The Anti-Marxist Marxist: A Response to Christianity Today

By Phil Bair


July 25, 2020

I have always found it amazing how many notable Christian mouthpieces have vociferously denied giving any credence to Marxist ideology while at the same time giving wholesale credence to Marxist ideology. What is obvious to the most thoughtful observer schooled in Marxist philosophy is obscured in the minds of those who are saturated with it. The best way to make a disciple of Marxism is to convince the student they are not a disciple of Marxism. This does not mean that everyone who believes they are not a Marxist automatically is. But when they brazenly crank out Marxist ideology without realizing it, you have fairly solid evidence they’ve been had.

This is a shining testament to the power of critical theory. It is nearly impossible to obtain a formal education in our state colleges and universities without being infected with it without knowing it. It is also a testament to the genius of critical theory. Those who have been infected with it are seldom able to differentiate it from sound academic subject matter. It can disguise itself as legitimate scholarly study better than a chameleon can alter the color of its epidermis. Precious few people in this country are aware of how thoroughly Marxism has saturated our culture. It is, as Bill Whittle put it, “simply what people believe.”

Karl Marx and his followers considered his theories to be scientific orthodoxy, which no one who might wish to maintain a reputation as an intelligent human being should ever question. Thomas Sowell (who began his academic career as a Marxist) points out that not one of Marx’s theories in general, and of class warfare in particular, was ever treated as a testable hypothesis. They were implicitly assumed as though they held the status of dogmatic certainty. Asking for empirical evidence to support those theories was treated as babbling incoherence. The same is true of the new brand of fact-free Marxism that has invaded the Body of Christ like a cancer with slimy tentacles wrapped around and choking almost every major doctrine of spiritual significance you can think of. 

If we ponder these considerations for any length of time, we will soon discover an important principle: given that Marxist doctrines are not grounded in empirical fact, those who accept any given presupposition as axiomatic without any empirical or analytical evidence to support it are following in the rich Marxian tradition of epistemic vacuity. Falling into this trap does not make someone a Marxist; it can happen regardless of one’s ideology. But when it happens in conjunction with ideas that come straight out of the Marxist playbook, the objective observer is well within his rights to suspect a Marxist dumpster fire is in progress. That the speaker at the podium does not necessarily endorse every conceivable Marxist doctrine does not mean what they are currently articulating isn’t an example of doctrinaire Marxism.

The question of the hour is, is what you’re hearing the speaker say unique to Marxism? Or is it one of those valid overlapping concepts that can be harmonized with an orthodox Christian worldview, if indeed there is such a thing? That is the question Kelly Hamren wrestles with in the Christianity Today article entitled, Social Justice, Critical Race Theory, Marxism, and Biblical Ethics.

Is it theoretically possible that a given Marxist idea is compatible with historic Christianity? Of course. It’s possible. But that possibility alone does not guarantee theoretical parity in every case. Each claim must be addressed on its own merits, not just assumed simply because it’s considered plausible. I have observed frequent examples of Christian doctrine being twisted and bent to conform to Marxist ideology, where the twister-bender actually believes the opposite is taking place. I have also seen examples of Marxist ideology being twisted and bent to produce the illusion that it actually conforms to the Biblical principle of choice. And I have seen examples where a Marxist idea is thought to be compatible with the Word of God without altering either one, but one is in fact being altered without anyone realizing it.

The Infected Church

The most important observation I can make at this point in history is that Marxist ideology is infecting the Body of Christ in disturbing proportions. The idea of social justice, crafted within the Marxist framework, has replaced the Gospel of personal redemption. The most revealing evidence of this is that white people in the church are being told they must “repent” of their “whiteness,” and “apologize” for their “white privilege” and sinister “implicit bias” that gives them “white guilt” based on nothing more than that they belong to the white class. Nathanael Blake observed that, “wokeness is a religion of judgment, and the preachers have only contempt for their (white) flock.” That this anti-white class ideology is pure Marxism, and that it is hopelessly incompatible with the Gospel is clear: judging whites as being “guilty” of “whiteness” solely on the basis of their skin color is a glaring example of judging by mere appearance (which Christ strongly condemned), and is one of the clearest indicators of racism we have seen in our collective memory. The fact that racism is incompatible with Biblical principles and basic morality is not in dispute, no matter which side of the ideological divide one may find themselves.

Christ taught us that if we don’t forgive our brother, our Father in heaven will not forgive us. What is conspicuously absent from the vile abomination of religious piety we refer to as the “Woke Gospel“ is any trace of a call for forgiveness from those who have been ”wronged.” Heavy stress is placed on the apology for whiteness and white guilt (partly derived from the past sin of slavery), but nowhere is even a whisper of the necessity to forgive to be found. Sometimes during the “apologies,“ we hear “please forgive us.“ But asking for forgiveness and actually calling for forgiveness as a necessity in this game of pretense are two different things. If we follow the teaching of Christ on forgiveness with any faithfulness at all, it becomes painfully obvious that minorities and their woke sympathizers who demand fervent repentance and reparations from whites but refuse to forgive them will themselves receive zero forgiveness from the Father for their sins. I know, to say minorities have any sin in their hearts is blasphemy, which is yet another strong indicator that this is an obscene substitute for Biblical teaching. What does 1 John 1:8 say? “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” This goes for minorities as well as anyone else. They demand reparations, but never offer a molecule of mercy. This is conclusive proof that the woke Marxist cult of social justice is a classic case study in the doctrines of demons.

Sowell: “Those who suffered in centuries past are as much beyond our help as those who sinned are beyond our retribution.”

Whenever we wish to analyze arguments (or counter-arguments as the case may be) for the presence of a form of Marxism that is not only false, but incompatible with the Gospel, we have to ask 6 questions.

  1. Is the Marxist idea unique to Marxism?
  2. Does the Marxist idea have empirical or analytical evidence to support it? (Hint: this is a trick question)
  3. Is the Marxist idea compatible with Biblical teaching?
  4. Is the Biblical teaching in question being altered to fit the Marxist idea?
  5. Is the Marxist idea in question being altered to fit the Biblical teaching? (Note: if this is the case, this broaches the issue of whether the idea in question still belongs in the category of Marxism)
  6. Can the Marxist idea and the Biblical teaching be harmonized without altering the true meaning and application of either one?

As we examine Hamren’s four pairs of arguments and responses, asking one or more of these questions will help us determine the a. relevance, and b. validity of each one. 

Defining Marxism

It is also imperative at this point that I define what I mean by the term “Marxist” in the above questions. I would stipulate it like this: a Marxist idea is one that is defined by and originates in the ideology of Marxism, as articulated in classical Marxism or cultural Marxism.

