https://nitter.click/Eminem/status/2111311830572552546#m
Not about choosing sides, just choosing to make music with my old friend. Praying for all of us. #HealMyFaith @KidRock
https://archive.is/ZVuV3 (stereogum)
Eminem Defends New Kid Rock Collaboration
Kid Rock and Eminem’s new collaboration has been turning heads. Though the pair have been friends for decades, their political views are famously opposed, as Kid Rock is an avid MAGA supporter and Eminem is a vocal critic of Trump. In a new post, Eminem defended his decision to work with the controversial figure.
“Not about choosing sides, just choosing to make music with my old friend. Praying for all of us,” Eminem wrote about “Heal My Faith,” which comes from Kid Rock’s new Christian album Halfway 2 Jesus. In his verse, Eminem raps, “From shock rap to the rock rap, my homie and me/ He is my brother, not my political enemy.”
In an interview with Billboard, Kid Rock said about Eminem, “We’ve been friends for, like, 40 years. I really didn’t want to drag him into my political world…. We talk about [politics] a little bit, not a ton. There’s a lot of stuff we agree on, and we can have a laugh about what [we don’t]. That’s why I asked him to write a verse for me.”
Last month, Kid Rock was supposed to perform at a MAGA festival in Kentucky but it was canceled because only six people bought VIP tickets.
This is the lyrics to the Kid Rock song featuring Eminem. The song was released yesterday. Lil Wayne is also featured on a different track of the album.
https://genius.com/Kid-rock-heal-my-faith-lyrics
There’s a lot of stuff we agree on, and we can have a laugh about what [we don’t]. That’s why I asked him to write a verse for me.
Kid Rock really saying the quiet part out loud. It doesn’t really matter what their “beliefs” are, because they’re both wealthy middle aged white men and therefore politics is just good ol sports.
Christian “culture” continues to be the most cringe thing ever
please do not confuse american protestantism with christianity in general
No, I’d say that’s a fair assessment of christianity in general.
do you actually have any knowledge of christian history over the past 2000 years? do you know anything at all about the various beautiful forms christian thought and culture have existed over the centuries in the middle east, africa, india, eastern europe, or central asia? no! you simply judge from whatever deeply basteredised form of evangelicalism you have some surface-level familiarity with and are too arrogant to engage with anything beyond your horizon.
all you ignorant westerners ever do is smell your own dung and judge the world based on its odour.
do you actually have any knowledge of christian history over the past 2000 years?
Knowing Christian history just makes Christianity look worse. For example:
CW: Colonialism, CSA
- The embracing of Christianity by the Roman Empire as a tool of Imperial propaganda and conquest
- The Russian Orthodox Church acting as a major legitimizer of Tsar Nicholas’ massacres of Jews and Communists
- Britain’s violent imposition of Christianity on its African colonies including sodomy laws that are still being used to persecute LGBT people today
- The Spanish Church’s collaboration with Franco’s regime in the violent suppression and later mass murder of communists during and after the Spanish Civil War
- The Catholic Church’s decades-long systemic protection of pedophile priests
- Medieval Crusaders massacring tens of thousands of noncombatants and children in Béziers because “God knows his own”
- The Catholic Church being a massive landlord and tightly-knit collaborator with the monarchy in pre-Revolution France
It was Gabrielle, a woman during the French Revolution, who famously said “we must shoot the priests.”
The Russian orthodox church within living memory (As in, within the last 10 years) ran an open political campaign to legalise domestic violence.
But sure. It’s just “Smelling our own dung” to find that bad.
there is a difference between knowing history and cherry-picking it to argue for a pre-conceived notion. i could use the exact same “methodology” and argue for the exact opposite point, bringing up how the holy synod’s role in tsarist repression was opposed by other sects (dukhobors, molokans and others), as well as even dissident orthodox clergy. i could mention how european colonisers repressed indigenous african, indian and middle eastern forms of christianity. i could point out how the cathars you mentioned, being massacred during the albigensian crusade, viewed themselves as a christian sect as well. i could also mention how liberation theology provided invaluable help to liberation movements in latin america, talk about hilarion capucci and vlada zečević, etc., etc…
also, would it in your eyes be just to condemn all of islam due to daesh? would you go so far as to denounce all of buddhism because of the rohingya genocide? how about declaring all of judaism to be equal with religious zionism, or using modi and the bjp as a reason to smear all 1.2 billion hindus as an irredeemable evil? so let’,s not argue against caricatures.
you mentioned the bourgeois french revolutionaries trying to abolish religion. did they succeed? condemning ordinary religious people is a needless own-goal. it’s a great way to make enemies of a sizeable majority of the global working class for no benefit.
(also, as a side note, do you have a source for that gabrielle quote? i’d like to read it in context.)
there is a difference between knowing history and cherry-picking it to argue for a pre-conceived notion.
If I’m cherry-picking, I’m cherry-picking in an orchard. All that shit was just off the top of my head. Doctrine of Discovery and Divine Right of Kings alone did so much to uphold the superstructure of reactionary and oppressive systems.
i could use the exact same “methodology” and argue for the exact opposite point, bringing up […]
Now who’s cherry-picking? This is on the level of arguing “Engels was a factory owner, therefore capitalism is fine.”
i could point out how the cathars you mentioned, being massacred during the albigensian crusade, viewed themselves as a christian sect as well.
