Tag Archive for: Cultural Marxism]

Report: Popular History Textbook Is Biased toward Marxist, Anti-American Agenda

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

“A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn is a textbook used in as many as one in four high school history classrooms. Its unassuming title makes it hard to differentiate it from other literature that could be found on the shelves of nearly any school. And yet, as a report recently found, this textbook was inspired by the controversial German philosopher Karl Marx and “misinforms students” by presenting American history as a “conflict between capital and labor.”

Zinn is a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” who “believe[s] in the wiping out of national boundaries.” As The College Fix reported, his textbook “has become one of the most widely used history textbooks in American education, both at the high school and college level.” Concerned by the number of Americans who are reportedly not proud to be American, Goldwater Institute chose to compare Zinn’s history textbook to a lesser known (but significantly more conservative-based) textbook created by Hillsdale College Professor Wilfred McClay entitled, “Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story.”

The report was written and released by Goldwater’s Tyler Bonin and Matt Beienburg. “Americans’ civic memory is fading,” they wrote. “[T]he share of adults who can name even the fundamental rights of the First Amendment has dropped by as much as half in recent years,” which is in addition to the decreased number of citizens proud to be American — a percentage that went from 90% to 67% in 2004.

But what the authors discovered is that, instead of “renewing civic literacy and enthusiasm among the rising generations, many instructional programs and school resources are actively compounding the erosion of confidence in our constitutional republic.” And their report only seemed to prove that as fact.

Zinn’s heavily utilized textbook, when compared to McClay’s, presents two radically different narratives of American history. Goldwater’s researchers felt it was important for parents, teachers, and school leaders to understand how a textbook’s underlying motivations can drastically affect how a student learns of the world around them. Concerning American history, the report states that McClay’s text specifies that the primary objective is to “offer to American readers, young and old alike, an accurate, responsible, coherent, persuasive, and inspiring narrative account of their own country.” On the other hand, Zinn shared that, in the crafting of his book, “Marx’s Communist Manifesto was … immensely useful and inspiring.”

“This report provides merely a few snapshots of the competing versions of American history told through each work,” the researchers wrote. And “these differing accounts are likely to leave students either inspired or embittered in their attitudes toward the United States, depending on which text they receive.”

For example, Zinn presented the American Revolution as a result of “economic manipulation and political oppression perpetrated by wealthy elites at the expense of the poor.” McClay explained that this war was “a historically unprecedented advancement in declaring and securing liberty, equality, and self-determination advanced by flawed but extraordinary figures.” Concerning the Civil War, Zinn emphasized “resentment toward Abraham Lincoln and the people of Northern states … for insufficient opposition to the institution of slavery.” Comparatively, McClay highlighted “an appreciation for the extraordinary arc of history advanced by abolitionist leaders against anti-capitalist apologists of slavery.”

Zinn’s text seemed to support the spread of communism under the USSR, while McClay offered “a sober assessment of the threat, duplicity, and illiberal designs of the communist totalitarian regime, even while acknowledging the excesses of McCarthyism.” Zinn’s text even goes as far as to portray the Constitution as “uniquely responsible for legitimizing slavery, even as its framers had scrupulously crafted the document to avoid even recognizing the terms ‘slave,’ ‘slavery,’ ‘master,’ or ‘owner,’ and even as many of the framers expected slavery to die out.”

The report highlights that “while McClay makes no attempt to shield students from the horrors and hypocrisies of slavery — nor deny the unequal treatment endured by many of the groups living within the new American nation — he ensures that students are not left cheated of the surrounding historical backdrop as they are with Zinn.”

The full report goes into fine detail on how these texts compare, but in summary, the authors concluded:

“Howard Zinn’s A People’s History advances misrepresentations, lacks nuance, and aims to misinform our young people about landmarks of American history. The book has a near-exclusive focus on understanding every major event as a conflict between capital and labor, borrowing from Marx to scrub individual actors’ motivations free of all principles beyond greed and economic exploitation.

“The reason to oppose Howard Zinn’s book in school curricula is not because it criticizes the United States or even solely because of its ideologically driven narrative. The reason to oppose it is because it flattens America’s dynamic history into a simplistic and repetitive thesis of oppression that engenders skepticism and contempt for American institutions within our students. … Textbooks presented to high school students need not ‘whitewash’ American history — indeed they should make apparent the periods of our past in which the peoples of this nation have failed to live up to the ideals on which the United States was founded. But trying to convince students that the American republic is thus fundamentally corrupt is an entirely different — and toxic — message.”

As Family Research Council’s Meg Kilgannon told The Washington Stand, “Mary Grabar wrote an excellent book debunking Howard Zinn that I recommend to people interested in this topic.” At the end of the day, “The anti-American, anti-capitalism animus in Zinn’s work should have long ago disqualified it for purchase with public dollars.” Especially since now, Kilgannon pointed out, “we are … blessed with many truly excellent and accurate historical curricula for use in schools that will encourage a love of country and appreciation for the important contributions America has made to the world.”

Ultimately, the report emphasized that students must be reminded “that ideas and decisions matter” — reminders that should “encourage them toward responsible citizenship. In an age of increasing cynicism, stilted portrayals of history, and faltering civic literacy, the richness of texts like Wilfred McClay’s offer a much needed glimmer of hope.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Louisiana Shows America How to Fix Schools and Improve Students’ Test Scores

Blue State Leaders Keep Girls Locked in Trans Sports Nightmare

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Where the Money Goes: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Under the Biden administration, huge sums of money have been going to consulting firms promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs. Just how much money has been investigated by Christopher Rufo. More on what he has uncovered can be found here: “Government Spending Aimed at Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts Has Exploded Under Biden Administration,” by Perry Chiaramonte, New York Sun, November 22, 2024:

Consulting firms that helped to push forward the diversity, equity and inclusion agenda of the outgoing Biden Administration scored a windfall by capitalizing on the initiatives, according to a new report from the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

Senior Fellow Christopher Rufo says that a search of contracts, grants, and other programs that mentioned “diversity, equity, and inclusion” shows that the firms netted more than $1 billion from federal contracts last year.

The author’s findings show a rapid increase from 2019, when the federal government spent only $27 million in contracts that mention diversity and inclusion.

But after the death of George Floyd in 2020, the federal government and private contractors went all-in on DEI, seeking to implement the Biden administration’s ‘whole-of-government’ equity agenda,” Mr. Rufo writes in an article for The Manhattan Institute’s publication, City Journal….

Starting on January 20, President Trump’s administration will undo the DEI madness, especially in the nation’s schools, one federal grant at a time. Schools that have been engaging in racial discrimination in order to promote “diversity, equity, and inclusion” will be sued for civil rights violations; those schools that have received federal money for DEI programs will be taxed on those DEI endowments. And the federal financial spigot, that under Biden was providing $1 billion a year to promote all DEI programs, will be turned off. One more reason January 20 can’t come soon enough.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Should Federal Funds Go to Those Who Inculcate Hatred of Israel or Praise Hamas?

Jewish patients coming to the University of California San Francisco for medical care are hiding their identity

Planned Parenthood Sells “Viable” Healthy 6-Month-Old Babies to University of California

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

More About the Trans-Movement as a Provocation Against Classical Civilization

/in , , , , , , , /by

We have taken several approaches to the nature of the trans issue. Most of all, its a dialectic to negate the entire concept of males and females as a concept. Lots of great materials on that, here and here.

For those that have not seen it:

An explanation of how the trans-issue is a Marxist dialectic attack

There is also Stephen Coughlin’s half hour video on Marxism’s war on women that takes a very interesting and quite likely approach to the Trans issue as the logical extension of other feminist efforts. After all, the trans thing is 100% a product of what they call, ‘4th wave feminism’.

