge of it. So in that sense it is Marxist talking, but along the way they picked up many new ideas.

“Marxism was a simple substitute for Christianity. Replace God with Marx, Satan with the bourgeoisie, Heaven with a classless society, the Church with the Party,” ― Arundhati Roy, The God of Small Things

“It is quite true that Marx said that religion is the opium of the people. But of course we now know that Marxism is the crack cocaine of the people.” ― Douglas Wilson

There is feminism , which is borrowing from Marxism by putting not classes against each other, but men vs women. But first feminist were middle upper class white women, so naturally when the other , especially black lower class women saw the success., they said we got to get in on this scheme. And that is how intersectional theory was born. Connecting Class, gender, race. Thinking we all got to work together to get what we and and number of criteria under which you can claim I'm oppressed or offended is now expanded.

The moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in a speech at the American conservative think tank Manhattan Institute, criticized the theory by saying:

[In intersectionality] the binary dimensions of oppression are said to be interlocking and overlapping. America is said to be one giant matrix of oppression, and its victims cannot fight their battles separately. They must all come together to fight their common enemy, the group that sits at the top of the pyramid of oppression: the straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied Christian or Jewish or possibly atheist male. This is why a perceived slight against one victim group calls forth protest from all victim groups. This is why so many campus groups now align against Israel. Intersectionality is like NATO for social-justice activists.

There is much more to say about Frankfurt School and their Critical Theory which was already a combination of many ideas from Marx, Freud and others and all mixed into a pile of loosely connected ideas about how institutions would be used to "fix the society". Apparently it started as a both ego and guild trip. Frankfurt School was found in Germany by group of Jews who were coming from wealth background and felt guilty about society where others have to work hard. So in that way they gravitated towards Marx. Same anxiety. And much like Marx they wrote about what should be done to make it all go away and be utopia.

And to psychoanalyze the bad behaving society they used Freud bits and pieces that they needed, much like they used Marx for what they needed. Etc. They got the idea that changes will start in Schools. Universities. Where we can make everyone educated and activists.

This was in between WWI and WWII and them being Jews, had to leave Germany because of rise of Natzis. So they went to Geneva and later in America in universities, where subsequent waves of thinkers changed the original ideas and added new stuff, and by the time we get to 1970's feminist are on the rise, the whole counter culture is in full swing, more new ideas are brought over from group of French post modernists and their crazy ideas, and also New Age religions from India. That is where all the hipi culture and sex came from. sex liberation. Also the whole anti white anti western culture ideas came from Indian and African Anti colonialist writers.

Along the way feminist decided to play with language so trans movement was born and with gay movement worked over the backs of feminists and the rest is as they say history. Here we are.

Is all that Cultural Marxism or Cultural Race Theory, I don't know , but I guess you can call it Woke religion or some other terms. Its a mix bag of dangerously bad ideas. That definitely want to change culture and human nature and no matter how many millions died for these bad ideas , the ideologues are merciless as they are stubborn.

A pretty good explanation was given by Jordan Peterson, but he even missed some of the influence of Indian religions and their significance. Something many don't notice enough to talk about, but its important component. This is where all the sexual liberation and sexuality stuff comes from. Vegans as well. That is from Hinduism. Without Hinduism.

I read that capitalism is literally Ham. hahaha

@Krunoslav Close enough. It is the same difference. It is equivalent to jerking off a faggot during lent. Prison culture is weird.

@Mikewee777 I'm going to have to get a prison dictionary and get back to you on that one. lol