Tag Archive for: politics

The Politics of Pronouns

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.


In an information war, fought without bullets or bombs, language is weaponized. The globalist campaign promoting gender fluidity in order to destroy individual selfness manipulates spoken and written language to achieve its goal. Perversion of pronoun usage in the English language has a particularly destructive political purpose. The enemies of national and individual sovereignty are revising language to reflect human existence without the boundaries of self. Words matter. The switch to third-person plural, gender-neutral language is a weapon of mass psychological destruction that begins in early childhood.

Consider this: young children who do not learn the first- and second-person individual and possessive pronouns I, me, mine, you, yours, he, him, his, she, her, hers do not learn to name or identify themselves or others as individual gendered selves. Without a personal, individual, gendered, identifiable self, children become confused, destabilized, and vulnerable.

Instead of singular pronouns, young children are intentionally being taught to use the third-person plural pronouns they, them, theirs, so that they identify themselves in terms of the non-gendered collective. It is linguistic demolition of the individual. Plural pronouns effectively erase the concept of an individual self from the English language, and support the replacement of the individual with the preferred non-gendered collective identity.

Globalism’s tactical strategy is to have the Left focus its Marxist ideological values of diversity, equity, and inclusion on cultural and educational institutions. The incremental strategic objective is for those values to be accepted as normative, then become social policy, and ultimately become the law of the land.

This is how globalism’s linguistic hoax works to change the hearts and minds of America’s children in classrooms K–12 and online. Disingenuously presented as diverseequitable, and inclusive language to make people feel respected and included, gender-neutral substitutions are promoted as empathetic, kind, and caring. Grammarly, the popular cloud-based typing assistant, instructs writers on “How to Use Gender-Neutral Language at Work and in Life[i] in an article by freelance journalist Devon Delfino, June 17, 2022:

Gender-neutral language is simply a way of talking about people without assuming their gender. For example, it’s referring to someone you don’t know as “they” rather than using the pronoun “he” or “she,” or addressing a group as “everyone” rather than saying, “Hey, guys.”

Luckily, the English language is relatively gender-neutral in many respects. For instance, many nouns (think: “writer,” “president,” or “acrobat”) are gender-neutral. However, that doesn’t mean that gendered language is uncommon. In fact, gendered language has been a part of our lexicon for a long time. (The United States’ Declaration of Independence even proclaims that “all men are created equal.”) So, you may not realize when you’re using gendered language, even as it shapes how you see the world.

Using gender-neutral language is an important habit because it demonstrates respect for people of all backgrounds, genders, and beliefs, and it includes everyone in the conversation. This is an especially helpful way to show support for members of LGBTQIA+ communities. And while not everyone finds the language people use about them important, it’s best to land on the side of using inclusive and empathetic language….

It can feel awkward or forced when you start implementing gender-neutral language. That’s normal. The important thing is to keep at it so that it has a chance to become a part of your everyday communication. That way, you’ll not only be able to use inclusive language but also be better able to perceive the world in those terms….

Whether you’re just now adopting gender-neutral language, or you’ve been using it for years, Grammarly’s sensitivity suggestions can help your writing be both inclusive and up-to-date.

In January 2021, Bloomberg[ii] reported that “Grammarly Is Now the 10th Most Valuable U.S. Startup.” Grammarly is valued at $13 billion after new funding; $200 million came from investment firms Baillie Gifford, BlackRock, and others. BlackRock Investment Management Company, ticker symbol BLK, is the world’s largest asset manager. In September 2023, global database online platform Statista reported[iii] the total assets under BlackRock management at $9.43 trillion.

BlackRock Chairman and CEO Larry Fink also serves on the World Economic Forum Board of Trustees. Fink is often considered the architect of woke capitalism, which uses the metrics of globalism’s new currency, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG), to pressure the companies it controls into compliance with its subjective social goals.

An article by senior news reporter Jekaterina Drozdovica, published on Capital.com[iv] April 13, 2023, “BlackRock shareholders: Who owns the most BLK stock?” reports:

According to the data from WallStreetZen as of 13 April [2023] …61.87% of BLK shares are owned by institutional investors. This means that over half of the BlackRock Inc. shareholders were investment firms and asset managers, similar to BlackRock, which hold shares on behalf of their clients.

BlackRock’s largest institutional investors are Vanguard Group, Inc., BlackRock Inc. (the parent company of BlackRock Investment Management), State Street Corporation, Bank of America, Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, and Charles Schwab Investment Management. This means that the same globalist entities driving Agenda 2030 control the firms they invest in and initiate their political agenda without disclosing the source.

For example, Grammarly pledges its commitment to the responsible[v]innovation and development of AI:

At Grammarly, we’re guided by the belief that AI innovations should enhance people’s skills while respecting personal autonomy and amplifying the intelligence, strengths, and impact of every user.

Remember that words matter. What Grammarly means by responsible innovation is that which comports with globalism’s Agenda 2030, which is diametrically opposed to both national sovereignty and sovereignty of the individual.