Stephen Coughlin: The Deep Attack – Marxism’s War on Women

We at Vlad also consider the following idea.

MUCH of Marxism’s tactics are essentially a child in a sandbox drawing a line and telling you they will hurt you if you cross that line. Then drawing that line closer and closer to you until you are standing in a small circle defined by them and you have to act, but any action you take can then be blamed on you for reacting. They attack you for reacting and therefore, you are the guilty party. Put into context, they will provoke you and provoke you and provoke you with things actually designed to stimulate a negative response to the provocation and they get a win-win.

Either you do not react, and they own the intellectual space, the rights, and all aspects of the culture and law and you become a slave to whatever the narrative of the moment is, or you do react, and you become a thought criminal or worse. 

A good example of this, but far far from the only one, would be Hamas and communists stealing and burning US flags and defacing a Columbus Memorial and not facing any consequences at all, while a person who burns out a truck tire or drives disrespectfully with a freaking scooter over a homosexual symbolic flag literally painted on the streets of an intersection, will face the force of the law, and massive scrutiny by the media, social and regular.

I wonder what Maurice Chevalier would have had to say about this.

Frankly even I didn’t believe it at first. So I asked Brave Browser’s free AI, which most of the time is actually much better than paid Chat GPT just by the way. If you don’t currently use the Brave browser, why?

Parisian drag queen to carry Olympic torch during opening ceremony

A drag queen has been announced as one of the people who will carry the Olympic flame in the opening ceremony of the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris. She has been targeted for hatred by the right since she was announced as one of the people who will participate in the Olympic torch relay, but the city of Paris is standing up for her.

“I know that visibility is still one of the pillars of acceptance of our LGBTQIA+ community,” 33-year-old Parisian drag queen Minima Gesté said in a video announcing her participation. “So having a drag queen carry the flame—and who might fall flat on her face with it, wait and see—it’s an enormous source of pride.”

These two paragraphs from LGBTQ magazine prove my entire point for me about provocation and demonization of those who dare respond appropriately. Which is to say with flat out outrage and refusal to allow it to take place in one way or another. “She [sic] has been targeted for hatred…” as opposed to the factual: this exaggerated and grotesque caricature of a woman who had it been black face, even Al Jolson would say it was a step too far, was selected to antagonize anyone not submissive to the communist and post modern diktats we make for you and any mumblings of disapproval will be criminalized or attacked non-judicially as a hate crime. And boom, there you are tightly squeezed in that little circle so tight if you dare yawn your gut will stick out past it and you will get punched in it for daring to move outside of it.

Brave’s AI answer to the question: Are the French using trans woman as Olympic torch bearers?

Yes, according to the search results, a French drag queen, Minima Gesté, has been chosen to participate in the Olympic torch relay for the 2024 Paris Olympics. Specifically, she will carry the torch during the opening ceremony.

Despite facing online abuse and criticism from conservatives, the city of Paris has publicly supported her, with Mayor Anne Hidalgo reaffirming her commitment to Minima and stating that Paris is proud to have a drag queen carrying the torch, representing the values of peace and humanity.

Note the highlighted dialectical points.

Proud to provoke you, we are doing it despite the fact that you hate it (for very good reasons), and you are a bad person if you don’t accept the destruction of your identity. If you are a woman, of the mocking and destruction of your identity as a woman, and if you are a man, for not embracing this disgusting anti-female mockery as being a real woman. It isn’t that hatred is bad of course. Mandatory 2 minutes of daily  hatred of Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orban and all non-communist leaders is the rule on nearly all media. But like Islam, you have to hate what Allah hates, and you have to love what Allah loves. To do otherwise, is blasphemy.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Cultural Terrorism Comes to America

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Globalism is a replacement ideology that seeks to reorder the world into one singular, planetary Unistate, ruled by the globalist elite. The globalist war on nation-states cannot succeed without collapsing the United States of America. The long-term strategic attack plan moves America incrementally from constitutional republic to socialism to globalism to feudalism. The tactical attack plan uses asymmetric psychological and informational warfare to destabilize Americans and drive society out of objective reality into the madness of subjective reality. America’s children are the primary target of the globalist predators.

The upward mobility provided by the capitalist system and meritocracy in the United States created a vibrant middle class. In a land of opportunity, working-class people were no longer reliable revolutionaries. Scott S. Powell, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and writer for The American Spectator, explains the shift in Marxist strategy with a bit of history about Vladimir Lenin. From Powell’s August 15, 2015, article, “The Quiet Revolution: How the New Left Took Over the Democratic Party“:[i]

The proletariat never did revolt successfully en masse in any advanced industrialized state. Instead, Marx’s political and economic revolution was first staged in the largely agrarian nation of Russia, carried out by Marxist revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin. Lenin made major contributions to Marx’s theories, so much so that Marxism-Leninism became the dominant theoretical paradigm for advancing national liberation movements, communism, and socialism wherever in the world radical revolutionary movements arose.

Among Lenin’s contributions was the theory of the vanguard. Since it was apparent that the proletariat masses were unlikely to rise up, Lenin argued that it was necessary for a relatively small number of vanguard leaders—professional revolutionaries—to advance the revolutionary cause by working themselves into positions of influence. By taking over the commanding heights of labor unions, the press, the universities, and professional and religious organizations, a relatively small number of revolutionaries could multiply their influence and exercise political leverage over their unwitting constituents and society at large.

It was Lenin who introduced the concept of the “popular front” and coined the phrase “useful idiots” in describing the masses who could be manipulated into mob action of marches and protests for an ostensibly narrow cause of the popular front, which the communist vanguard was using as a means for a greater revolutionary political end.

The Marxists needed to identify a new cohort of rebels to collapse American society from within. They chose academia and anointed its graduating student population of useful idiots to be vanguard leaders for changing hearts and minds in America. What Bolshevik George Lukács was unable to impose in Catholic Hungary, cultural terrorism, has been wildly successful in America; it just needed a different strategy in order to succeed.

The 1969 Woodstock Festival was a watershed event for the counterculture movement in music, drugs, and sexual permissiveness. The sexual revolution was a social and cultural movement advocating sexual liberation and acceptance of public nudity, premarital sex, extramarital sex, alternative forms of sexuality, contraception, pornography, homosexuality, masturbation, and abortion. Significantly absent from any discussion of sexual liberation were love, loyalty, commitment, and respect.

The foundation for the sexual revolution that challenged and defied America’s traditional Judeo-Christian standards of sexual behavior in the 1960s and 1970s had its roots in Alfred Kinsey’s twin books, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)[ii] and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).[iii] Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute were supported by the Rockefeller Foundation and protected by the U.S. government. Kinsey’s fraudulent research was presented as scientific, factual, and normative. Its catastrophic consequences continue to reverberate in America, advancing Marxism’s intent to collapse from within America’s cultural norms and family infrastructure.

The sexual revolution drastically changed attitudes about sexual behavior and freedom of sexual expression. Those changes were animated, echoed, and reflected in literature, films, and legislation. Eventually the counterculture attitudes of sexual freedom and liberation from traditional Judeo-Christian sexual restrictions touched the children.

Author and researcher Dr. Judith Reisman (1935–2021) was an indefatigable defender of children and society’s moral responsibility to protect them. Her work exposed Kinsey’s fraudulent research and abhorrent ideology that children are sexual from birth and have a right to experience sexual pleasure whenever and with whomever they want. Kinsey insisted that Judeo-Christian principles concerning human sexuality were outdated, unscientific, and repressive. Dr. Reisman’s exposé of Kinsey implicated its hidden sociopolitical connections to the globalist War on America. She explained how Kinsey’s narrative was weaponized for use in the Culture War to support the sexual revolution, collapse societal norms, and change laws regarding the protection of children, globalism’s ultimate target.