How is “some of the massacre victims were also Christians” relevant? A lot of people killed by liberal capitalism are liberal capitalists. Is that a defense of liberal capitalism?
also, would it in your eyes be just to condemn all of islam due to daesh? would you go so far as to denounce all of buddhism because of the rohingya genocide? how about declaring all of judaism to be equal with religious zionism, or using modi and the bjp as a reason to smear all 1.2 billion hindus as an irredeemable evil? so let’,s not argue against caricatures.
To give an example that’s uncontroversial on this site, people here broadly agree that China liberating the Tibetan peasantry from its religious leaders was a good thing.
you mentioned the bourgeois french revolutionaries trying to abolish religion. did they succeed?
They didn’t succeed in abolishing monarchy, either. Should we start supporting monarchy on that basis?
condemning ordinary religious people is a needless own-goal.
There’s a difference between condemning a system and condemning everyone inside that system. Wanting to end capitalism does not mean I condemn every single proletarian.
it’s a great way to make enemies of a sizeable majority of the global working class for no benefit.
Most of the global working class isn’t communist, so by your standard we shouldn’t oppose capitalism at all.
You can read the quote in context in this paper. It’s on page 266.
Now who’s cherry-picking? This is on the level of arguing “Engels was a factory owner, therefore capitalism is fine.”
my example was meant to serve as a demonstration that cherry-picking is not useful for actual argumentation, though i see now that i didn’t signal this intention well at all.
How is “some of the massacre victims were also Christians” relevant? A lot of people killed by liberal capitalism are liberal capitalists. Is that a defense of liberal capitalism?
please correct me if i’m wrong, but as i understand it, your point is that all of christian society and culture is inherently reactionary, bringing up the albigensian crusade as an example. pointing out that the victims considered themselves to be part of that very same social and cultural paradigm is relevant insofar as they would have most likely disagreed quite strongly with your conclusion.
To give an example that’s uncontroversial on this site, people here broadly agree that China liberating the Tibetan peasantry from its religious leaders was a good thing.
i’m sorry, but i don’t quite see the relevance of this to the things i said. please elaborate.
There’s a difference between condemning a system and condemning everyone inside that system. Wanting to end capitalism does not mean I condemn every single proletarian.
you seem to be confusing the material base with the societal superstructure. you cannot condemn a religious or cultural tradition without condemning its participants.
They didn’t succeed in abolishing monarchy, either. Should we start supporting monarchy on that basis?
and
Most of the global working class isn’t communist, so by your standard we shouldn’t oppose capitalism at all.
again, you seem to be confusing the impact of aspects of the material base, such as monarchical institutions or socio-economic systems, with superstructural elements like culture and religion. one is dominant over the other here.
the real question is whether the means actually end up being effective and emancipatory. a marxist account should focus on changing the material conditions that reproduce religion, not simply trying to ban belief.
You can read the quote in context in this paper. It’s on page 266.
thank you, appreciate this.
No. You can’t actually argue the opposite. The Dukhobors, Molokans, Old Believers, and whatever else have not done “The opposite” of what is claimed, they did not oppose colonialism, they didn’t stand against pogroms, they retreated from broader concerns and when they do get involved in broader politics it isn’t as a progressive force or to stand against reaction. Name dropping the orthodox equivalent of Amish or LARPers isn’t going to win you this argument.
so let’,s not argue against caricatures.
It isn’t a caricature to point out that the organised hierarchy of a centralised organisation has engaged in systemic action that should colour our perception of it. It is frankly absurd to argue otherwise.
The only things you can point to in defence of Christianity is any point where it has not held institutional power, and then you transpose that to defending the institutional power wielded for reaction.
Your counter example to christianity being rotten is christianity in eastern europe amd central asia?
Maybe you should not be so quick to lambast others for their ignorance.
Like which part of the Russian orthodox church do you find laudable in particular? The icons? The pogroms? The outfits? The collaboration with fascists and celebration of anti communist mass murderers? The architecture? The explicit misogyny?
There’s nothing beautiful about religion lol. You made a lot of assumptions about my ignorance, but my distaste for religion came from learning and trying to understand.
i’m sorry, but i’ll have to call into question whatever you call “learning and trying to understand”
your argument relies on moral outrage and abstract ethics rather than material analysis. marx’s critique of religion is often misused by superficial atheists. when he called religion “the opium of the people”, he was not simply condemning faith, but identifying it as a response to suffering in a world devoid of meaning and justice. religion, in this sense, is both a symptom of oppression and a coping mechanism for those experiencing it. misunderstand this reality and you end up with ethical idealism, ultimately undermining revolutionary efforts by alienating the masses.
from a materialist standpoint, religion persists because it fulfills real social and emotional needs under capitalism, just as it did under previous socio-economic systems. the task of revolutionaries is not to mock or suppress these beliefs, but to transform the conditions that give rise to them.
