Marxism-as-Religion

Answering Concerns, Outlining the Terms of the War

I write now answering to concerns on my Marxism-as-Religion Resolution that have been brought to me several times, by several people, including some that may influence the ultimate direction of things to come. I write to assuage those concerns, and to provide a peak behind the curtains into my thought process around the issue.

Photo by Soviet Artefacts on Unsplash

First, it is of little consequence that, correctly interpreted, Marxists may be afforded religious protections and tax-exempt status for their “Church.” Practically, Marxists are already afforded not merely proper religious protections under the first amendment, but the entire enforcement arm of the state in punishing blasphemy and rewarding faith, as well as a commissar system that sees only the pious employable across major corporations and government.

A proper first amendment protection of religious freedom would not allow Marxists to coerce their faith on others, and thereby it renders Marxism’s foremost means of replication nullified. Similar to other religions that receive protection – for instance Islam – there are limits to the degree of religious autonomy and tolerance afforded under the constitution. Honor killings, for instance, cannot be justified under Sharia law in America despite the reasonable argument that it is fundamental to a religion. Likewise, Marxism, properly placed in that same box, is rendered impotent in its capacity to injure, and effectively restrained from doing the harms that it is currently inflicting on us all.

Next, there’s nothing wrong with teaching about Marxism in schools – it’s quite sensible to learn about the enemy. This same goes for radical Islamism, occultism, and so on. In fact, Marxists who have the primary authors of history books for decades have made it a point to not teach about Marxism for this very reason.

Next, there is a very important distinction between teaching about something, and teaching that something. It is good to know about everything we can discern, but it is dangerously impossible to know that everything is, because if everything is then nothing is, and it is this “that is” that forms our basis for understanding everything.

Marxism is already taught in schools currently under names from Critical Race Theory to Gender Theory, and from Social Emotional Learning to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – except students aren’t learning about Marxist theory and history from the lens of Americanism. They are not learning about the millions of ugly deaths directly attributable to the anti-human ideology. Rather, they are being taught everything, from the humanities through physics, through the lens of Marxism, and thereby being indoctrinated into Marxist religious presuppositions, metaphysics, and “consciousness” in government schools and beyond.

As a practical matter Marxism cannot simply be stripped from schools by prohibiting it – it cannot be eliminated anywhere as such, it’s far too little too late. As anyone who is paying attention knows there is a veritable gulf between legislative action, executive enforcement, and judicial concurrence. The disconnect between these bodies is, as this point, endemic to our bloated bureaucratic system. The gap will not be spanned readily, nor will Marxism be abolished by any magic words. Those words must be understood nearly universally and carry the weight of of the violence implicit in all government action before legislation can ever again be truly effective.

What is necessary, first, is an understanding of what the enemy is. You cannot raise an army to fight a thing you cannot call by a common name. That is the first major utility of this resolution: name the enemy. The precise name chosen, “Marxism,” is true and correct (enough) as a proximate point for the origins of the enemy we face. The outline of the resolution is likewise true and correct – this was not created wantonly, but rather as the considered culmination of years of study into the matter. Similarly, it is useful that others (James Lindsay, Mark Levin, Tucker Carlson, and so on) have settled on this same name, “Marxism,” or the closely associated term “Communism.” As such this name already has momentum and mass behind it - a great boon to our efforts.

What’s next is settling on what victory looks like so that decentralized actors can move towards a common objective. That is the second major utility in this resolution: the stripping of the Church of Marxism from government is the victory. In identifying the win condition we orient ourselves toward common purpose and effectively multiply our efficacy.

Further, the finding that Marxian metaphysics supplanted American metaphysics, thereby undermining the ideological and ethical foundations of the nation, serves as the “story,” or “narrative” to rally support around in the reformation of our collective understanding of American history from the late 19th century onward as we correct the history written by Marxists – it likewise has the added benefit of being entirely true and correct.

This resolution stakes a claim to an America that has been much forgotten in the milieu of postmodernity – that which our founders understood as a populace socially, ethically, and ideologically aligned under the fruits of the English Enlightenment and Protestant Reformation. The words on the paper matter nothing at all if the people cannot understand them the way they were meant to be understood, nor if they care not to uphold the principles behind them.

As a practical matter there is little risk of downside in the introduction of the resolution. Obviously, if it were to make it through with considerable support it would be an incredible milestone, but that isn’t likely. Even if recommended to be killed in committee it still becomes a win if any press can be generated around the concept that allows it to be heard, and thereby spread – and the press cannot resist something like this any more than a Biden can resist a bribe. Then, over time, this gets brought up again, and again, and in varied contexts, and in varied forums, and, through the principle of reflexivity, it gets picked up further. This is guerilla information warfare – the more controversy the better. It’s time we put that tool to use.