Dr. Reisman’s seminal work, “MKULTRA, KINSEY & ROCKEFELLER: Instruments of the New World Order,”[iv]published by the Reisman Institute on January 27, 2021, provides an overview:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1932 communist W. Z. Foster predicted the destruction of America’s “education, morality, ethics, science, art, patriotism, religion” was necessary to establish a “New World Order.” 1 America’s social, economic, and sexual stability rested on Judeo-Christian beliefs and laws—abstinence before and faithfulness during consensual heterosexual marriage. Her national health and wealth testified to the success of this normal biopsychological sexual model. From 1941, when America entered WWII, the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) began funding the work of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, who would have been known to RF as a sadomasochistic bi/homosexual. RF backing ensured Kinsey’s 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, instant popularity; “the Kinsey scale” codified “fluid sexuality” for the future, ensuring his enduring international fame. RF connected Kinsey with a wider network of RF-funded scientists. From c.1946 Kinsey partnered with RF’s Columbia-Greystone Brain Project at New York’s “Snake Pit,” Rockland Mental Hospital. The results of Kinsey’s studies of sexual responses of lobotomized patients are sanitized in Kinsey’s 1953 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.

This paper provides new evidence that the ~2,034 infants and children sexually violated for Kinsey’s globe-changing “scientific proof” of infant/child orgasm were sourced from these and similar entities. 82% of Kinsey’s child sex experiments are a match with the “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” used on terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Since Kinsey’s definition of “orgasm” involves symptomatology indistinguishable from epileptic fit, terror/distress and/or electric shock treatment, the physiological responses he declared as child “orgasm” were true trauma responses. This is a newly uncovered Kinsey fraud represented as “science” by his RF funders. Very far from the organic “shock” of a scientific break-through advertised, this paper argues that Kinsey’s sex work served as part of a broader psyops2 as rationale for thorough social change.

As recently as 2020, RF claimed credit for “funding a sexual revolution” via the “Kinsey Reports.” From 1954 Congressional efforts to investigate Kinsey’s sex work and the causal connection between pornography and ever-rising levels of child sexual abuse have been successfully blocked. Those acting in Rockefeller interests have prevented Kinsey’s exposure while promoting his conclusions. From 1953, Hefner, “Kinsey’s pamphleteer,” marketed RF/Kinsey’s lies to young college men via Playboy. The sexual restraint of previous generations—responsible for building America—were reframed as a web of hypocritical lies; premarital, extramarital, meaningless, love-free sex glamorized; and a generation, with Hefner its guru, embraced cynicism about human relationships, nihilism and rejection of all received wisdom.

The 1955 RF-funded Model Penal Code (MPC), drafted by RF’s approved team, citing Kinsey, would over-turn prior sex laws, including obscenity laws by 1957, and trivialized sexual abuse. In 1964, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), funded by Playboy, and based at the Kinsey Institute, taught schools to disparage chastity, heterosexuality and monogamy. Soon, with “obscenity exemptions” allowed for “education,” K–12 instructed in exotic sexual behaviors. Ever-greater upticks in child rape, pornography and deadly STDs have, predictably, followed. In 2014, the Kinsey Institute (KI) won United Nations consultative status for “educational” materials which aimed at over-riding the most basic instinct for self-preservation in children of all ages, effectively preparing them to co-operate with RF’s social change agenda.

Since 2019 the KI’s App., the “Kinsey Reporter”, solicited “citizen scientists” (of any age) to record/report all sex acts/crimes anonymously.

Congressional investigation of a criminal nexus of RF, KI, Big Pharma, Big Porn, Big Abort and “sexual health” providers and educators, past and present, is critically needed to halt the damage these entities inflicted on three successive generations in their obsession for a New World Order.

1 William Z. Foster. (1932–2016). Toward Soviet America. Hauraki Publishing. Kindle Edition. p. 313.
2 Psychological operations…to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and…behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

THE THESIS

For over seven decades, powerful entities prevented official investigation of Dr. Alfred Kinsey and promoted his conclusions as “truth”. The result is that public policy, education, and law have been guided by the lies of a psychopathic4 pedosadist.5 Instead of protecting children and scaffolding the family, government policy has facilitated the agenda of allied interest groups which benefit personally, financially, and/or politically from sexual exploitation of the vulnerable and the destruction of the nuclear family. Notable among these beneficiaries are the very elites who, wishing to establish a New World Order, initiated and funded Kinsey’s work, sold his lies to the public, and obstructed investigation of Kinsey and the Institute that bears his name and continues his work to this day. Official investigation of Kinsey—and the cultural transformation he set in motion—is long overdue.

4 The use of such a term “psychopath” is not simply hyperbole. It is used in the clinical sense of the word. Academic researchers, such as Robert Hare, Ph.D, (1) and James Fallon, Ph.D. (2), and forensic clinicians who have spent years working with incarcerated psychopaths in long-term solitary and in general population, such as Jon K. Uhler, LPC (3), each concur that the clinical definition of a psychopath can be boiled down to someone lacking conscience, empathy, and remorse:

(1) http://www.psychology-criminalbehavior-law.com/2015/01/hare-psychopath/
(2) https://www.crimetraveller.org/2015/07/inside-mind-of-psychopath-psychopathic-killer

(3) https://www.quora.com/Why-do-certain-psychologists-mix-up-cluster-B-traits-and-deem-the-combination-a- sociopath/answer/Jon-K-Uhler
Given that Kinsey elected to sexually abuse children, allow other deviant adults to sexually abuse them under the guise of scientific experiments, and the fact that he would do so to so many children, and never experience any signs of remorse or contrition, would clearly categorize him well within the realm of psychopathy. In fact, given that he would then take such “results” from such diabolically abusive “treatment” of children, which would no doubt have profound life-altering and life-long consequences on those children, and use that in such a brazen manner so as to appear as having done legitimate research (as opposed to having perpetrated and sanctioned the perpetration of children), for the purpose of creating a belief about the supposed sexuality of children, in order to craft public opinion, public policy, judicial decisions, and impact state and federal legislation reveals a profoundly psychopathic agenda-driven mind, intent upon shifting the culture toward a greater acceptance of child sexuality and the narrative of mutual love and sexual expression between persons, regardless of age. After all, we’re now told that “Love is Love”, “Love knows no boundaries”, and “Love knows no age.” https://www.growingbolder.com/love-has-no-age-3020496/

5 While “pedophile” and “pederast” have been used to describe those who desire to, or who do, sexually violate, exploit children, the term means “child-lover” (“philia” the Greek for love or more recently, “friendly feeling toward,” https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/-philia).

The leaders of the counterculture on campuses in the ’60s and ’70s graduated and became vanguard leaders, professional revolutionaries who advance the revolutionary cause by working themselves into positions of influence. They are the labor leaders, the press, and leaders of universities, professional organizations, and religious organizations. They have multiplied their influence and exercise political leverage over their unwitting constituents and society at large, exactly as Scott S. Powell described.

Today’s vanguard leaders are called “influencers,” and they are manipulating today’s masses of useful idiots into mob action just as their predecessors did. The difference between the nascent counterculture of the ’60s and ’70s and the radical leftist Democrats of the 2024 Democrat party is in both form and content. Today’s influencers reach a worldwide audience using the Internet, and their new corps of chosen rebels are young American parents—indoctrinated millennials.

