the Conservative TAKE
Politics • Culture • News
The Luciferian Spirit of Karl Marx’s Philosophy: A Christian Perspective
September 26, 2024
post photo preview

Karl Marx, the father of modern communism, remains one of the most influential thinkers of the past two centuries. His writings laid the foundation for socialist revolutions and the establishment of communist regimes across the globe, many of which led to widespread oppression and the deaths of millions. While Marxism is often critiqued from political or economic angles, it is critical to examine Marx’s ideology from a Christian perspective—particularly the notion that his work contains a Luciferian spirit.

This argument doesn’t claim that Marx was consciously worshipping Satan or adhering to occult practices. Instead, it highlights how the foundational aspects of Marxism bear striking similarities to the rebellion against God found in Lucifer’s fall, as described in Scripture. At its core, Marx’s philosophy denies the existence of God, exalts human autonomy, and seeks to dismantle the moral and social order established by divine law. These elements, when analyzed through a biblical lens, resonate with the themes of pride, rebellion, and materialism central to Lucifer’s revolt against the Creator.

1. Rejection of God and Spiritual Reality

One of the most glaring characteristics of Marx’s thought is its atheism. Marx famously wrote, “Religion is the opium of the people,” portraying religious belief as a tool of oppression that distracted the masses from their material struggles. In this view, the notion of God was not just an illusion—it was an enemy of human progress.

By rejecting the existence of God and dismissing religious faith, Marx aligns himself with a worldview that denies humanity’s ultimate accountability to a higher power. From a Christian perspective, this is not merely misguided but echoes the very attitude of Lucifer, whose fall from grace stemmed from his desire to challenge God’s authority. Lucifer’s rebellion was a denial of his place in the created order, a desire to be his own master. Similarly, Marx sought to “liberate” humanity from what he saw as oppressive religious structures, replacing divine authority with human reason and materialism.

The Bible is clear that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10). Marx’s rejection of God, then, is not just an intellectual misstep—it is a deliberate defiance of the Creator, a trait that echoes the pride and rebellion of Satan.

2. Revolution and the Spirit of Rebellion

Marx’s call for revolution is another key element that reveals the Luciferian undertones of his philosophy. His entire system was built on the idea that the working class (the proletariat) must rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie (the ruling class), ushering in a classless society through violent revolution. While he saw this as a means of achieving justice, the method he advocated—destruction of the old order through conflict—directly opposes the biblical principle of order and peace.

In the Christian worldview, rebellion against God’s established authority is a hallmark of Lucifer’s character. Satan is described in Scripture as a deceiver and a promoter of chaos, one who seeks to upend God’s design for creation. Marx’s advocacy for the overthrow of traditional structures—family, religion, private property—can be seen as a parallel to this Luciferian desire to disrupt divine order. Marxism, in its pursuit of utopia, denies the legitimacy of the existing world and seeks to replace it with a man-made system. Just as Lucifer sought to overthrow the kingdom of God, Marx sought to overthrow the moral and social order ordained by God, believing that humans could build a perfect world without divine guidance.

3. Materialism and the Rejection of the Soul

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of Marx’s philosophy is its materialism. Marx saw history not as a spiritual journey or a narrative guided by God’s providence, but as a series of economic conflicts. In Marx’s framework, everything—human relationships, societal structures, and even morality—is determined by material conditions. There is no place for the soul, no recognition of spiritual reality. Man is reduced to an economic unit, whose value is determined by his labor and production.

This purely materialistic view of life is the antithesis of the Christian understanding of humanity. Scripture teaches that human beings are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), endowed with both a body and a soul, and destined for eternity. Marx’s reduction of man to a material being, devoid of spiritual worth, strips away the dignity and purpose that comes from being made in God’s likeness.

From a biblical perspective, this dehumanization of man aligns closely with Satan’s own agenda. Satan seeks to diminish and destroy the image of God in humanity. By encouraging people to focus solely on material things, Marx’s philosophy diverts attention from spiritual realities and eternal truths, trapping people in a purely physical existence. It is the same temptation that Satan offered to Eve in the Garden of Eden, when he suggested that human knowledge and human power were sufficient to become “like God” (Genesis 3:5). In this way, Marx’s materialism mirrors the Luciferian impulse to dethrone God and exalt human autonomy.