The main Marxist ideas that are relevant to our modern discussion of Marxism include but are not limited to:

  1. Society can be divided up into disparate classes, and a moral point value can be assigned to each one on the basis of how powerful and/or oppressive that class is
  2. Individual human beings do not derive their identity from being made in the image of God, but rather derive their identity from and are defined by the class to which they belong
  3. The classes in society that maintain the centers of power or hegemony always oppress the weaker classes
  4. The evidence of the above oppression consists in the presence of socio-economic disparities between the powerful classes and the powerless ones
  5. The term justice is defined by the climactic event in history where the oppressed class overthrows and neutralizes the power of the oppressive class (this would constitute economic justice in classical Marxism, and social justice in cultural Marxism)
  6. No one deserves to be treated as an individual, but rather only deserves to be treated on the basis of the class to which they belong
  7. One’s moral character is not defined by their personal moral choices, but is defined by the class to which they belong
  8. One’s moral guilt is derived from their class rather than from their personal moral character or choices
  9. People who belong to the powerful class automatically share and acquire the guilt of that class
  10. People who belong to the powerless classes do not have guilt because of their class and for no other reason; it is incoherent to speak of minority guilt
  11. Moral guilt is derived from the fact of oppressive behavior on the part of the powerful class, cannot be otherwise, and there are no exceptions
  12. Personal privilege is derived from the class to which one belongs, rather than consisting of the rewards of their hard work or that of their ancestors
  13. People who belong to the powerful classes have privilege because of their class and for no other reason
  14. There is an obscene amount of inequality between the classes, and this inequality constitutes economic or social injustice
  15. All inequality between classes is caused by some form of oppression
  16. Equality is defined as uniformity of outcomes, status, levels of education, and success between classes
  17. All members of the powerful class are racists, there are no exceptions, and the evidence that one is racist is that they belong to the powerful class
  18. The racism inherent in the powerful class is systemic and pervasive throughout the institutions and “systems” forged by that class

Bear in mind that each one of the above ideas endemic to Marxism may be rooted in classical Marxism, or cultural Marxism, or both. Not all the ideas rooted in cultural Marxism are true in classical Marxism and vice versa. But some of the above are shared in common by both.

There is a world of content embodied in the philosophy of Karl Marx that goes far beyond what I have outlined here. If you want to educate yourself more thoroughly on his ideas, I recommend Das Kapital: a Critique of Political Economy, and The Communist Manifesto. It took me a year to decipher the former, so buyer beware. It may have been one of my philosophy professors who said, “if you’re having a hard time understanding Das Kapital, it’s because very little of it makes any sense.” I feel better now. At any rate, these condensed ideas are the ones that have been weaponized in our current culture, and therefore are the ones that deserve our attention. Marxism (in all its forms) is so much more than this, but it is certainly not less than this.

Before we go any further, we need to make a few brief observations about progressivism. In our day, progressivism has become almost indistinguishable from Marxism. Both ideologies believe that justice must be established through systemic change, and that this change must occur by force. For the progressive, it is by the coercive power of the state. In other words, there must be a government solution to the problems that plague society, and it is the state’s responsibility to craft that solution. Here progressivism differs from Marxism: in classical Marxism, socio-economic change is brought about by raw economic forces that will inevitably come to a boiling point on their own where any human intervention is only the last step in the process. The workers of the world will unite, but they will do so because of forces they scarcely can control. In cultural Marxism, it is the job of the oppressed classes to overthrow the powerful class in order to re-engineer society through the application of critical theory. But what they all have in common is the idea that there is class struggle in society and the only way to resolve it is for a systemic event or series of events that will redistribute power to the marginalized and engineer a new society where justice finally prevails. Progressivism and classical / cultural Marxism differ only in the methods used to trigger the revolution. Progressivism is the idea that human beings can make “progress” toward establishing the ideal society through social engineering. It should be obvious that the two primary ideologies overlap to such a degree that they can almost be considered one.

Before Hamren lays out her argument-response list, she tells us, I hope that…those patient enough to read these notes will acquit me of being a closet Marxist covering a secular agenda with a veneer of Bible verses. This is an interesting statement. One can be a “closet Marxist” consciously or unconsciously. Those with the best intentions and sincere antipathy to mainstream Marxism can nevertheless articulate Marxist ideas without realizing it. Refer to my comments above in reference to being indoctrinated in Marxist philosophy without knowing it’s Marxist philosophy, and how deeply Marxism is ingrained in our cultural thought patterns. I believe Hamren is sincere in this comment. But there is a big difference between being sincere and being self-aware.

Argument #1

The first argument Hamren examines reads, Like all sin, racism originates in the human heart. Therefore, the solution to racism is for people’s hearts to change. “Systemic racism,” on the other hand, is a Marxist idea.

In response to the idea that systemic racism is a [uniquely] Marxist idea, she has this to say: If people are born in sin and people build a society, that society will be structured in ways that reinforce whatever sins dominate the hearts of those who build it. It’s not clear whether she is denying that systemic racism is a Marxist idea, or if she is simply saying systemic racism is real whether it’s a Marxist idea or not. Whatever the case, to affirm the reality, or even the plausibility, of systemic racism is problematic in more ways than one.

Hamren’s idea that society will be structured in ways that reinforce the sins of those who build it is assumed and asserted, but not argued for. I was hoping she would offer evidence to support this lofty declaration, but she doesn’t. She immediately moves to the conclusion she draws from the premise: Therefore, even if many people’s hearts change a few generations later, those structures might still perpetuate the problems associated with that society’s “original sins.”

First, that society will reinforce the sins of those who build it is nowhere near a valid assumption. Since Hamren, in the Marxist tradition of evidence-free assertions, does not offer a shred of empirical data to support this assumption, we have no reason to give it our prima-facie credence. The fundamental assumption at its core is that anything a morally flawed being builds will reflect that being’s moral flaws without exception. If I as a sinner therefore write a book, that book will be infected with my sin, and it could not have been otherwise. If an architect who is a sinner designs a house, it will be a house full of the sin of the architect. So Hamren’s “logic” would lead us to believe that society will reflect the racism in our hearts simply because it was a group of racist sinners who built it. I would ask her to give me examples of how my sin is being reflected in the article you are reading at this moment, or how her sin is reflected in the article she wrote.

Second, even if society does reflect the sins of those who built it, which of those sins will it reflect? Why would society reflect racism, but not adultery? Why not dishonesty? Does society intrinsically foster adultery or dishonesty simply because those who built it are sinners and those are random examples of sin? Or will all possible sins we could ever commit as sinners be built into its DNA simply because it was a gang of sinners who built it? If that is the case, and it seems like it should be, society would be a chaotic mass of moral rot from the outset. How could it be otherwise if this premise is to be taken seriously? 