The communist vanguard and influencers use the “popular front” of parents as “useful idiots” for the revolutionary end of grooming American children to become the newest counterculture generation of anti-American socialist citizens. Today’s American parents, the second generation of useful idiots, are low-information voters who surrender their authority and common sense to the influencers. Rather than protect their precious children, they accept the horrific sexualization of them as harmless and embrace the insanity of cultural terrorism as normal.

Let’s take a look at sex education in American schools in 2024. Any school, public or private, that receives government funding is subject to the overt sexualization of children. Political analyst Karen McKay, LTC USAR (Ret.), offers a helpful overview in her American Thinker article published November 5, 2022, “Weaponizing Children.”[v] She writes:

To achieve an American Marxist utopia, it would be necessary to dismantle the Judeo-Christian values that have undergirded America since the founding. Adult Americans being incorrigibly patriotic and religious, it was necessary to capture their kids.

In 1928, Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw [1856–1950] boasted in his The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism, Capitalism, Sovietism and Fascism:

In the case of young children, we have gone far in our interference with the old Roman rights of parents. For nine mortal years the child is taken out of its parents’ hands for most of the day, and thus made a State-school child instead of a private family child….

The social creed must be imposed on us when we are children; for it is like riding, or reading music at sight: it can never become a second nature to those who try to learn it as adults; and the social creed, to be really effective, must be a second nature to us. It is quite easy to give people a second nature, however unnatural, if you catch them early enough. There is no belief, however grotesque and even villainous, that cannot be made a part of human nature if it is inculcated in childhood and not contradicted in the child’s hearing.

Marxists are confident that victory is now at hand. The tactics to achieve that victory are societal chaos and confusion. Their weapons include disinformation and propaganda, language distortion, violence, moral degradation, and sexual perversion.

Sex education, once presented in high school as clinical biology, became graphic and presented in elementary schools. Without parents’ knowledge, children are encouraged to “discover” that they are homosexual. Drag queen story hours target toddlers in libraries and kindergartens—even on military bases.

Books like Gender Queer and It’s Perfectly Normal are included among the reading material for young kids. Curricula include gems like the film Pornography Literacy: An intersectional focus on mainstream porn.Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy, Papa, and Me undermine the concept of traditional families. Teachers promote gender dysphoria. Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) instills an early obsession with sex in small children. “Sexual diversity” in children’s entertainment is also key to grooming them. When the fruit of explicit sex education is pregnancy, schools arrange abortions without parents’ knowledge.

The United Nations Population Fund stresses that CSE needs to start very young, in preschool. But the Center for Family and Human Rights, [a conservative advocacy organization founded in 1997 to challenge UN policies], warns that CSE teaches “very young children about sexual pleasure, sexual orientation, gender identity, and access to and use of contraceptives, abortion, and other drugs and medical procedures.” …

United Families International, [a nonprofit organization founded in 1978 working internationally to advocate maintaining and strengthening the family] is even more explicit in its warning: CSE teaches “children how to have sexual pleasures; whether…to themselves or with a partner…. At a United Nations conference, a moderator said, ‘If we can just get this…program into every school and fully implemented around the globe…it would solve all our problems!’… Its main purposes are to elevate such things as masturbation, oral and anal sex, and techniques for achieving an orgasm. And basically, teaching our children to be gender and sexual rights activists.”

Controlling the minds of our kids is the ultimate strategic terrain. Without the complete programming of America’s children—weaponizing them—Marxism cannot win in America.

There cannot be an armistice in this war. There can be only one victor.

Karen McKay speaks with objective military precision and a seasoned military voice. Her dire warning echoes ancient military strategist Sun Tzu, The Art of War:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

©2024. All rights reserved.

Please visit Linda’s Pundicity page: goudsmit.pundicity.com and her website: lindagoudsmit.com 

[i]  The Quiet Revolution: How the New Left Took Over the Democratic Party; https://www.discovery.org/a/24871/

[ii]  Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, W. B. Saunders Company, 1948; https://archive.org/details/sexualbehaviorin00kins/page/n5/mode/2up

[iii]  Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, W. B. Saunders Company, Alfred Kinsey, 1953; https://archive.org/details/sexualbehaviorin00inst/page/n5/mode/2up

[iv]  MKULTRA, KINSEY & ROCKEFELLER: Instruments of the New World Order; https://www.thereismaninstitute.org/reisman-articles/2021/1/27/mkultra-kinsey-amp-rockefeller?rq=MKULTRA

[v]  Weaponizing Children; https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/11/weaponizing_children.html

Just 3 Companies Are Leading The Charge In The Marxist Takeover Of America

/in , , , , , , , /by

For nearly nine out of 10 companies listed on the S&P 500 stock exchange, their largest single shareholder is one of the “Big Three” investment firms: BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street. Managing more money than most small countries, these firms have an invisible foothold in virtually every sector of American society. But how did these paragons of capitalism turn into a Marxist Trojan Horse?

Two trends emerged in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. One was a new type of investment that concentrated capital among a small number of firms. The other was left-wing activism in the style of Occupy Wall Street. Combined, these trends helped empower three firms to push much of the corporate wokeness that is so common today.

The financial meltdown precipitated a transition from active to passive investment. Active investment is what one typically thinks of as investing — making risky stock purchases in an attempt to beat the market in the short-term. Passive investment, on the other hand, requires much less effort. According to Investopedia, it is a long-term strategy where investors try to “replicate market performance by constructing well-diversified portfolios” (e.g. mutual funds) typically based on a “representative benchmark” like the S&P 500 index.  In other words, it bets on the market rather than against it.

Passive investing took off after the financial crisis when investors realized it wasn’t worth trying to beat the market. Why pay a broker a one to two percent fee every year to actively manage your assets, especially when the downturn revealed they often under-performed the regular market returns? Many opted for passive asset management that cost a fraction of a brokerage fee.

One study found that between 2008 and 2015, active funds lost $800 billion while passive funds gained over $1 trillion in new investment. As of 2019, more money is now invested in passive than in active funds.

This empowered the rise of the Big Three firms, which all specialize in passive asset management. Combined, the three firms have a total of $22 trillion in assets under management, much of which comes from large institutional investors like pension funds.

These firms invest in passive index funds on behalf of their clients, but the sheer volume has allowed them to become major shareholders in nearly all public American companies. With this comes out-sized voting power on corporate boards.

At the same time passive investing took off, social leftism was escaping from college campuses into the real world.

Occupy Wall Street represented legitimate outrage against the wild mismanagement of Wall Street finance. However, what started out as an ostensibly class-based protest quickly devolved into dysfunctional identity politics.

As one former Occupy protester reflected, the movement “fell apart largely because of the endless bifurcation of members’ agendas. Whenever a task force of leading members was proposed to discuss some almost-consensus working-class issue like support for an increased minimum wage, the call would immediately come for a women’s task force. Then, what about a Black women’s task force? A Black gay women’s task force? Very often, 37 quarreling proposals about what to do would eventually be made, and nothing would ever get done.”

Occupy provided its own foil for elites to replicate. The best way to neuter a class-based revolution is to divide the middle and working classes into factions, and have them fight among each other rather than unite against the financial and political elites. Identity politics — what’s really just American Marxism — became a sure-fire way to insulate elite power.

Like Marxism, identity politics pits victim against oppressor, except in the American case it is based on racial categories rather than economic class. The Big Three weaponize the framework of Marxism to keep the lower classes occupied without actually having to give up any of their power or wealth. 