and if you would try to even once get out and actually look at the historical precedence of socialist projects, you would learn a lot:
in its early years, the ussr launched aggressive anti-religious campaigns, shuttering churches (and destroying century-old architectural monuments in the process), ridiculing faith, and persecuting religious leaders. these efforts, spearheaded by organizations like the league of the militant godless (sry for wikipecia-link, but i can’t really find good english-language sources rn), were driven by ideological zeal rather than mass-line engagement. they confused state atheism with revolutionary strategy and alienated millions of religious workers and peasants whose faith was deeply embedded in their communities and daily lives.
rather than focusing drawing believers into the socialist project through improvements in their material conditions and political education, the early state attempted to impose atheism from above. this approach was idealist, disconnected from the real consciousness of the masses, and politically self-defeating.
they thus unwillingly played into the hands of the reaction, since religious believers, especially in rural areas, came to view the new socialist state as an enemy of tradition, community, and morality. reactionary forces capitalized on this resentment, painting themselves as defenders of the common people.

recognizing this, the government later went on to ease anti-religious policies during the great patriotic war, in order to build unity, effectively admitting that earlier methods had been divisive and counter-productive.
leftists should understand that atheism, like any belief system, must be approached strategically. the goal is not to impose a worldview, but to unite the working class in the struggle against capitalism. religious people are not the enemy, capitalism is. mockery and cultural arrogance only serve to fracture potential alliances.
instead, one must engage religious workers respectfully, meet their material needs, and build class consciousness through shared struggle. religion will fade not through coercion, but as alienation and exploitation are overcome.
and if you would try to even once get out and actually look at the historical precedence of socialist projects, you would learn a lot:
Sure. Let’s.
The Soviets let up on the Russian Orthodox Church which continued to engage in organised anti communist activities, a tradition it maintains to this day. At no point did ending state repression of the orthodox church benefit the soviets in any material way.
The Chinese state didn’t let up on its repression until their religious hierarchies were crushed on an institutional level, and haven’t let any church in that doesn’t agree to the terms of the state and it is the single most stable AES system in the world.
The Iranian communists tried to ally with the religious authorities and they were murdered about it.
The argument that communists who don’t pay deference to religion will alienate the common people is an intuitive one, but one that has never born out in reality, whereas the christian religious hierarchy siding with fascists against communists has happened oh about every fucking time.
Your response has next to nothing to do with inTheShadowOf’s original comment, which was that 1) she finds religion ugly and 2) despite your accusations, she has knowledge of religion beyond American Protestantism. Her comment said nothing about which tactics or strategies she thinks should be adopted to abolish religion.
she is making an absolute statement based on personal antipathy; this is called relying on moral outrage and abstract ethics rather than material analysis.
she further states that said antipathy stems from learning and trying to understand. while i of course don’t know exactly what she means by that, i was nonetheless hoping to demonstrate that, at the very least, marxist analysis and socialist history do not seem to lend credence to her apparent conclusion, imho.
I’m sure people can’t wait to hear music from 50 yr old white rappers.
washed
Hasn’t he been washed for some time now? Kid Rock has always been a hack too.
Not about choosing sides, just choosing to make music with my old friend. Praying for all of us
He’s certainly praying for something, but it certainly isn’t good.
Holy fuck. I knew I didn’t like him, but I didn’t know he was so brazen…
I’m NOT Choosing sides I’m just CHOOSING to Side with someone who wants AMERICANS Murdered in the Streets while Stealing TAXPAYER Dollars!
Lil Wayne collaboration is less surprising. Lil Wayne endorsed Trump in 2020.
https://nitter.click/LilTunechi/status/1321941986174226432#m

Eminem campaigned for Kamala Harris in 2024 and Obama rapped Eminem’s ‘Lose Yourself’ (mom’s spaghetti) at the campaign rally. Also Eminem released his anti-Trump freestyle in 2017 (awfully hot coffee pot).
Also, I listened to the song. It sucks ass like I’d expect but I bet church groups will think it goes hard.
🥰
Kid Rock is one of those cases where he probably has a couple songs I’d recognize if you put them on for me, but without doing that I have no idea what he sounds like. So with that total ignorance - I have never heard anyone of any political viewpoint show any kind of enthusiasm for Kid Rock’s music, like it’s far beyond the kind of hate I’ll hear for the music (including irrelevant/disliked new stuff!) of Ed Sheeran or Kanye West or, well, Eminem. It’s to the point where my immediate reaction is to wonder if Eminem should be more defensive about this as artistic suicide than as political suicide.
Yum yum yum! Slop for the piggies!

A white thrash defending his collaboration with a redneck. I don’t see anything to get surprised at.
They’re both from Detroit Michigan. Kid Rock is a fake redneck. Eminem says in the song that they both came from the same place and that Kid Rock used to attend Eminem shows before he was famous.
The underlying theme is that Democrats/Liberals are actually supportive of MAGA, though pretending to be opposed. They both share the sentiment that being raised in the same place means that you have shared values, which is similar to the ideas of right wing nationalism.