Third, it’s entirely possible that whatever a fallen sinner creates, whether it is a society or a house, will be imperfect. But imperfection and moral decay are not the same thing. We can all agree that society is not perfect due to the fallen status of those who built it. But it does not follow from this that society automatically reflects whatever specific sin we wish to arbitrarily assign to it.

Fourth, does society reflect the good in the people who built it? People are sinners, but they still bear the marks of the image of God. Human beings have built societies throughout history that have had morally virtuous characteristics, despite the fact that they weren’t perfect. If society automatically reflects the sin of the builders, why would it not also reflect their virtue? And if it could possibly reflect their virtue, why couldn’t it reflect non-racist attitudes? The automatic assumption that it doesn’t or it can’t is an article of faith in the Marxist worldview, not an empirical fact based on evidence.

Fifth, let’s return to Hamren’s conclusion that even if people’s hearts change later, those structures might still perpetuate the problems associated with its original sins. “Might?” Will it perpetuate those problems or won’t it? What factors would influence the outcome of this possibility? We are never informed of this. That it might perpetuate those problems does not mean it will. How are we to know whether it did or didn’t? Since Hamren is not a big fan of empirical evidence in this case, we can only guess. I would, however, ask for the evidence whether she is interested in it or not. To draw the conclusion that society perpetuates former sins even after moral progress has been made since it was first established requires a lot more than vacuous conjecture.

The truth is, systemic racism is a neo-Marxist idea. It is not a Biblical idea. Those two facts alone don’t make it false, but it does require investigative analysis if we are to affirm it as true. If we discover that it is a Marxist idea and that it’s false, we have just accrued additional capital to support the idea that Marxism is an evil ideology that is incompatible with Biblical truth. In that case, the present reality that Marxism has invaded the Body of Christ, far from being a welcome complimentary ideology, becomes even more pernicious. 

When asked about whether the term systemic racism has any objective meaning, Sowell’s reply is: It really has no meaning that can be specified and tested as one tests hypotheses. It does remind me of the propaganda tactics of Joseph Goebbels from the age of the Nazis, who said people will believe in any lie if you repeat it long enough and loud enough. Since the term is devoid of any objective coherent meaning, we can only address it in terms of what the Marxists think it means and what they say it means. This needs to be kept in mind as we go forward.

To establish systemic racism as a Marxist idea, examining the doctrines of cultural Marxism becomes job one. Remember that cultural Marxism identifies a set of social classes and assigns metrics of morality to each one based on concentration of “power.” In cultural Marxism, those classes are identified by their cultural attributes rather than their economic ones in the case of classical Marxism. The primary cultural attribute is that of race. Remember also that cultural Marxism insists that the majority classes always oppress the minority classes. In the cultural Marxist framework, oppression is grounded in racial bias. This is why the oracles of cultural Marxism have assigned the quality of racism to the dominant white class. Since moral attributes are assigned to individuals based on their class, the racism that is allegedly endemic to the white class is necessarily systemic and will be built into white systems and institutions by default. This is Critical Theory 101.

As for whether systemic racism exists, we again must rely on evidence rather than ideology. Marxists (and Hamren must unfortunately be included in this observation) believe in systemic racism as a matter of faith based on their antecedent ideology, not on evidence. As long as that is true, systemic racism is impossible to falsify. You cannot refute an article of faith on the basis of faith. Remember that no one, Marxist or not, has provided evidence that systemic racism exists. The only “evidence” that is offered is in the form of socio-economic disparities, the existence of which is of no value in establishing the reality of systemic racism. 

Is the situation hopeless? It turns out that there is evidence that systemic racism as Marxists “define” it does not exist. I will provide four examples of that evidence.

  1. If systemic racism existed, there would not be thousands of black success stories in the United States, including millionaire black NFL players, the sterling success of black neurosurgeons, lawyers, members of congress, architects, teachers, etc., and the election of a black president. Twice. As Steven Crowder pointed out, “if we are a racist country, we suck at it.”

  2. White rednecks from the South lovingly rushed to the aid of black victims of the 2017 Houston floods. There is powerful footage of white people pulling black flood victims out of the water and into their boats to save them from drowning. This would not have happened if there was systemic racism with its accompanying implicit bias against blacks. Whites who are implicitly racist against blacks don’t trip over themselves to rescue them from a natural disaster. Instead, they sit at home, crack open another beer, and laugh while they watch black people drown on their flat screen TVs.

  3. Systemic racism holds that whites as a majority class always oppress minority classes, regardless of which minority classes they may be. Asian Americans are more prosperous, more educated, and more successful than whites. They also have lower crime rates. If systemic racism existed, white oppression would impact Asian Americans as much as any other minority. Yet Asian Americans are better off than whites. Further, if socio-economic “privilege” automatically oppresses the underprivileged as the ideology of systemic racism claims, the systemic racism cult members should be screaming at Asians far more loudly than they scream at whites, since Asians are higher on the economic scale than whites are. But systemic racism disciples never scream at Asians; they only scream at whites.

  4. Black immigrants from the West Indies have apparently escaped the impact of systemic racism, since their socio-economic outcomes are far better than those of African-Americans, in fact far better than the average American—including white Americans, even though it is impossible to distinguish between these two groups of blacks. The racist would not be able to tell the difference, nor would he care if he could. If systemic racism existed, it would impact the black West Indies immigrants to the same degree as African Americans. It doesn’t. Therefore systemic racism does not exist.

Not only is there no evidence for systemic racism, there is conclusive evidence against it. It is false, and by definition incompatible with Biblical truth.

The cultural Marxist view of class attributes, as Hamren correctly points out, means that rather than people having “essential selves” apart from “historical contexts,” their moral attributes are derived from their class. The inescapable implication of this is that racism is a class-based attribute, which means that all whites are now racists because they are white. The idea that all people who belong to a given class are morally flawed (i.e. inferior) because of nothing more than the color of their skin is the very essence of racism. It follows from this that believing in systemic racism is itself a form of racism, since it implies intrinsic white racism (or “implicit bias”) that is built into white ”systems.” You cannot separate these two ideas. If one stands, so does the other. If one falls, the other does as well. If we follow this inescapable line of reasoning to its logical conclusions, we must recognize that anything that implies the racist idea of systemic racism affirms a racist idea, which makes each antecedent presupposition a racist idea as well. Anything that implies a racist idea affirms that racist idea, which in turn inescapably embraces racism. When Hamren addresses the claim that systemic racism is a Marxist idea, she goes on to explain to us that either this is not necessarily the case, or that it’s true whether it’s a Marxist idea or not. Whichever path she follows takes her to the same destination. She affirms the concept of systemic racism by supporting it with the claim that those who build society will build their sin into it, and thus for her systemic racism is a valid concept. In other words, she affirms systemic racism by confronting the challenge to it that relies on the claim that the idea is a Marxist one. Since she affirms systemic racism, therefore, she has just endorsed a racist idea. When you endorse a racist idea, you have become a racist. Now Hamren has a decision to make. She can either deny that systemic racism exists as a faulty Marxist doctrine, or she can defend racism itself in all its glory. For her, there is no third alternative.