Thus, it’s not surprising that the Big Three have used their shareholder power to impose an Environmental Social Governance (ESG) agenda on corporate America that makes companies bend the knee to identity politics. The “E” focuses on climate issues and supposed externalities; the “S” factors in identity concerns like diversity and inclusion; and the “G” requires structuring corporate leadership to reflect the previous two components. If companies want to be included in vaunted ESG funds, they must meet the often arbitrary benchmarks.

Just one of many egregious examples shows how this scheme plays out in practice.

After George Floyd’s death, BlackRock decided it wanted all the companies it invests in to put greater effort into diversity and inclusion. They forced American companies to disclose the “racial, ethnic and gender makeup of their employees.” This was then used as a benchmark to force companies to re-make their boards of directors so that the “board’s composition reflects . . . the diversity of the company’s key stakeholders.” BlackRock pledged to vote against any directors who refused to do so.

At virtually the same time, Vanguard and State Street imposed similar diversity mandates across their portfolios, making it near impossible for companies to avoid. The number of companies now releasing their diversity data tripled in the year after the new requirements were imposed.

This formula has been replicated on numerous left-wing priorities. Additionally, as industry leaders, the Big Three serve as respectable actors for smaller firms to emulate — even those they lack the direct power to coerce.

Elites like BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink have recently attempted to distance themselves from the ESG name and the “woke” connotation it now carries. However, don’t be fooled — ESG by any other name is just as destructive.

AUTHOR

GAGE KLIPPER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘I’m Ashamed’: BlackRock CEO Says He’s Ditching The Left’s Favorite Buzzword For Woke Investing

Bud Light CEO Refuses To Say Whether He Regrets Dylan Mulvaney Partnership

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Source Of The Marxist Takeover Of American Institutions Is So Obvious It Hurts

/in , , , , , , , , /by

It is impossible to deny how far left all of America’s institutions have shifted in the past few years. Corporate board rooms, the media, sports teams and even the military all chant the same dogma and insist that you comply.

How did that happen? As Ernest Hemingway wrote on how one goes bankrupt, “gradually, then suddenly.” Indeed, our leading institutions face a moral bankruptcy unprecedented in American history.

This could not have happened without the left’s successful “long march through the institutions.” This term, made famous by radical academics in the 1960s, refers to the strategy used by “New Left” students of that era. They aimed to achieve long-term social and and political change by infiltrating and subverting key institutions, particularly the elite universities they often attended.

These radicals were the progenitors of the critical theories that plague our offices and our children’s schools today. They knew these ideas could never be sold democratically to the American public, so they instead sought to disrupt disciplines — sociology, anthropology, philosophy, and cultural studies — that were more amenable to their critical perspectives. 

Through their research, teaching, and activism, they eventually came to dominate entire departments or even university leadership. This power was then used to launder their ideology to a new generation of students who would unquestioningly carry it with them into the “real world.”

A new Harvard survey on faculty political leanings reveals that the left’s long march was more successful than they likely ever dreamed. A whopping 75% of Harvard faculty identifies as “liberal” or “very liberal,” while only 2.5% identifies as conservative. A minuscule 0.4 percent identifies as “very conservative.”

As law professor Jonathon Turley points out, these figures massively overrepresent liberals compared to society overall. Roughly equal portions of Americans identify as conservative or moderate, while only 26% identify as liberal. More Harvard faculty identify as “very liberal” (32%) than Americans overall identify as “liberal.”

The figure is representative across large swathes of American academia. In 1969, one in four college professors was at least moderately conservative. Now, liberals outweigh conservatives on campus by roughly 12 to one.

Yet Harvard’s stark disparity stands out more than the rest because it is the best that American education has to offer — or at least it used to be.

Nevertheless, its name is still intrinsically associated with excellence and prestige that few other universities are accorded. If you are a Harvard graduate, you are likely to impact the highest levels of American power in whichever field you choose to pursue.

That is precisely the point. By capturing the Harvard banner, radical activists then got to decide what constituted excellence and prestige. Their radical ideologies gained the legitimacy associated with the Harvard name and serve as an example for lesser universities to follow. Molded by these new definitions, Harvard graduates carry them out to the world where they shape the halls of power in business, government, and media.

Harvard boasts the most alumni who later became CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. With 41 alumni CEOs, Harvard dwarfs the nearest runner up, the University of Pennsylvania, by almost double.

Harvard also has the largest number of Nobel Prize winners at 161. It boasts the largest number of Supreme Court justices in history, with four Harvard graduates currently on the bench.

Harvard also has the largest number of U.S. military Medal of Honor recipients (18) for any non-military school. This included 8 generals throughout history.

Given this legacy, Harvard will continue to recruit America’s brightest and most ambitious young minds. Many of them are likely pre-existing liberals, but many of them will not be. Blinded by the allure of the Harvard name, they will make themselves vulnerable to the ubiquitous leftism of their professors.

Even those who see what’s happening will likely go along to get along. If they do not bend the knee, all their hard work will be for naught, and their aspirations will crumble beneath them.

Conservatives must accept that the purpose of academia — to foster intellectual curiosity and challenge rigid ways of thinking — no longer exists as we all once imagined. The long march, which occurred gradually over decades, hit suddenly in the Trump era. There is no sign the radicals will allow dissent within Harvard or any other university any time soon.

AUTHOR

GAGE KLIPPER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here’s The New Left-Wing Theory Parents Are Fighting In Schools

Harvard University Is Hosting A Race-Based Music Program, Civil Rights Complaint Alleges

‘Inquisitions And Purges’: Star Harvard Professors Form Group To Counter Attacks On Academic Freedom

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Power of Woke: How Leftist Ideology is Undermining our Society and Economy

/in , , , , , , , /by

Neo-Marxism is a cultural cancer spreading through America and beyond.

“It’s an important part of society whether you like it or not,” lexicologist Tony Thorne, referring to “wokeness,” told The New Yorker’s David Remnick in January. That’s an understatement.

Wokeness is poisoning the Western workplace and constraining small and family businesses, midsized banks, and entrepreneurs while enriching powerful corporations and billionaires. It’s eating away at the capitalist ethos and killing the bottom-up modes of economic ordering and exchange that propelled the United States of America to prosperity during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It’s infecting Gen Z and millennials, who, suffering high depression rates and prone to “quiet quitting,” are not as well off as their parents and grandparents, and who feel isolated and alone even as they enjoy a technological connectivity that’s unprecedented in human history.

What, exactly, is wokeness, and how does it impact business and the wider society?

Subversion

The term as it’s widely used today differs from earlier significations. “Woke”, which plays on African American vernacular, once meant “awake to” or “aware of” social and racial injustices. The term expanded to encompass a wider array of causes from climate change, gun control, and LGTBQ rights to domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abortion.

Now, wielded by its opponents, it’s chiefly a pejorative dismissing the person or party it modifies. It’s the successor to “political correctness,” a catchall idiom that ridicules a broad range of leftist hobbyhorses. Carl Rhodes submits, in Woke Capitalism, that “woke transmuted from being a political call for self-awareness through solidarity in the face of massive racial injustice, to being an identity marker for self-righteousness.”

John McWhorter’s Woke Racism argues that wokeness is religious in character, unintentionally and intrinsically racist, and deleterious to black people. McWhorter, a black linguist, asserts that “white people calling themselves our saviors make black people look like the dumbest, weakest, most self-indulgent human beings in the history of our species.”

Books like Stephen R. Soukup’s The Dictatorship of Woke Capital and Vivek Ramaswamy’s Woke, Inc. highlight the nefarious side of the wokeism adopted by large companies, in particular in the field of asset management, investment, and financial services.