Grammarly is just one example of how BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, the Big Three institutional investors, influence social policy by exerting their enormous financial power through boards of directors and proxy voting outcomes of the businesses they control. It is no secret that outside of small, independent mom-and-pop stores, the American business sector is being centralized, much like the media sector.

Businesses that appear to be competitors are controlled by the same institutional investors, and speak with the same diversity, equity, and inclusion voice regarding social policy. For example, BlackRock and Vanguard are in the top three institutional investors in both Coca Cola and Pepsi. Institutional investors currently own 68.75 percent of Coca Cola and 74.33 percent of PepsiCo.

In publishing, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Books & Media and HarperCollins are both owned by News Corp. Whether the product is soft drinks, children’s books, young adult books, graphic novels, K–12 textbooks, graduate-level textbooks, medical textbooks, movies, videos, or clothing, globalism’s diversity, equity, and inclusion narrative will be evident throughout in plural pronouns, book content, plot lines, music lyrics, training manuals, or screen prints on T-shirts.

The manufacturing, distribution, and sale of any product or service in the American economy is affected by the administrative choices of globalism’s Big Three and the socialist policies of Agenda 2030 they support. Currently, the Big Three control over $22 trillion in assets, which represents a 20 percent ownership of America.

Business developer Steve J. Sands published an informative report on his website December 28, 2022, “Who Owns Corporate America“:[vi]

Three fund management firms, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, represent 40% of the shareholders of all listed firms and 88% of the S&P 500 index. In addition, they are now the dominant shareholder in 88% of the firms listed on the S&P 500.

Isaiah McCall from Medium.com states in his blog post:

BlackRock’s absurd liquidity means that if you look at just about every major publicly traded company in the world, you’ll find that BlackRock is its first, second or third-largest shareholder. Go ahead, try it.

Globalism’s Big Three exert enormous influence on the changing landscape of American culture. The seismic shift in education and the workplace that supports collectivist plural pronouns and blurs boundaries between male and female is another aspect of the coordinated attempt to destabilize Judeo-Christian morality, Judeo-Christian sexuality, and American family norms. It is the politics of pronouns.

©2024. Linda Goudsmit. All rights reserved.


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


[i]  How to Use Gender-Neutral Language at Work and in Lifehttps://www.grammarly.com/blog/gender-neutral-language/

[ii]  Bloomberghttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-18/grammar-checking-app-is-now-the-10th-most-valuable-u-s-startup#xj4y7vzkg

[iii]  Statista reportedhttps://www.statista.com/statistics/891292/assets-under-management-blackrock/

[iv]  Capital.comhttps://capital.com/blackrock-shareholder-who-owns-most-blk-stock

[v]  responsiblehttps://www.grammarly.com/responsible-ai

[vi]  Who Owns Corporate Americahttps://stevenjsands.com/who-owns-corporate-america/

More Than 40% of U.S. Voters Believe Second Civil War ‘Likely’ in Next Five Years: Poll

It will be too late by 2029. And if bloodshed can be averted, it should be.

Once they steal 2024 again, red states should secede from the communist regime in D.C., a national divorce. We cannot live under the boot of tyranny.

We cannot live as slaves to the communist regime. We cannot live in the shithole cities that were once jewels, that have been systematically destroyed by the Democrats. And the Democrats certainly don’t want to live among us, the good, the kind, the decent the rational.

They want only to steal our hard earned pay, our production, our property, our freedom.

The left states would eventually fail without the producers to fund their madness. Only then perhaps, could we come back together. But if not, good riddance to bad rubbish.

More Than 40% of U.S. Voters Believe Second Civil War ‘Likely’ in Next Five Years: Poll

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) – More than four in ten prospective voters in the United States believe that a second civil war in the country is likely within the next five years, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Thursday.

Forty-one percent (41%) of respondents believe that a second US civil war is likely in the next five years, the poll report said. The figure includes 16% of respondents who believe that a second civil war is very likely, the poll report said.

However, nearly half of respondents, 49%, believe that a civil war is not likely within the next five years, including 20% who believe it is not likely at all, the poll report said. Ten percent (10%) of respondents are unsure, the poll report added.

A greater proportion of respondents believe that a civil war is more likely to occur if US President Joe Biden is reelected than if former US President Donald Trump wins the White House — 37% and 25%, respectively — the poll report said.

Thirty percent (30%) of respondents believe that the outcome of the 2024 presidential election will not impact the chances of a civil war, the poll report said.

The poll surveyed 1,105 likely US voters from April 21-23. The poll maintains a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points with a 95% confidence level.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Horrifying Scenes Out of Athens, Greece: Muslim/Leftwing Lynch Mob Hunt Down Jewish Tourists

Biden Regime Hid Hamas Dead Hostage Proposal From Israel

Armed Muslim Migrants in Amsterdam Beat Jewish and Pro-Israel Students

The DOJ Doctored Crime Scene Photo of Mar-a-Lago Raid

RNC, Trump Campaign, and RJC (Republican Jewish Coalition) Release Video Contrasting Biden and Trump on Antisemitism

RELATED VIDEO: THE COUNTRY IS ON FIRE: ‘There are protests all over, I’ve never seen anything like this’

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

BIDEN SUED! Meet Matt O’Brien, illegal immigration investigator, going after Biden’s ICE!