Hamren rejects the Marxist remedy for social pathology caused by what she calls the sin “that originates in the human heart.” That language sounds Biblical. But for her, that sin manifests itself as systemic pathology that is built into society as institutional racism nevertheless. Hamren wants to have it both ways, but if she affirms the class pathology of systemic racism (and she does), the Marxist narrative remains central to her analysis of the problem. This is where the example I gave above enters the playing field: modifying Biblical teaching to conform to Marxist ideology. As long as she affirms the reality of systemic racism, the Marxist narrative eclipses the Biblical one. 

In other words, though Hamren rejects the Marxist remedy: If you believe (as I do) that sin, such as racism, originates in the human heart and merely manifests itself in society, you can recognize the above project as fundamentally utopian, she accepts the Marxist diagnosis: sin, such as racism…manifests itself in society. Remember that we already examined what she means by that. It is not that sin manifests itself in the granular transactions that occur in society between individuals. It manifests itself within the systems of society, which points to the class pathology Marxism speaks of. How do we know she has chosen the latter over the former? Because she defended the validity of systemic racism using the claim that society will reflect the sins of its builders—a claim we have already exposed as faulty Marxist dogma.

I’m sure Hamren sincerely believes that since she has rejected the Marxist remedy (a utopian re-engineered society), that she therefore has successfully removed herself from the ideology of Marxism. But all that has happened is she has rejected specific Marxist doctrines concerning how society can repair itself, while retaining other Marxist doctrines concerning how the damage was done in the first place. What has replaced the remedy she has rejected? We find our answer from the following: Other systemic changes might involve better guarantees for parental leave, stronger incentives for paternal involvement or financial support, and funding for adoptive and social service venues. Pay close attention to the phrase “systemic changes.” They include “guarantees for parental leave,” “incentives for paternal involvement or financial support,” and the coup de grâce, “funding for adoptive and social service venues.” What form do all these “systemic changes” take? Government funded programs and solutions. In other words, she has rejected one social engineering option so that she can adopt another social engineering option instead. She goes on to say: Addressing the problem of abortion at the systemic level does not mean caving into Marxism unless we believe that doing so is the only, complete, and permanent solution. But addressing a problem like abortion at the systemic level is equivalent to arriving at a government solution. Government solutions to social pathology ultimately remain under the purview of progressivism, which is so closely woven together with Marxism that addressing these problems at the “systemic level” is ultimately no different from “caving into Marxism.” How? 

To answer that question we observe that the ideologies of Marxism and progressivism are both derived from a more fundamental ideology known as “collectivism.” Collectivism is the bedrock of the unholy trinity of collectivist socio-political ideologies: socialism, communism, and fascism. Progressivism is essentially collectivist at its core. And all collectivist political systems embrace a common ideology that expresses itself as the collectivist vision of forging the ideal society. Guess what that common ideology is? Marxism. Progressivism is now a branch of Marxism that deviates from its prescriptions for rectifying social pathology, but remains equivalent to it when it comes to the analysis of those pathologies: class conflict, and class oppression. So Hamren’s approach to addressing problems “at the systemic level” is still grounded in a Marxist worldview, except that the relationship simply takes a small detour through progressive land before rejoining the party. 

There’s more. When progressivism calls for government solutions to social pathologies (like Hamren does), it is essentially engaging in a form of social engineering. This stands in contrast to addressing social problems within the private sector, circumventing government involvement. The latter agenda is willing to trust the people to do what’s right and to address social concerns through voluntary cooperation and personal involvement. Efforts like these are funded by individuals and philanthropic organizations that operate outside the crushing iron fist of government force. The former agenda is unwilling to relinquish control to the private sector because it believes this will end in tragic failure. The government, according to the progressive vision, is better equipped to foster justice and reform, and it will succeed where the private sector will fail. After all, the private sector is made up of people earning and dispensing resources through personal choice, and this undertaking, according to progressivism, will always be undermined by the corrosive presence of greed. Capitalists are allegedly driven by greed, not compassion. Government, on the other hand, is supposedly free of the shackles of greed, and will act in a just way to combat social dysfunction like poverty and unemployment. This is Karl Marx talking. The progressive vision is closer to Marxism than any other competing ideology. In the final analysis, there is little difference between the two ideologies in our modern discourse. We may as well call it progmarxivism.

But the problems with “systemic changes” are just getting started. When government “solutions” (which is what “systemic changes” means) to racial bias emerge from the U.S. legislature, the race merchants of society like Al ‘Shakedown’ Sharpton obtain more and more statutory ammunition for their high-stakes game of bureaucratic intimidation. If indeed systemic racism existed, minority advocacy groups would have no interest in seeing it come to an end. Why? Because if it did, it would cut off the steady supply of racial grievance derived from the abundant inventory of “racial bias” in the workplace from which the race merchants profit beyond the dreams of avarice. As Taleeb Starkes puts it: One must understand that these “call to action” reactions are not spontaneous; they’re calculated maneuvers promoted by an ever-present Race Grievance Industry (RGI) — an industry whose only product is victimhood… and it’s manufactured without pause. The indictment of systemic racism is a multi-billion dollar industry. Why would anyone who makes untold millions of dollars from racial grievance and victimology ever want racism to go away? It’s their golden egg. This is true whether there is such a thing as systemic racism or not. Its existence is irrelevant. The narrative is all that counts, and they will protect that narrative at all costs. This is where the role of the army of social justice cult members is so vital. They push the lie with unrelenting ferocity, and the scorching fire of judgment will shoot out of their eyes and nostrils if you get in the way. Have you ever heard of “disparate impact?” If you haven’t, you need to become intimately familiar with that term. The race hustlers meet with corporate executives and present them with a disparate impact report, showing a lack of proper minority representation in their workforce. The corporation has a choice: settle out of court by exceeding to the demands of the race con, or find themselves in federal court facing a crippling multi-billion dollar lawsuit for employment discrimination and unlawful racist hiring practices. Very few of these cases have ever darkened the chamber door of any U.S. superior court. When they don’t, the race-baiting con artists get rich, and at the end of the day, no changes are made in the proportionate representation of racial groups in the corporate workplace. In other words, the minority advocacy groups do not improve the lives of minorities or their families one iota. They improve their own bank accounts. Starkes again: The RGI will declare that race is a social construct, but then use race to socially construct a paycheck. It turns out the insistence on the existence of systemic racism and its associated oppression in economic habitats is driven by profit, not principle. Sowell: The vision of cosmic justice is very beneficial to the people who hold it, even if it’s not beneficial to those whom it’s intended to benefit. It’s ironic that Marxists, who supply the ideological currency for the lucrative race industry call whites, capitalists, and conservatives “greedy.”