4. The Inversion of Morality

Marxism also carries with it a radical moral inversion. In his pursuit of a classless society, Marx believed that traditional moral values were merely the tools of the oppressors. Private property, marriage, and religion were seen not as moral goods, but as mechanisms of control to be abolished in the name of equality. This redefinition of right and wrong is another parallel with the Luciferian rebellion.

The Bible warns against those who “call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20), a process that Marxism exemplifies. By redefining morality to fit a revolutionary agenda, Marx’s ideology denies the existence of objective moral law—another hallmark of Lucifer’s rebellion against the authority of God. The moral chaos unleashed by Marxism in the 20th century—whether through the Bolshevik Revolution, the Chinese Communist Revolution, or other Marxist movements—has been marked by the rejection of traditional moral values, leading to widespread violence, oppression, and persecution.

Marx, Kamala & Freedom Loving Americans

Karl Marx’s philosophy, when examined through a biblical lens, stands in direct opposition to God’s divine order. His denial of God, promotion of rebellion, and focus on materialism echo the spirit of pride and defiance seen in Lucifer’s fall. Historically, Marxist regimes have attacked religion, family values, and morality, and these same ideas are influencing modern politics.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s support for policies like price controls and government-driven “opportunity economics” reflects Marxist ideals of a planned economy. These policies erode individual liberty, economic freedom, and personal responsibility—principles fundamental to a free society. For Christians, this is more than political; it’s a spiritual battle. Marxism promises a false utopia but leads to oppression and moral decay. As the next election approaches, those who value freedom must remain vigilant, recognizing that true hope and liberty come from Christ, not government control.

community logo
Join the the Conservative TAKE Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
Odds of Love: A Probability Study Proving Jasmine Crockett’s Race Baiting Ignores the Real Challenges of Finding a Conservative Black Match

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Representative Jasmine Crockett’s recent criticism of Representative Byron Donalds for marrying a white woman highlights a regressive mindset steeped in ignorance and racial bias, casting doubt on her ability to engage with the diverse realities of American life.

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1906302926571618409

By implying that Donalds has been “whitewashed” through his interracial marriage, Crockett clings to outdated stereotypes that dictate racial loyalty over personal agency, exposing her own hypocrisy in advocating for equality while policing others’ private choices. This narrow perspective stands in stark contrast to the evolving dynamics of relationships across racial lines, as evidenced by a probabilistic analysis of partner selection among conservative Black individuals. To illustrate the complexity of such dynamics, consider the following study estimating the likelihood of a conservative Black man finding and marrying a conservative Black woman who aligns with his values—a scenario Crockett might deem more “acceptable,” yet one fraught with its own...

00:00:46
00:01:20
Biblical Citizenship in Modern America Commentary Ep14 - Understanding the Times 3

00:00 Introduction
02:03 Week 13 review
04:56 Our Current Education System
05:59 Six Verbs for Advancing Truth in the Country
09:08 What Our Elected Officials Don't Know About America
10:44 The Foundation of Law
12:12 Who Were the Signers of the Declaration of Independence?
13:52 Benjamin Rush
15:44 What is Patriotism?
18:34 Summary of Workbook

00:25:36

Just my opinion, but it seems like a lot of people are grifting off Charlie Kirk’s memory for clicks. I’m not saying everyone, and shoot, I could probably be accused of the same thing. Fair point. My team is waiting for at least the funeral before putting out a full load of content... but the former just doesn’t feel right. Full disclosure: I did a one-hour livestream that night and was a guest on another show a few days later, but that’s about it.

I truly appreciate the sincere takes from people who’ve had the courage to speak. So all I’m really asking for is discernment and tastefulness, at least until after the funeral. But that’s just me, and just my opinion.

What I do know is this: The Left is already spinning (and distracting away from) this. I submit that are trying desperately to ease their guilt, undermine Charlie’s vision, and divide MAGA. They are trying to save their (soon to be out of power for the foreseeable future) Democrat Party.

The real takeaway is...

🧨 The Deep State’s Attempt to Spin Damning Declassified Evidence

As declassified documents continue to expose what appears to be a coordinated intelligence operation against Donald Trump, the Deep State and their media allies are in full damage-control mode.