Hypocritical neo-Marxism

Wokeism, in both the affirming and derogatory sense, is predicated on a belief in systemic or structural forces that condition culture and behavior. The phrases “structural racism” or “systemic racism” suggest that rational agents are nevertheless embedded in a network of interacting and interconnected rules, norms, and values that perpetuate white supremacy or marginalise people of color and groups without privilege.

Breaking entirely free from these inherited constraints is not possible, according to the woke, because we cannot operate outside the discursive frames established by long use and entrenched power. Nevertheless, the argument runs, we can decentre the power relations bolstering this system and subvert the techniques employed, wittingly or unwittingly, to preserve extant hierarchies. That requires, however, new structures and power relations.

Corporate executives and boards of directors are unsuspectingly and inadvertently — though sometimes deliberately — caught up in these ideas. They’re immersed in an ideological paradigm arising principally from Western universities. It’s difficult to identify the causative origin of this complex, disparate movement to undo the self-extending power structures that supposedly enable hegemony. Yet businesses, which, of course, are made up of people, including disaffected Gen Zs and millennials, develop alongside this sustained effort to dismantle structures and introduce novel organising principles for society.

The problem is, rather than neutralising power, the “woke” pursue and claim power for their own ends. Criticising systems and structures, they erect systems and structures in which they occupy the center, seeking to dominate and subjugate the people or groups they allege to have subjugated or dominated throughout history. They replace one hegemony with another.

The old systems had problems, of course. They were imperfect. But they retained elements of classical liberalism that protected hard-won principles like private property, due process of law, rule of law, free speech, and equality under the law. Wokeism dispenses with these. It’s about strength and control. And it has produced a corporate-government nexus that rigidifies power in the hands of an elite few.

Consider the extravagant spectacle in Davos, the beautiful resort town that combined luxury and activism at the recent meeting of the World Economic Forum, perhaps the largest gathering of self-selected, influential lobbyists and “c suiters” across countries and cultures. This annual event occasions cartoonish portrayals of evil, conspiratorial overlords — the soi-disant saviours paternalistically preaching about planetary improvement, glorifying their chosen burden to shape global affairs. The World Economic Forum has become a symbol of sanctimony and lavish inauthenticity, silly in its ostentation.

The near-ubiquitous celebration of lofty Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) strategies at the World Economic Forum reveals a seemingly uniform commitment among prominent leaders to harness government to pull companies — and, alas, everyone else — to the left.

ESG is, of course, an acronym for the non-financial standards and metrics that asset managers, bankers, and investors factor while allocating capital or assessing risk. A growing consortium of governments, central banks, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), asset management firms, finance ministries, financial institutions, and institutional investors advocates ESG as the top-down, long-term solution to purported social and climate risks. Even if these risks are real, is ESG the proper remedy?

Attendees of the World Economic Forum would not champion ESG if they did not benefit from doing so. That plain fact doesn’t alone discredit ESG, but it raises questions about ulterior motives: What’s really going on? How will these titans of finance and government benefit from ESG?

Follow the money

One obvious answer involves the institutional investors that prioritise activism over purely financial objectives or returns on investment (for legal reasons, activist investors would not characterise their priorities as such). It has only been a century since buying and selling shares in publicly traded companies became commonplace among workers and households. The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), created in response to the Great Depression, isn’t even 100 years old.

Until recently, most investors divested if they owned stock in a company that behaved contrary to their beliefs. They rarely voted their shares or voted only on major issues like mergers and acquisitions. In 2023, however, institutional investors such as hedge funds and asset management firms engage boards of directors, exercise proxy voting, and issue shareholder reports with the primary goal of politicising companies. As intermediaries, they invest pension funds, mutual funds, endowments, sovereign wealth funds, 401(k)s and more on behalf of beneficiaries who may or may not know what political causes their invested assets support.

If a publicly traded company “goes woke,” consider which entities hold how much of its shares and whether unwanted shareholder pressure is to blame. Consider, too, the role of third-party proxy advisors in the company’s policies and practices.

Big companies go woke to eliminate competition. After all, they can afford the costs to comply with woke regulations whereas small companies cannot. Institutional investors warn of prospective risks of government regulation while lobbying for such regulation. In the United States, under the Biden Administration, woke federal regulations are, unsurprisingly, emerging. Perhaps publicly traded companies will privatise to avoid proposed SEC mandates regarding ESG disclosures, but regulation in other forms and through other agencies will come for private companies too.

The woke should question why they’re collaborating with their erstwhile corporate enemies. Have they abandoned concerns about poverty for the more lucrative industry of identity politics and environmentalism? Have they sold out, happily exploiting the uncouth masses, oppressing the already oppressed, and trading socioeconomic class struggle for the proliferating dogma of race, sexuality, and climate change? As wokeness becomes inextricably tied to ESG, we can no longer say, “Go woke, go broke.” Presently, wokeness is a vehicle to affluence, a status marker, the ticket to the center of the superstructure.

ESG helps the wealthiest to feel better about themselves while widening the gap between the rich and poor and disproportionately burdening economies in developing countries. It’s supplanting the classical liberal rules and institutions that leveled playing fields, engendered equality of opportunity, expanded the franchise, reduced undue discrimination, eliminated barriers to entry, facilitated entrepreneurship and innovation, and empowered individuals to realise their dreams and rise above their station at birth.

When politics is ubiquitous, wokeness breeds antiwokeness. The right caught on to institutional investing; counteroffensives are underway. The totalising politicisation of corporations is a zero-sum arms race in which the right captures some companies while the left captures others.

Soon there’ll be no escaping politics, no tranquil zones, and little space for emotional detachment, contemplative privacy, or principled neutrality; parallel economies will emerge for different political affiliations; noise, fighting, anger, distraction, and division will multiply; every quotidian act will signal a grand ideology. For the woke, “silence is violence”; there’s no middle ground; you must speak up; and increasingly for their opponents as well, you must choose sides.

Which will you choose in this corporatised dystopia? If the factions continue to concentrate and centralise power, classical liberals will have no good options. Coercion and compulsion will prevail over freedom and cooperation. And commerce and command will go hand in hand.

This article has been republished with permission from Mises Wire.

AUTHOR

Allen Mendenhall

Allen Mendenhall is an associate dean at Faulkner University Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, executive director of the Blackstone & Burke Center for Law & Liberty, and Managing Editor of Southern… More by Allen Mendenhall

RELATED VIDEO: Freedom is Worth Fighting For

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Do The Woke Hate Clarence Thomas So Much?

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Justice Clarence Thomas, being African American, is seen as a traitor to the woke cause.

After the overturning of Roe v Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas has been a particular target of venomous attack from the woke mob. Why do they hate him so much? One might be forgiven for thinking that it is due to his staunch anti-abortion views. But that explanation does not work.

Pope Francis has long expressed that opposing abortion is “closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right”, and yet, the Left is not obsessed with him (in fact, many even take a liking). At some point, even Joe Biden supported letting States overturn Roe v Wade, and again, the Left did not go ballistic on him.

Not behaving as expected

So, why the animus against Thomas? There can only be one explanation: race. In 1991, as he was accused of sexually harassing Anita Hill, Thomas countered that he was the victim of “a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you.”

This was loose talk, as it trivialised the suffering of real lynching victims in America’s troubled history of race relations. But Thomas did have a point in arguing that in the United States, any black person who dares to deviate from the official narrative of how blacks are supposed to act, will face severe harassment.