Meanwhile, helping to ameliorate the disparities by standing up for the black nuclear family, addressing the tragedy of growing up in homes without fathers, and working in the private sector toward wholeness and healing in black culture won’t make anyone rich. Maybe that’s why there is little interest in pursuing those objectives on the political stage. 

Argument #2

Hamren’s second argument reads, Critical Race Theory is a Marxist framework, and therefore, it is antithetical to the gospel.

Her response? Critical race theory is informed by Marxism, but Karl Marx wasn’t wrong about everything, even though she claims to reject his philosophy “as a whole.” She then lists the areas where she and Marx are on the same page.

First she says Power does exist, and people do sometimes use it to oppress others.

When people read this Marxist doctrinal statement—which by the way is framed in pure economic terms, it sounds reasonable to them and they simply read on. What we get next is a list of examples she thinks reinforce the assertion.

There are two problems with this. First, the statement is false. And second, the examples do not support it.

The fact that people will glibly accept the idea that this economic “power does exist” is indicative of what I intoned earlier: Marxism is deeply embedded in our society’s patterns of thought—so much so that it is simply what people believe. Verifying this is not difficult: all one needs to do is pay attention to the massive wave of political correctness ideology (which comes directly out of Marxist ideology), and the pervasive support socialism has among young people. The same can be said of the idea that people are “oppressed” by this power, and that the examples can easily be seen in the area of labor relations and conditions where racial inequality is seen as the primary cause. People believe these things because they have never been taught otherwise, and are not aware that basic economic principles expose them as unqualified nonsense. We will have more to say about this later.

It’s mildly reassuring that Hamren admits these are Marxist doctrines, and that they are the product of critical theory. But it’s disappointing that she blindly accepts them as axiomatic and universally valid. They are nothing of the sort. Recall what we observed about giving credence to Marxist doctrine when it can be shown to be false.

Let’s explore this claim and its examples.

As for the claim that “power does exist,” it needs to be stressed, again, that Hamren is talking about economic power, since her examples are all related to labor relations, hiring and firing, and levels of pay: Just ask anyone whose boss fired him/her for no good reason. Even Marx’s cited evidence for the above truths was legitimate. During the Industrial Revolution, factory workers had few legal protections, worked overly long hours in unsafe environments, and received few benefits and low pay.

But none of these are examples of “power.” Bosses don’t fire people for “no good reason.” There is always a reason, or the firing would never take place. That people are fired for no good reason is a myth propelled by people who are economically illiterate, just like Karl Marx was. Not only is there a litany of reasons why bosses fire people, doing so is not a power move. When a boss fires someone, he is actually giving up a measure of power. Now he doesn’t have as many workers in his workforce, and he will suddenly have to compensate for it by redistributing the workload to the remaining workers. This puts stress on his workforce and the outcome of that stress is usually not something the boss enjoys. It could lead to others quitting to find a better job with less stress and better working conditions. This is not a description of “power.” No boss in his right mind is going to go through this inconvenience and loss of productivity “for no good reason.” If he fires people for pleasure, the business will suffer. If he does it often enough, the business will fail. 

Despite Hamren’s faulty claim to the contrary, Marx’s “cited evidence” of these “truths” is far from “legitimate.” One of the fatal flaws in his “observations” concerning working conditions was what I call the snapshot fallacy. Marx failed to see the reality of how economics and the parameters of labor operate, and his disciples have the same uninformed myopia. Rather than seeing things frozen in time, astute observers learn how to see trends. Marxists also fail to understand how business evolves: if indeed workers are working long hours in unsafe environments, other entrepreneurs will build a safer factory, learn how to be more efficient with their investments, and offer people better jobs at better pay. This has been happening ever since the industrial revolution began. But Marxists don’t see the dynamics of industry, they only see what they want to condemn. Improvements take place constantly in the fluid environment of industry. Wages increase with increased productivity and due to the impact of competition. In general, per capita income has risen dramatically (270% – adjusted for inflation) over the last 60 years. Working conditions improve, or the managers and directors will lose their workforce to businesses that will attract workers with better working conditions. If someone’s pay is unacceptable to them, they will look for a job with better pay, and the businesses who offer the higher wages will become more successful while the less efficient businesses will go under. 

Another concept Hamren is blissfully unaware of is the disparity between intention and outcome. An employer who may be steeped in bigotry may have sinister intentions to oppress minorities in the context of his hiring practices. But intentions do not always produce their conceived outcomes. During reconstruction, former slave owners and their sympathizers in the South did everything they could to keep black people from succeeding in the areas of employment and education. But blacks flourished during that period, despite the malicious intentions of those attempting to hold them back. (See D’Souza, The End of Racism, Free Press, 1995.)

The other central flaw in the “cited evidence” is that none of these conditions exist in a vacuum. The phrase “low pay” is meaningless without a reference point. Low compared to what? Compared to what they wish they were making? Compared to what they need? Unlike Marxists, informed economists understand that wages are set by two primary principles: productivity and competition. Need and desire have nothing to do with it. Nor does what the worker “deserves” in the minds of people who have little comprehension of basic economic principles. If an employer pays a wage that is too low compared to the market, they will lose their workforce to businesses that are willing to pay a higher wage. This is called competition. If an employer pays a wage that is higher than the level of productivity of the worker (which is exactly the condition minimum wage laws create), they will bleed cash, and will have to compensate somehow. They may have to give the worker a pay cut to compensate for the low productivity (unless they are already at minimum wage). They may have to raise prices for their goods. Or they may have to lay that worker off. When this happens, outside observers who are unaware of the ebb and flow of the economic realities every business owner faces tend to condemn him as being unfair or unjust. This of course is nonsense. Yet Marxists who make these mistakes are convinced that this is the result of a power struggle and that the workers are being oppressed. Some Marxists have become educated in these things and have abandoned Marxism in favor of sanity. If only this would happen more often. But it is rare, because most Marxists have spent far more of their life in our institutions of higher “learning” than in the real world.

The next Marxist doctrinal statement Hamren endorses is Oppressed people do suffer, and their suffering is often unjust.

Rather than offering evidence of this oppression, Hamren makes a hard left turn. She speaks of how oppression is oblique to the compassion we have as Christians for the poor and oppressed. I applaud her dedication to Biblical compassion and the defense of the defenseless. But Hamren has failed to connect the dots between the Marxist “observation” of oppression and the Biblical imperative to counteract it. The Bible never instructs us to do battle with adversaries that aren’t real.

The most common logical fallacy coursing through the faulty ideology of Marxism is that of affirming the consequent. It goes like this:

1- Oppression causes suffering and injustice.

2- There is suffering and injustice.

3-  Therefore, oppression is the cause of it.

This is a kindergarten mistake, yet Marxists make it over and over again. We see it in the current myth of systemic racism, which if true will cause economic disparities. So when the Marxists see the reality of disparities, they automatically infer systemic racism. This is another example of people spending too much time in the classroom studying Marxist dogma (having skipped any courses in formal logic or having slept through them) and not enough time in the real world studying reality. The only reality they see is the disparities, while ignoring or being completely oblivious to why they exist.

But Hamren continues down the rabbit hole: What some are referring to as “social justice” these days—making sure our laws and institutions don’t make it easier for the powerful to oppress marginalized groups—often refers to good, old-fashioned biblical justice.

Here she builds on the same faulty assumption that led her into confusion before: that our systems breed oppression. It would be wise to repeat our earlier observation at this point, that Hamren offers zero empirical evidence that this is the case. There is no question that Biblical justice occasionally refers to people being oppressed. This oppression in some Biblical narratives comes from two primary sources: the rich, and the government. What we do not find in the biblical narratives is “oppression by systems,” a concept that is foreign to the Word of God. Systems don’t oppress people, people oppress people. Those people are usually members of congress. 

Don’t make the mistake of thinking I am denying that economic injustice ever occurs or has ever existed. The point here is not to deny its existence, but to insist on evidence to support the accusations of that injustice in our present society and our present laws. In other words, when Marxists claim that our “laws and institutions” are oppressive, they need to support that claim, not just assert it out of thin air (and “thin air” here means “Marxist dogma”). That this is a popular idea, and that it makes people feel noble and morally superior explains its existence more than the vacuous “evidence” we are given when we have the audacity to ask for it. Ben Shapiro once dialoged with someone after a lecture who found it appalling that Shapiro wasn’t on the front lines fighting systemic racism and economic oppression. Shapiro responded by asking where this systemic oppression is. He assured the one asking the question that he would join them in the fight as soon as they showed him what he was fighting. I have the same approach. I am glad to fight systemic racism at your side as soon as you show me where it exists. I am happy to join the campaign against laws that are economically unjust as soon as you tell me which laws you’re referring to. But rather than providing evidence and examples, I am simply called a racist just for asking the question.

Hamren tells us that those who have more should be given structural incentives to share with those who have less. Structural incentives? Why? Aren’t the biblical and moral incentives enough? Apparently not, or structural incentives wouldn’t enter the conversation. And what does “share with those who have less” mean? I was raised to interpret that phrase as a general definition of charity. Charity is born of compassion, on the part of people of faith and goodwill. If they need “structural incentives” in the vein of Marxist sophistry, they will evade them. Charity must be voluntary, and not the result of “incentives” that pressure people into doing what they might not otherwise do. I personally have all the incentive I need to help the poor right in front of me: it’s called the Bible. To think the government must inspire or pressure people into helping their neighbor is to endorse a hideous political substitute for individual generosity. 

Hamren admits exactly how the principle of protecting the poor should be translated into legislation and cultural practices today is a separate question—one I’m not prepared to address here.

I’m grateful she isn’t prepared to address that question. The reason for my gratitude is she is not qualified to address that question. Had she been educated in economic principles, she would be. But since she is not, she isn’t. To someone who is saturated with Marxist ideology, tampering with how people in society help those in need through legislation is the proper role of government. To those who know better, it is the role of individuals and groups in the private sector. The government needs to get out of the charity business where it doesn’t belong. It will only do evil there. We have seen the results, which ironically are the very pathologies Marxists think the government needs to fix. Government assistance is a great evil. Hamren should know better.

The last comments I will make regarding this section have to do with Hamren’s notion that the term “social justice” is sometimes co-opted by Marxists. My reaction to this was almost one of shock. Marxists did not co-opt the idea of social justice. They practically invented it. The term refers to the overthrow—by any means necessary, not ruling out violence—of the majority “oppressive” class so that wealth and “equality” can be redistributed by force, destroying individual freedom in the process. This agenda involves naked theft of property in the name of “justice.” Ironic, no? Far from being grounded in the Word of God, that’s what “social justice” really is. In the words of Inigo Montoya, “you keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.” 

Argument #3

The third argument Hamren addresses is that The Black Lives Matter movement is Marxist and supportive of the LGBTQ community’s attempts to criminalize traditional, biblical views of sexuality.

Her response to this claim is that most people who use the #blacklivesmatter hashtag have no connection to the movement proper.

My direct reply to Hamren’s response is this: your naiveté is showing. She has fallen for the oldest con in the book, the Motte and Bailey trick. This occurs when a pundit conflates two positions which share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial (the “bailey”). The pundit advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position. (I took this description from Wikipedia. I don’t endorse that site, but it sometimes provides helpful explanations of politically neutral topics.)

Black Lies Matter (and no, that is not a typo; it is deliberate and more accurate) is a race-baiting hate group. To think those who use the hashtag have no connection to the movement is to fall for the deceptive tactic of gaining support for BLM (which also stands for Burning, Looting, and Murdering) by convincing the potential supporter that their ideology and agenda are healthy and wholesome. 

Hamren speaks of standing up for the oppressed when it comes to the suffering of the black community. Her entire narrative here is a meaningless waste of words. She is committing the same perennial fallacy of begging the question Marxists commit in all other areas. You have to establish through reliable evidence that someone is being oppressed before you call for people to stand up for them.

White people are not oppressing blacks. The breakdown of the American black family is doing that. At our moment in history the best way to show love and compassion for our brothers and sisters in the black community would be to encourage the restoration of dual-parent households and raising children with fathers in the home. BLM, as Hamren rightly pointed out, stands for the destruction of the nuclear family, and that is exactly the core problem the black community faces. BLM’s agenda to destroy the family is the cause of their very existence. They pretend to combat what their own ideology has caused. If this wasn’t so tragic, it would be humorous. It’s like starting a forest fire and then applying for a job as a firefighter to put it out.

Don’t be fooled. Those using the hashtag are either being played or they are complicit. They are supporting the destruction of the black family and the violence endemic to BLM whether they realize it or not. If not, it’s time we enlightened them. Either way, they are without excuse. For Hamren to dismiss those using the hashtag as being dissociated with the group is grossly irresponsible.

As for the LGBTQ agenda that BLM promotes, Hamren gives us more confusion: There is a real fear among members of the LGBTQ community that they will suffer violence and dehumanization from others (and instances of such violence are well-documented). As human beings, they deserve protection from those threats.

The perceived threat to members of the queer community (as BLM puts it) comes in two forms. The first is in actual violence and dehumanization. As Christians, we should absolutely stand with them against such assaults. 

But the second form of perceived threats is often conflated with the first: standing up and publicly condemning the queer lifestyle and political agenda. When we condemn sexual deviance, we are accused of hate and intolerance toward those who are in bondage to it. It is imperative we differentiate between those two trajectories. Standing with homosexuals against real threat and condemning their lifestyle so they can escape it are both expressions of love.

Argument #4

Hamren frames her last section with an examination of the following: The concept of “white privilege” is unjust because it blames white people today for atrocities, such as slavery or segregation, that were set up generations ago and that they had no hand in creating. It also suggests that white people today should feel guilty for racism even if they are not racists themselves.

Her response to this narrative is that there really is such a thing as white privilege, and that though white guilt is not a valid concept, doing something about white privilege is a moral imperative for which we should incur guilt if we don’t address it: I should feel guilty if I recognize the larger problem at work here—both individual and systemic racism—and do nothing about it.

We have already seen that systemic racism does not exist, and that whether blacks are treated differently than whites has little to do with racism. But the Marxist narrative, propagated throughout our society through critical theory, is so dominant in our culture that it is never questioned, never doubted, and seldom if ever corrected with truth. White privilege is a myth. It always has been. We incur guilt for failing to address real problems, not imaginary ones.

In her entire article, Hamren never mentions the fact that blacks commit the overwhelming majority of the crime in our society. This fact alone completely changes the landscape when it comes to understanding disparate treatment of blacks in society. 

Thomas Sowell:

If you are walking at night down a lonely street, and see up ahead a shadowy figure in an alley, do you judge that person as an individual or do you cross the street and pass on the other side? The shadowy figure in the alley could turn out to be a kindly neighbor, out walking his dog. But, when making such decisions, a mistake on your part could be costly, up to and including costing you your life.

In other contexts, you may in fact judge each person as an individual. But that this depends on context means that people have already been implicitly pre-sorted by the context, and only after that pre-sorting are they then judged as individuals. For example, a professor entering a classroom on the first day of the academic year may judge and treat each student as an individual. But that same professor, walking down a lonely street at night, may not judge and react to each stranger on the road ahead as an individual.

People who would never walk through a particular neighborhood at night, or perhaps not even in broad daylight, may nevertheless be indignant at banks that engage in “redlining”—that is, putting a whole neighborhood off-limits as a place to invest their depositors’ money. The observers’ own “redlining” in their choices of where to walk may never be seen by them as a different example of the same principle.

(Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities, pub. Basic Books, 2018) 

The fact that blacks are more likely to commit a crime in any given context is not a racist idea, it is a statistical reality. To protect yourself and others from potential criminal acts on the basis of raw probability is less costly than treating the black patron at the department store as an individual. This does not make it racism, and it does not make how the same people treat whites “white privilege.” It has nothing to do with whites, other than the fact that whites commit fewer crimes per capita than blacks. Discrimination has costs, and non-discrimination does as well. But being a member of a community that has the highest crime rate in the country incurs the highest cost of all. It’s not fair that an individual black person of integrity has to endure suspicion because of the disproportionate number of crimes committed by his brothers. But that doesn’t mean those who are protecting what has been entrusted to them as effectively as possible are racists.

Not all discrimination is evil. Some of it is rational, some of it is fact-based, and some of it is actually responsible. If a hiker sees a chipmunk on the trail in front of him, he will think nothing of it, because he knows that he is not likely to be attacked by a chipmunk. But if he sees a wolf on the trail in front of him, he’s going to pay close attention to its movements. Why? Because he knows from fact-based experience that he is more likely to be attacked by a wolf than by a chipmunk. Does that mean he thinks wolves are inferior to chipmunks? Does that create “chipmunk privilege?” No and no. It could be that the wolf has been domesticated and was someone’s pet. It merely got loose from the campground. But it would be irresponsible for the hiker to treat the wolf as though it wasn’t a threat, since that decision could cost him his life. 

If a cab driver sees a black youth hailing a cab in the inner city of Detroit at 2AM, the driver may decide not to pick up that fare. He may in fact refuse to pick him up “because he is black.” Does that mean the cab driver is racist? I’m sure Hamren would probably think so. Cab drivers do this all the time, and they incur the scorn of cultural observers accusing them of being racist. Now let me ask a question: what color is the cab driver’s skin? Most people would assume the cab driver is white. But I didn’t mention the race of the driver. It is a fact that black cab drivers do the same thing. Still think racism is the root of the decision? This is discrimination, but it’s what is called “rational discrimination,” since the cab driver knows that statistically the black youth is many times more likely to commit a crime against the cab driver than other ethnic groups. This is not racism, it’s reality. Statistical reality. Blacks make up 13% of the population but they commit 50% of the homicides. The cab driver is merely reducing his risk. He just wants to get home to his family in one piece. (I am in debt to Dinesh D’Souza for the cab driver illustration, but it has also been used elsewhere.) This is a tragedy, but not an injustice. Marxists will confuse the two so fast it will make your head spin.

We may entertain the idea that everyone should incur the cost of treating the black person as an individual. But that’s not the point. The point is that those who choose not to incur that cost, or who don’t have the resources or opportunity to do so do not deserve to be called racists or to be accused of extending “white privilege” to people who don’t “deserve” it. Their decision not to incur the cost of treating someone as an individual is between them and God. We could encourage more people to be more willing to incur that cost whenever possible, and that wouldn’t be a waste of time by any means. But to judge people for decisions like that as racist is a serious departure from sound moral judgment, and I can think of precious few things more unloving.

At this point it is important to point out that there is a critical difference between fact-based discrimination on the one hand and the Marxist habit of treating people according to their class rather than their personal character on the other. Fact-based discrimination is not treating someone who belongs to a certain class as inferior because they belong to that class. Nor is it judging by mere appearance. It is caution in the absence of knowledge of the character of a given individual who belongs to a group with a higher crime rate. Fact-based discrimination means treating someone differently based on a set of known statistics because not enough information is available to treat them as an individual. As Sowell pointed out, obtaining that information incurs a cost, and an investment in time. If one has the opportunity to gather enough information to treat someone as an individual, they should take it. But that opportunity does not always exist, as in the case of the cab driver. The driver doesn’t have the luxury of getting to know the young black man trying to hail a cab. But when Marxists treat people according to their class, they are treating them as inferior without bothering to take the time to discover who they are as an individual. They wouldn’t do so even if they had the opportunity, because they don’t consider it necessary. To a Marxist, personal character and integrity do not exist. Only class attributes do. This is judging by mere appearance. But the cab driver who is not a Marxist might be perfectly willing to get to know the young black man, and might believe it’s possible he is a man of integrity who would not commit a crime during the cab ride. If the cab driver had the opportunity to pursue that agenda, and discovered such integrity, the knowledge would fill him with joy. But he simply doesn’t have that luxury at two in the morning in the inner city. The Marxist, on the other hand, will not bother getting to know someone belonging to a class he considers oppressive, even if he does have the opportunity. That’s because the Marxist worldview tells him that he knows everything he needs to know already based on class identification alone.