Case in point: Fox News just featured an op-ed by former CIA officer and Biden State Department spokesman Ned Price, attempting to “debunk” the bombshells released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

Make no bones about it, this isn’t an objective counterpoint. This is a narrative-management operation by a career Deep State insider.

🕵️‍♂️ Here’s What They’re Trying to Sell You:
That Obama couldn’t have led a coup because… he congratulated Trump after the election. (Yes, seriously.)

That Gabbard is using “sleight of hand” and “conflating” terms, even though her claims are backed by declassified U.S. intelligence.

That the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was sound , even though multiple internal reviews, the Durham Report, and Senate oversight found evidence it was politicized.

That the ...

post photo preview
Why Subpoena Them If They’ll Plead the Fifth? Because It’s Protocol for Prosecution.

Here is what many do not understand. I get the frustration but there is a method to the madness. Let me explain.

Subpoenaing Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, and others over the RussiaGate scandal (even if they ultimately plead the Fifth) is not just a procedural move; it’s a necessary step in any serious pursuit of justice and public accountability.

🔹 Why Subpoena Them?

1. Establish the Record:

You must formally bring these individuals under oath to compel their testimony. Whether they answer or invoke the Fifth, the act of subpoenaing is essential to build the official record and demonstrate due diligence in investigating the alleged conspiracy.

2. Indictment Requires Precedent:

Before a prosecutor can credibly seek an indictment (especially against former high-level officials) there must be an evidentiary trail. That includes prior sworn testimony or refusal to testify. Subpoenaing them is a legal and political prerequisite to indictments.

3. Public Opinion Matters:

...

post photo preview
Lafayette: The Fire and the Fog

Act 1: Foundations and Fault Lines

In a quiet chateau nestled in the green hills of Auvergne, a boy was born into a name older than most nations. Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier—known simply as Gilbert to those who loved him—would grow to be one of history’s most celebrated revolutionaries. But from the very start, Lafayette's world was one of contradictions.

He was born into nobility, yet surrounded by stories of poverty and loss. His father, a decorated grenadier, was killed by a British cannonball before Lafayette ever saw his face. His mother, devastated by grief, fled to Paris, leaving young Gilbert to be raised by his stern but kind grandmother in the countryside. She taught him duty, discipline, and stories of battlefield glory. Under the watchful eyes of abbés and aristocrats, Lafayette soaked in the values of the French Enlightenment. Reason, liberty, the rights of man—these became the drumbeat of his youth.

But knowledge alone doesn’t make a man wise.

From the halls of Paris to the salons of Versailles, Lafayette learned to charm and maneuver. He married Adrienne de Noailles, a fourteen-year-old girl from one of France’s most powerful families. At sixteen, Lafayette was rich, married, and well on his way to joining the king’s elite guard. But behind the courtly elegance, something restless stirred in his heart. He longed for purpose—glory, as he called it. The kind that would echo through time.

So when whispers of rebellion across the Atlantic reached his ears, he was enthralled. America, a land fighting for liberty against the British—the very empire that had taken his father—became an obsession. Even when King Louis XVI forbade it, Lafayette defied him, sneaking across the sea to join George Washington’s struggling army.

From a worldly point of view, it was heroic. A young man leaving behind wealth, a pregnant wife, and privilege to fight for strangers. But beneath the idealism, there was a flaw—a subtle one, but dangerous.

Lafayette believed that man could save himself.

Through reason. Through revolution. Through liberty unanchored from any higher truth.

He didn’t yet understand what the Bible makes clear: that the heart of man is “deceitful above all things” (Jeremiah 17:9), and that liberty without virtue is just another form of chaos. Lafayette loved the idea of freedom, but he lacked a framework that could keep that freedom from becoming an idol. He was, in many ways, a knight in search of a cause—but without a compass pointing to God's moral order.

While Lafayette crossed the Atlantic in search of glory, Adrienne was left behind in Paris, pregnant and alone. She received glowing letters—tales of cannons and courage—but little concern for her own trials. She had married a boy still chasing the ghost of a father he barely knew.