In 1991, he anticipated a trend that would become mainstream in our times: if you are born with a particular skin colour, you are supposed to behave in a certain way, and uphold a specific ideology. If not, you are a race traitor. As Biden so neatly phrased it:

“[I]f you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

Any competent scholar of the history of racism would immediately recognise this as race essentialism. As Angelo Corlett explains in his book Race, Racism and Reparations,
“proponents of race essentialism define human races by a set of genetic or cultural traits shared by all members of a ‘racial’ group.”

Who are the neo-Nazis now?

In the first half of the 20th Century, this view was popular amongst proponents of so-called “racial science”. They believed that racial biological traits determine how people behave. Hitler believed that no matter how much a person with Jewish ancestry tried to assimilate to German society (even converting to another religion), he or she would still be a dangerous Jew, because it was in his or her essence.

Race essentialism is abhorrent, and one might think that after 1945, the world learned a lesson. And yet, race essentialism is alive and kicking, but this time, under the guise of woke progressivism. As per today’s woke rules, if you are black, you must embrace the whole woke mindset.

White people (such as Pope Francis) may occasionally be forgiven for having anti-abortion views, but if you are black and you deviate from the woke line (such as Clarence Thomas), you are a race traitor, an Uncle Tom. Unsurprisingly, Thomas has been called “Uncle Clarence” multiple times.

If you are black, not only do you have to act a certain way, but you must also have a special sexual preference. The woke pay lip service to interracial relationships, but amongst them there is a sense of unease when they contemplate a successful black man marrying a white woman.

For example, when Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, USA Today columnist Barbara Reynolds wrote: “Here’s a man who’s going to decide crucial issues for the country and he has already said no to blacks; he has already said if he can’t paint himself white he’ll think white and marry a white woman.” Russell Adams, chairman of African American studies at Howard University, said that Thomas “marrying a white woman is a sign of his rejection of the black community.”

Truly racist

Frantz Fanon is a figure beloved by the Left. In 1952, he published Black Skin, White Masks, a canonical text of wokeness. In that book, he also scorns black men who fall in love with white women. Fanon castigates himself for, at some point, having had these thoughts: “Out of the blackest part of my soul, across the zebra striping of my mind, surges this desire to be suddenly white. I wish to be acknowledged not as black but as white… I marry white culture, white beauty, white whiteness.” The implication of this passage is that loving a white woman is an act of racial treason.

Fanon felt disdain for black people who embraced Western values. He claimed they were wearing white masks, as if somehow, they were deviating from their real essence, and were therefore living an inauthentic life. Therefore — so Fanon believed — Western civilisation must be rejected entirely. As he explained in The Wretched of the Earth, “When the colonized hear a speech on Western culture, they draw their machetes or at least check to see they are close to hand.” He who admires Western values is a sellout.

Ever since Fanon, racial essentialism in the name of progress has only grown worse. People of color are now encouraged not to honour punctuality, because being on time is part of whiteness. Black kids who are academically talented run the risk of being told they are “acting white”. Analysing things objectively is an act of white supremacy. And so on.

Consequently, Clarence Thomas is not allowed to have anti-abortion views. Nobody cares about his anti-abortion arguments, because he is not supposed to make them in the first place. Other jurists, philosophers or theologians will be allowed to oppose abortion, but only if they are white. Thomas is hated not because of his views, but because of his skin colour. He upsets the arbitrary racial classifications that the woke are so eager to embrace.

As per woke taxonomy, black people cannot be conservative, and if they are, they are only wearing a “white mask”. To paraphrase the late Christopher Hitchens, “identity politics poisons everything”. We can no longer have a meaningful discussion about anything as vital as the ontological status of a fetus, because the race of the discussants will determine who is allowed to uphold a particular view. It’s time to push back against this madness.

AUTHOR

Gabriel Andrade

Gabriel Andrade is a university professor originally from Venezuela. He writes about politics, philosophy, history, religion and psychology. More by Gabriel Andrade

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Regime Unleashes ‘Total Transformation [Destruction] of the [Federal] Government’ With ‘Equity Action Plans’

/in , , , , , , /by

This. Is. Happening. Our universities, colleges, public schools, intel agencies (all government agencies, for that matter) – every sphere is being subsumed by this 21st century quasi-Nazism.

Woke Pentagon rolls out ‘equity’ plan | Fox News

The Department of Defense issued an equity report, aiming to equalize outcomes of employees and partners across racial, sexual and gender lines.

Biden Admin Unleashes ‘Total Transformation Of Government’ With ‘Equity Action Plans’

By Tim Meads • Daily Wire • Apr 20, 2022 •

On April 14, the Biden administration unleashed a “total transformation of government” — as described by the Department of Energy — arguably based on principles of Critical Race Theory.

Toward that end, more than 90 federal agencies announced “equity action plans” to supposedly address inequality in American society — but critics say that the plans will create a coercive bureaucracy intent on punishing certain Americans based on racial marxism and other progressive ideas that champion victimhood.

The White House recently noted that on his first day in office, President Joe Biden “signed Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government” which “directed the whole of the federal government to advance an ambitious equity and racial justice agenda” focused on creating “prosperity, dignity, and equality” for underserved communities.

Ryan Girdusky, founder of 1776 Project PAC, a non-profit focused on electing school board members opposed to Critical Race Theory-inspired curriculum, told The Daily Wire that Biden administration’s “plan towards equity is race-based Marxism with a different word.”

“The entire program is set to lower standards, dilute meritocracy, and have the first large-scale government-supported laws that discriminate against people based on their race since before Eisenhower was President,” Girdusky added.

Indeed, the Department of Energy explained in its equity action plan released last week that it has already started considering factors other than technical merit when doling out financial assistance via a pilot program through its Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) office.

Starting back in March 2021, applicants seeking research and development funding from EERE have had to issue diversity, equity, and inclusion statements for their projects on their applications.

The purpose of such statements are to explain how their project would help and include “underserved communities” — which is taken to mean minority, non-white, non-heterosexual, non-male groups — in order to be considered for the taxpayer-funded grants……

Keep reading.

RELATED VIDEO: Gateway Pundit’s Joe Hoft Interviews Pamela Geller, “Without Freedom of Speech, Everything Else Is Irrelevant… Without Freedom of Elections All of This is Just Chatter”

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.

Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

EXPOSED: Agenda 21 – 2030/2050

/in , , , , /by

This blog subject was suggested to me by a dear friend, a fervent patriot, a Save America Foundation founder member and a conservative activist, Deb C. She and I plus thousands of others have been preaching about Agenda 21 and the Great Reset. Both are real. Both are here. Both need to be stopped. Unless we do America is doomed. No iffs or buts about it. Done. Finito. Destroyed. The video links I have pasted below need you to register but I suggest you do. There is a massive wealth of information on that site. As always we need to get the information out. One way is by the sharing this blog to everyone you know. Read on …

May God rest her soul, Rosa Koire explains Agenda 21. Everyone should pass this on . We must wake up the people.

Once we were tin foil hat wearers, NO MORE . WE ARE LIVING THE NIGHTMARE. Agenda 21  2030 and 2050 are activated. My friends, everything I told you was TRUTH, believe it now??

WE MUST NOT COMPLY!

WE MUST NOT LET THEM ENFORCE THE PASSPORTS!

Right now the Agenda is the Depopulation portion of the Agenda 21. VAXXED, UNVAXXED stand for individual liberty , STAND TOGETHER AND JOIN IN THE STREET PROTESTS WHEN THEY BEGIN. I went to one on Saturday in Tallahassee, not enough people are showing up. NUMBERS ARE STRENGTH, SHOW UP.

Only we can save our children . DO NOT VAX the kids! Take them OUT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. SORRY, YOU MUST HOME SCHOOL Or the child will be damaged in many ways , sterilization, heart issues and possibly death.

