The public knowledge of Neo-Marxist ideologies has grown since Sovereign Nations began informing the public at large of the threat of concepts such as Critical Race Theory (CRT) and intersectionality.
Over the past several months, as the general public has become more aware of the dangers of critical race theory (CRT), proponents of CRT have pulled back from strong positions they have maintained over the past ten years. Where they had advocated strongly for CRT, they now have retreated to weaker, more easily defensible positions – even denying that they had ever advocated for CRT in the first place.
This “being strong when unquestioned” and then wholly disowning any claims to the strong position by retreating to a weaker position is referred to as the Motte and Bailey rhetorical strategy or the Motte and Bailey fallacy. It is a strategic equivocation between an easily defended but unrepresentative claim and an indefensible but representative and desired claim.
Many of the Christian leaders of seminaries, denominations and para-church ministries, who in the past propagated CRT and intersectionality, are still holding seats of power and influence: denying their own past actions to poison the minds of those under their influence.
How are these men and women still in positions of influence? How can they pivot on their past words and actions without acknowledging their past errors?
James Lindsay and Michael O’Fallon discussed these issues during their first of four panels at the Sovereign Nations Conference in Phoenix, AZ. Their suggestion? Rhetorically bomb their bailey and steal their bailey and leave the dishonest merchants of poisonous ideology without a safe haven.
Additional episodes of The Theology of Marxism may be viewed here.