In America, Lafayette was welcomed… reluctantly. The Continental Congress had seen too many glory-seeking Europeans hoping to play general. At first, they dismissed him. But when Lafayette offered to serve without pay, and when they read letters of praise from Benjamin Franklin, they reconsidered. Lafayette was given the honorary title of major-general—though he would command no troops.

He met George Washington soon after, and an unexpected friendship blossomed. Washington, a man of discipline and restraint, took the fiery Frenchman under his wing. Lafayette found in Washington a father figure, and in the American cause, a sense of belonging.

But even as Lafayette fought bravely in battle—earning respect and even suffering wounds—he never stopped chasing applause. And back in France, Adrienne suffered silently, raising children alone, enduring gossip about Lafayette’s rumored mistresses, and using her influence to protect his reputation.

She loved him. He often forgot to love her in return.

The story of Lafayette was already being written in two parallel threads: the public hero, adored on two continents, and the private man, blind to the cost others paid for his ambitions.

Even his noblest efforts—his fight for liberty, his calls to end slavery, his dreams of global reform—were built on a foundation that was subtly cracked.

He believed, as many Enlightenment thinkers did, that humanity was basically good, that progress was inevitable, and that the right ideas could fix the world.

But history—and Scripture—tell a different story.

"Unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127:1)

Lafayette’s foundation was bold. But it wasn’t biblical.

And the storm was coming.

Let me know if you're ready for Act 2: Fallout and Fractures. It will dive into the French Revolution, betrayal from both sides, Adrienne’s suffering, and the unraveling of Lafayette’s ideals.


Act 2: Fallout and Fractures


The smell of smoke lingered in the Paris air. The Bastille had fallen. The people roared. The king trembled. And in the center of it all stood Lafayette—beloved by some, cursed by others, and no longer sure who he truly was.

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
Slavery, Union, and Constitutional Compromise: A Study of the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment (1860–1861)

Abstract

This article explores two major political proposals advanced in the final months before the American Civil War: the Crittenden Compromise (1860) and the Corwin Amendment (1861). Both efforts sought to preserve the Union through constitutional concessions on slavery. We examine their content, motivations, political support and opposition, and how they reflected  (and ultimately failed to resolve) the irreconcilable tensions between North and South. Special attention is given to the evolving role of President-elect and later President Abraham Lincoln, whose principled opposition to slavery’s expansion shaped Republican resistance to compromise efforts. The article situates these proposals within a broader constitutional framework of federalism, natural rights, and the limits of amendment power.

I. Introduction

In the months following Abraham Lincoln’s election in November 1860, the United States faced an unprecedented crisis. Southern states began seceding from the Union, fearing that a Republican administration would restrict or abolish slavery. As secessionist sentiment grew, Congress and national leaders proposed several last-ditch efforts to avoid civil war through constitutional compromise. Among the most notable were the Crittenden Compromise, introduced in December 1860, and the Corwin Amendment, proposed in early 1861. Though differing in scope and content, both proposals reflect the extent to which the federal government was willing to entrench slavery in constitutional law in hopes of maintaining Union.

II. The Crittenden Compromise

A. Background and Purpose

On December 18, 1860, Senator John J. Crittenden of Kentucky introduced a series of six proposed constitutional amendments and four congressional resolutions, collectively known as the Crittenden Compromise. Crittenden, a member of the Constitutional Union Party, sought to calm Southern fears and avert secession by providing federal guarantees for slavery.

B. Main Provisions

The core elements of the compromise included:

  • A constitutional amendment reinstating the Missouri Compromise line (36°30′ N latitude), permanently prohibiting slavery north of the line and guaranteeing it south of the line in current and future U.S. territories (U.S. Senate Journal, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1860).

  • A prohibition on Congress interfering with slavery in states where it already existed.

  • A federal guarantee for enforcement of fugitive slave laws.

  • A requirement that future constitutional amendments could not abolish or interfere with slavery in slaveholding states.

C. Reception and Defeat

The Crittenden Compromise was broadly supported by Southern politicians and some Northern moderates, but strongly opposed by Republicans, including Lincoln, who rejected any compromise that would allow the expansion of slavery into new territories. Through backchannels and private correspondence, Lincoln discouraged Republican senators from supporting the proposal (Basler, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 4, p. 152).