This is a Perfectly done video for all ages. SHARE THIS!!

I think we are winning only because we are not complying .

Many that took the jab can also be saved by not taking any more shots and taking supplements and Ivermectin ( once weekly). Vitamins C (1000-2000 daily)  Vitamin D ( 5000units minimum daily) ZINC ( 30-50 units daily)

Quercetin, NAC (600units daily), vitamin A and K2.  This is for future immunity because the shot has attacked the immune system . That is why the shot is not working to protect the jabbed . Do NOT TAKE a FLU SHOT!

God save Humanity!

NEWS WORLD ORDER: EPISODE 3: TRANSITION TRANSLATION AND REFLECTION

Where the NWOs plan is today on 2021. Explaining the Great Reset – Agenda 21 – and how it all ties in with some unexpected turns.

The most rare clips compiled in a unique fashion that completely exposes the New World Order. It wont seem so crazy anymore after experiencing this series. This is a great place to start for anyone new or advanced.

RELATED SOURCES:

Banned Video Archive

8GOLDEN0KNOWLEDGE2

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: MSNBC FINALLY Reports The “Scary” Truth: “Americans Have Lost Confidence” In Biden.

Capitalist Giant American Express: Capitalism Is Racist

/in , , , /by

My latest in PJ Media:

What could be more capitalist than American Express? After all, the credit card behemoth made $2.3 billion in profit last quarter alone.  Since the social media giants are massive corporations, too, and they seem to be all in on the woke corporate nanny state, why not Amex? Christopher F. Rufo of the Manhattan Institute revealed in the New York Post Wednesday that Amex invited Khalil Muhammad, a professor at Harvard Kennedy School and the Radcliffe Institute and the great-grandson of the founder of the Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad, to give a lecture to employees on “race in corporate America.”

Yes, Amex is pushing critical race theory (CRT) in a big way. Rufo notes that the company established an “Anti-Racism Initiative” last year after the death of George Floyd, and since then has been “subjecting employees to a training program based on the core CRT tenets, including intersectionality, which reduces individuals to a tangle of racial, gender and sexual identities that determine whether he is an ‘oppressor’ or ‘oppressed’ in a given situation.”

Employees were made to enter their “race, sexual orientation, body type, religion, disability status, age, gender identity [and] citizenship” onto “an official company worksheet” and use this data to determine whether they were “privileged” or “marginalized,” no doubt in full accord with the Left’s hierarchy of good to evil, in which white American males are the carriers of the original sin of racism. Amex offers resources (including, of course, the timeless classic writings of Ibram X. Kendi) to “learn about covert white supremacy” and take up “the lifelong task of overcoming our country’s racist heritage.” Some of the featured resources call for efforts to “force white people to see and understand how white supremacy permeates their lives.”

As in other places, the CRT training at Amex identifies even the renunciation of racism as racist, stigmatizing as “microaggressions” phrases including “I don’t see color,” “We are all human beings” and “Everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough.”

Everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough, but Khalil Muhammad, Harvard professor, was having none of that and was determined to make sure the Amex employees, or at least the white male ones, became aware that they were racist oppressors. He told his captive audience of credit card wonks that capitalism was “founded on racism” and that the Western world had been profoundly influenced by “racist logics and forms of domination” for centuries. “American Express,” he declared, “has to do its own digging about how it sits in relationship to this history of racial capitalism.” He laid the guilt on extra thick: “You are complicit in giving privileges in one community against the other, under the pretext that we live in a meritocratic system where the market judges everyone the same.”

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ilhan Omar’s Office Claims AIPAC Putting Her ‘Life at Risk’ by Criticizing Her

More than 618,000 Pakistanis have been deported from 138 countries in the past six years

US asks Pakistan to eliminate Taliban safe havens along Afghanistan-Pakistan border

German Leftist party leader: Hey, let’s send aid to the Taliban

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Capitalism is a fundamental Right of Man

/in , , , , , , /by

Thomas Paine wrote a book titled Rights of Man. The Rights of Man posits that popular political revolution is permissible when a government does not safeguard the natural rights of its people. The Rights of Man begins thusly:

To

GEORGE WASHINGTON

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

SIR,

I PRESENT you a small Treatise in defense of those Principles of Freedom which your exemplary Virtue hath so eminently contributed to establish.–That the Rights of Man may become as universal as your Benevolence can wish, and that you may enjoy the Happiness of seeing the New World regenerated the Old, is the Prayer of

SIR,

Your much obliged, and Obedient humble Servant,

THOMAS PAINE

Paine was addressing the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen written in France after their revolution. The basic principle of the Declaration was that all “men are born and remain free and equal in rights” (Article 1), which were specified as the rights of liberty, private property, the inviolability of the person, and resistance to oppression (Article 2).

Capitalism is defined as:

A social system based on the principle of individual rights. Politically, it is the system of laissez-faire (freedom). Legally it is a system of objective laws (rule of law as opposed to rule of man). Economically, when such freedom is applied to the sphere of production its result is the free-market.

Therefore capitalism is a basic right of man or in more modern terminology a human right.

To take away one’s property is to take away their ability to survive. Take away a farmer’s land and you take away a farmer’s ability to reap what he has sown. The farmer can no longer feed his family nor sell what he has reaped to feed others. If the state (government) controls the dirt (land) then it controls the people.

This is what the American Revolution was all about. Unchaining the people from serfdom to the King of England. 

As Friedrich A. Hayek, in his book The Road to Serfdom wrote:

It is true that the virtues which are less esteemed and practiced now–independence, self-reliance, and the willingness to bear risks, the readiness to back one’s own conviction against a majority, and the willingness to voluntary cooperation with one’s neighbors–are essentially those on which the of an individualist society rests.

Collectivism has nothing to put in their place, and in so far as it already has destroyed then it has left a void filled by nothing but the demand for obedience and the compulsion of the individual to what is collectively decided to be good.

Capitalism is the opposite of obedience and compulsion.

Capitalism can exist even in the most repressive societies, such as in Communist Cuba. In my column My Visit to Cuba — An American in Havana I wrote:

What I observed is that the Cuban people have great potential if they are unleashed and allowed to earn what they are truly worth. Socialismo (socialism) is slowly but surely killing their lives and doing them great harm. I noticed on the ride West of Havana through the rural areas of Cuba hundreds of people waiting along the road trying to get a ride. Some were nurses in their white uniforms thumbing rides to the hospital where they are needed. I saw horse drawn carriages along the major highway carrying people because the public transportation system cannot keep up with the demand. The horses and cattle we saw were emaciated. The roads were in poor shape including the national highway system.

As one Cuban man put it, “the people have no love for their work.” They have no love for their work because Cuba needs a change in direction.

A love for work comes from the rewards of one’s efforts. Take that away and you remove the soul of the individual. You remove his purpose in life. You remove the one of the fundamental rights of man.

There are those who believe the polar opposite. There are those who believe that central control trumps individual freedom. There are those who are being taught that capitalism is evil, until the time that they must earn enough to feed themselves.

There was a time in America when there were only two classes of citizens, the working class and the non-working class. The working class took care of the non-working class. Economic classification is identity politics (a.k.a. Cultural Marxism) writ large. It is designed to put the poor (those earning below a certain wage determined by government) against the rich (those earning above a certain wage determined by the government).

During his inaugural address President Trump stated:

Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.

[ … ]

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.

[ … ]

That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.

President Trump is an American. He believes in the rights of man. He is a capitalist. He is everything that Washington, D.C. hates.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Origins of the ‘Cult of Political Correctness’ [a.k.a. Cultural Marxism]