Referring to the “larger problem” of systemic or individual racism, Hamren continues: I can’t fix it single-handedly, but I can speak up. I can vote. I can teach texts in my classroom that confront these issues. I can say something when a white friend tells a racist joke. I can listen to my friends of color when they share their experiences and allow myself to be guided by their insight. If I don’t, I’m part of the problem and share the guilt of perpetuating it (even though I didn’t personally cause it).

I have heard similar narratives concerning a response to the “larger problem” from well-meaning people of faith. The response would be valid and meaningful if the “problem” did in fact exist. No one I know who has taken this posture and made this kind of commitment to “fix it” or “speak up” has ever stopped to consider whether the “problem” truly exists in the first place. They don’t think it’s their responsibility to bother with such questions. They just assume the Marxist diagnosis is correct without any empirical evidence to support it, and are completely oblivious to the possibility that they’re trying to solve a problem that isn’t there.

Facts and evidence did not give birth to the myth of systemic racism. The cradle of the myth is cultural Marxism that uses critical theory to judge people on the basis of their class rather than their personal character. This ideology holds that white people are intrinsically evil and always oppress minorities out of malice and bigotry. It’s the basis for other myths like white privilege and white guilt. Ultimately, it’s a vile form of racism against white people. Ironic, isn’t it? The ideology that contains the loudest accusation of racism is the most racist ideology of all.

We Christians often have a problem that is much deeper than racism. That problem is being self-righteous and judgmental. We are so sensitive to the evil of racism right now in our explosive socio-political environment that we have learned to “see” racism “everywhere,” whether it really exists in the places we think we see it or not. In John 7:24, Christ gave us a powerful imperative: don’t judge by mere appearance, but make an accurate judgment. Racism definitely qualifies as judging by mere appearance. But so does the accusation, and even the perception of racism in others. Being judgmental is every bit as evil as racism is. In fact, we could even consider it worse. Because racism does not always manifest itself in external mistreatment, but being judgmental almost always does. We need to ask ourselves, “how do I treat someone I believe is racist?” I have seen people treat those they believe are racist just as badly as racists may treat those whom they are prejudiced against. Being judgmental and being racist are both examples of prejudice, and prejudice is always evil and cruel.

When people say racism is “everywhere,” the implication is that our society, and indeed all societies on Earth are saturated with it. We think the examples we “see” are just the tip of the iceberg. It has never occurred to many people that those examples are rare, but since they have such a severe emotional impact on us, it gives us the illusion that it’s the rule and not the exception. Our emotions will deceive us, always. They induce a powerful confusion between what is horrific and what is pervasive. We almost always make the mistake of thinking what we despise is more common than it really is.

Racism is an idea. You cannot see an idea. You can only see the effects of that idea. But not all of the effects of racism we think we see really are racism. Racism is the belief that some races are inferior to others morally, intellectually, or genetically. Mere treatment of others differently because of their skin color is not the definition of racism. Even the other common definition of racism is faulty: doing anything that disenfranchises or marginalizes people of a specific racial group. That may be evil, but the mere fact that something is evil does not automatically make it racism.

Hamren provides a perfect example of judging by mere appearance when she relates the story of how difficult it was for her Korean adopted sister to become naturalized as an American citizen. Observing disparities like that in the immigration system will almost always evoke the accusation of racism when the observer is saturated in Marxist ideology with its unwarranted judgments and evidence-free assumptions. I wish everyone who has conversations like this would learn the critical lesson that personal experience does not reveal widespread social trends. Neither does personal experience automatically give us insight as to the forces at work behind disparate treatment of people of various ethnic groups. Insight such as this requires painstaking investigation, not shallow platitudes derived from ideological bias.

Marxists often think they are above the need to make a correct judgment as Christ instructed us to in John 7:24. They think the responsibility of giving others a fair hearing doesn’t apply to them. They are more enlightened than the rest of us because they studied the philosophy of Karl Marx in a state university and now they’re woke enough that they can smell racism without having to bother with trivial technicalities like evidence. 

Hamren goes to great lengths to convince us (and herself) she is not a Marxist. But she exhibits the obvious evidence of Marxism over and over again in her attempts to exonerate herself. I do not question her faith and devotion to Christ. But I do question her ability to see how deeply Marxism has infected her mind, as it has for millions of Christians in our country. A fish does not know it is wet.

I would argue that there is no such thing as a Marxist doctrine that deserves to be considered true or consistent with Biblical principles. When someone comes up with an idea that is ostensibly Marxist and finds no conflict between that idea and the Gospel, you will discover that the idea in question is not unique to Marxism, and is therefore not a valid comparison. 


There’s no question that there are still racists in our society. It is scarcely necessary to repeat this, but if I don’t, I will undoubtedly incur the scorn of those who will accuse me of attempting to dismiss it. 

Racism is evil, but the true racists are a dying breed. Marxism is a more insidious evil. It is relentless. It will never stop until it accomplishes its pernicious objectives. The most effective strategy to conceal evil is to create a diversion, to focus on and magnify a villain those of good will in society pursue while neglecting the deeper threat masquerading as the cure for social pathology. In The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Washington Irving wrote, “villainy wears many masks, none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.” Our problem is not racism, it is Marxism. Racism is a fading poison, Marxism is a Trojan horse. If we took all the misguided energy people put into tilting at the windmills of systemic racism and redirected it toward eradicating Marxism from our cultural consciousness, the world would change before our very eyes. This is my hope and prayer.

Tagged with:

About the Author

By Phil Bair

Phil Bair studied philosophy, technology, earth sciences, and music theory at the University of Iowa, the University of Colorado, the National Institute of Technology, and Simpson College in Indianola Iowa. He has been dedicated to independent study and research for over thirty years in a variety of subject matter pertaining to the Christian world view. He has written several monographs on the relationship between theology and hope, being true to the Word of God, the creation/evolution controversy, and critiques of alternative spiritual doctrine and practices. He has written two books: From Rome To Galilee, an analysis of Roman Catholic theology and practice, and Deconstructing Junk Ideology - A Modern Christian Manifesto, a series of essays on the culture wars and applying Biblical principles to our socio-political landscape. He has delivered lectures, seminars, and workshops to churches and educational institutions on apologetics, textual criticism, creation science, ethics, critical thinking, the philosophy of science, understanding new age thought, and the defense of Christian theism, as well as current religious, philosophical, cultural, and political trends, with an emphasis on formulating a meaningful and coherent Christian response in those areas. His roles include author, speaker, Bible study leader, worship pastor, and director of contemporary music and worship for several evangelical churches. He has served as philosophy consultant and speaker for Rivendell, a cultural apologetics organization founded in Denver, Colorado and headquartered in Santa Barbara, California.