The compromise ultimately failed in committee in January 1861, and its defeat accelerated Southern secession.

III. The Corwin Amendment

A. Introduction and Legislative History

In the aftermath of the Crittenden proposal’s failure and with several states having already seceded, Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio introduced a new constitutional amendment intended to reassure the South. The Corwin Amendment passed the House on February 28, 1861, and the Senate on March 2, 1861, just days before Lincoln’s inauguration.

The proposed text read:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
— Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1861)

B. Purpose and Scope

Unlike the Crittenden Compromise, which addressed slavery in territories, the Corwin Amendment focused exclusively on preserving slavery in existing states, permanently prohibiting Congress or any future constitutional amendment from interfering with state domestic institutions, including slavery.

It was a more limited proposal, intended as a symbolic assurance to slave states that the federal government would not abolish slavery where it existed, even under future administrations.

C. Lincoln’s Position

Though a longtime opponent of slavery’s expansion, Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861:

“I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
— Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (1861)

Lincoln directed Secretary of State William Seward to send the amendment to the states for ratification. Some states, including Ohio and Maryland, ratified it, but the amendment never achieved the necessary approval from three-fourths of the states, especially as war broke out shortly after.

IV. Comparative Analysis

FeatureCrittenden CompromiseCorwin Amendment
ProposedDec 1860Feb–Mar 1861
ProposerSen. John Crittenden (KY)Rep. Thomas Corwin (OH)
Key ObjectiveAllow slavery south of 36°30′ in territoriesConstitutionally prohibit federal interference with slavery in states
Lincoln’s ViewOpposedSupported (as peace gesture)
StatusRejected in committeePassed Congress; unratified
Amendment NatureMultiple amendments and resolutionsSingle proposed amendment
Historical ResultFailed to prevent secessionSuperseded by Civil War and 13th Amendment


V. Constitutional and Originalist Considerations

A. Federalism and State Sovereignty

The Corwin Amendment affirmed the federalist structure of the Constitution, where states retained authority over domestic institutions, including slavery. Its logic aligned with the Madisonian view that powers not delegated to the federal government remained with the states (see Federalist No. 45).

B. Limits on Constitutional Amendment Power

The Corwin Amendment attempted to shield certain subjects from future amendment. Although Article V allows for limitations (as with the equal suffrage of states in the Senate), many legal scholars debate whether any constitutional amendment can permanently bar future amendments. This raises complex issues about constitutional entrenchment.

C. Slavery and the Founding Vision

The Crittenden and Corwin proposals represent divergent paths in response to a growing national crisis. While the Founding generation accepted slavery as a temporary evil (e.g., Madison at the Constitutional Convention), these 1860–1861 efforts reflect a move to permanently constitutionalize an institution many of the founders viewed as incompatible with natural rights.

VI. Conclusion

Both the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment reveal the lengths to which American politicians were willing to go to preserve the Union through accommodation of slavery. However, their failure also underscores the irreconcilability of a republic founded on liberty with a system built on bondage. Abraham Lincoln’s careful balancing act was opposing slavery’s expansion while tolerating its existence where entrenched, framed the constitutional limits of compromise.

With the firing on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, the era of compromise ended. The actual 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, would abolish slavery entirely,  reversing the direction of both earlier proposals and reaffirming the Declaration’s principle that all men are created equal.

Sources

Read full Article
The Prophet of Progress: Woodrow Wilson's Road to Power and Ruin

Act I: Foundations and Fault Lines


Thomas Woodrow Wilson was born in 1856 into a deeply religious Southern Presbyterian family. His father, Joseph Ruggles Wilson, was a respected minister and educator. His mother, Janet—called Jessie—was a devoted Scottish churchwoman. From the outside, the Wilson home seemed soaked in Scripture and tradition, but beneath the surface, a different foundation was quietly forming.

As a boy, “Tommy” Wilson was clever but struggled to read until age twelve—what today might be considered dyslexia. Still, he grew to admire ideas and institutions more than people. Though he spent his childhood in the Confederate South during the Civil War, the conflict seemed to leave little mark on him emotionally. His loyalties remained Southern, though, and he absorbed the white supremacist thinking that had gripped post-war Democratic circles.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals