TPS 60: Socialism vs. Christian Nationalism

so um I called you up and once again you were gracious enough to answer your your original famous academic stalker and me um and and basically said doc I'm going nuts again you know my eyes are bleeding my ears are bleeding my head is pounding I'm I'm on to this Christian nationalism stuff again And you are constantly a soothing balm to me to help put all of this in perspective.

And sometimes that's good enough, but I thought, you know, this is such a big story.

I would like to have the whole nation here, our listeners across the nation here, the conversation that we had and the take that you have, and the article that caused the conversation to begin is in the Washington Post.

And I'd like to set this in context.

We've been, again, we will not bury the lead.

As you know, I don't bury the lead here.

We've been talking about the Democratic Socialists of America, and we've been talking about C.S. Lewis and the technocracy, and we've been fostering the premise here, the idea that what the radical left wants to basically completely rework America, change everything, basically create a revolution, but they don't want a guns and bullets revolution.

they would love a marxist revolution that eliminated any concept of of of a theistic notion whatsoever is is an underpinning for our form of civil government they would love the elimination of private property they would love an elitist soviet politburo type of dictate dictatorship but they don't want to do it by shooting people They want to do it in partnership with the tech bros.

They want to go with the big tech companies and find a way to electronically and digitally so ensnare people that when the government moves in one direction, the people have to follow because the price of not following has become so great.

That's a bloodless revolution.

It's a tech revolution.

Now, that, granted, may be at this stage in the game considered to be a bit far-fetched and maybe even conspiratorial.

But I continue to look to Lewis's work in 1946 and that hideous strength in which he basically called the shot.

And so when an article pops up from the Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos and Amazon, one of the richest, most influential organizations in the world, anchored by a man who could lose a million dollars a day and still have as much money tomorrow as he started with.

It's a situation where it gets my attention.

So I'll trace this story in the Washington Post, written by Michelle Boorstein, talking about a non-believer in Congress who comes out in her terms who comes out as a nonbeliever and is basically one of only two people who have ever been a member of Congress to declare that they are, in fact, a nonbeliever and who's now leading a crusade to, in essence, redeem our secular culture from the Christian nationalists and the Republicans.

And so the article is out there and it's well written.

It's a piece that makes the case very strongly.

So I shared the article with you and with the team.

And I wanted to take a time and ask you what you think about this idea that now, I mean, the Christian nationalists have taken a bunch of runs at us over the last four or five years.

Here's the latest one.

A member of Congress who, in essence, in their terms, is coming out as an unbeliever and declaring that his mission is to redeem our secular nation.

What would you think about that? Well,

so um I called you up and once again you were gracious enough to answer your your original famous academic stalker and me um and and basically said doc I'm going nuts again you know my eyes are bleeding my ears are bleeding my head is pounding I'm I'm on to this Christian nationalism stuff again And you are constantly a soothing balm to me to help put all of this in perspective.

And sometimes that's good enough, but I thought, you know, this is such a big story.

I would like to have the whole nation here, our listeners across the nation here, the conversation that we had and the take that you have, and the article that caused the conversation to begin is in the Washington Post.

And I'd like to set this in context.

We've been, again, we will not bury the lead.

As you know, I don't bury the lead here.

We've been talking about the Democratic Socialists of America, and we've been talking about C.S. Lewis and the technocracy, and we've been fostering the premise here, the idea that what the radical left wants to basically completely rework America, change everything, basically create a revolution, but they don't want a guns and bullets revolution.

they would love a marxist revolution that eliminated any concept of of of a theistic notion whatsoever is is an underpinning for our form of civil government they would love the elimination of private property they would love an elitist soviet politburo type of dictate dictatorship but they don't want to do it by shooting people They want to do it in partnership with the tech bros.

They want to go with the big tech companies and find a way to electronically and digitally so ensnare people that when the government moves in one direction, the people have to follow because the price of not following has become so great.

That's a bloodless revolution.

It's a tech revolution.

Now, that, granted, may be at this stage in the game considered to be a bit far-fetched and maybe even conspiratorial.

But I continue to look to Lewis's work in 1946 and that hideous strength in which he basically called the shot.

And so when an article pops up from the Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos and Amazon, one of the richest, most influential organizations in the world, anchored by a man who could lose a million dollars a day and still have as much money tomorrow as he started with.

It's a situation where it gets my attention.

So I'll trace this story in the Washington Post, written by Michelle Boorstein, talking about a non-believer in Congress who comes out in her terms who comes out as a nonbeliever and is basically one of only two people who have ever been a member of Congress to declare that they are, in fact, a nonbeliever and who's now leading a crusade to, in essence, redeem our secular culture from the Christian nationalists and the Republicans.

And so the article is out there and it's well written.

It's a piece that makes the case very strongly.

So I shared the article with you and with the team.

And I wanted to take a time and ask you what you think about this idea that now, I mean, the Christian nationalists have taken a bunch of runs at us over the last four or five years.

Here's the latest one.

A member of Congress who, in essence, in their terms, is coming out as an unbeliever and declaring that his mission is to redeem our secular nation.

What would you think about that? Well,