Illegals Here/Still Coming – Goal to Destroy America’s Sovereignty!

Matt O’Brien from IRLI – Immigration Reform Law Institute, describes the illegals invading America!

Texas State Supreme Court vs. U.S. Supreme Court rulings and why Texas has the right to defend its borders when Federal law is NOT taking action.

How bad it is and what America needs to realize to stand against the destruction flowing in by the Marxist Democrats!

Tom Trento with Matt O’Brien discuss the illegals that are here and are still coming.

Their goal — to destroy America’s sovereignty!

WATCH: The Illegal Immigration Iceberg

RELATED ARTICLES:

Alleged Qatar Spy Operation Said to Have Targeted GOP Lawmakers Opposed to Muslim Brotherhood

Survey: Two-Thirds Of Elites Say There’s Too Much Freedom In America

RELATED VIDEO: Alison’s Angle: The So-Called Red-Pill Alpha Male Movement

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Defend the Border column and video are republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Democrats Talk About Illegal Aliens The Same Way They Used To Talk About Slaves

Who will pick our cotton?

Democrats Talk About Illegal Immigrants The Same Way They Used To Talk About Slaves

By: Evita Duffy-Alfonso, The Federalist, January 14, 2024:

“We need immigrants in this country,” Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler said Thursday during a House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement hearing. “Our vegetables would rot in the ground if they weren’t being picked by many immigrants — many illegal immigrants.”

“The fact is, the birth rate in this country is way below replacement level,” he continued. Nadler is adamantly anti-life, and given that abortion is responsible for the deaths of millions of unborn American children, it’s unlikely that he’s sincerely concerned about the United States’ replacement rates.

Nadler’s remarks recall the Democratic party’s past reasoning for supporting slavery. Federalist Senior Editor Mark Hemingway pointed out that Democrats in 1823 were backing slavery because if there were no slaves, “Who would pick our cotton?” Today, Democrats are making the argument that low-wage working illegal migrants are necessary to pick “our vegetables.”

Another striking comparison is the Democrats’ past support of slave traders and their current aiding of human trafficking at the southern border. As Federalist CEO Sean Davis explained, “Before the Civil War, Democrats bought their slaves from human traffickers who kidnapped them and then shipped them across the Atlantic. In 2023, they use cartels to smuggle illegal immigrants across a border Democrats refuse to close.”

Indeed, human trafficking at our southern border is now a multi-billion dollar business, and Democrats have no plan to stop the abuse. In December alone, over 300,000 illegal immigrants crossed into the United States.

Now, illegal immigration isn’t just a problem for border states but the entire nation. Massive influxes of aliens are now invading places like New York City and Chicago, putting massive strain on city resources. Meanwhile, the fentanyl crisis created by the open southern border is taking countless American lives in all corners of the country — both urban and rural.

This week, citizens were given some hope after the Texas Military Department took over a 2.5-mile long stretch along the Rio Grande River, supposedly to stop illegal immigration in the high-traffic crossing area and keep out federal border officials who “perpetuate illegal immigrant crossings in the park and greater Eagle Pass area.”

However, as my colleague Jordan Boyd explained, the move appears to be nothing more than political theater. “Yet despite the addition of personnel, barriers, gates, concertina wire, and military Humvees’ to the area,” Boyd wrote, Texas Gov. “Abbott has not authorized the Texas National Guard to detain and deport illegal immigrants, who are still being turned over to Border Patrol for processing and, in most cases, release.”

“So, while the move prompted an outcry from the Biden administration and federal border officials who say the state’s interference prevents them from doing their jobs,” she added, “Abbott’s move won’t fundamentally change the dynamic at the border.”

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

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

UN declares: ‘Whether you like it or not, fossil fuel phase-out inevitable’ – UN ‘is literally psychotic…We have to say HELL NO to idea of Net Zero!’

We’re Saved!? UN declares: ‘Whether you like it or not, fossil fuel phase-out inevitable’ – Morano: UN ‘is literally psychotic…We have to say HELL NO to idea of Net Zero!’

By Marc Morano

Morano: “The UN Secretary-General said whether you like it or not, fossil fuels are going away. Well, gee, if that’s the case, then these UN COP meetings are going away. You had the British Foreign Secretary, King Charles, and Richie Rich — Richie Sunak, their Prime Minister, fly there in three separate private jets to this summit. In many ways, this is just absolute virtue signaling, Laura.

Morano: “Since March of 2020, the whole world has changed. They are lusting after what they saw in COVID. And the most significant thing of this COP 28 happened about a week before COP 28 And that’s when a couple of hundred medical journals urged the World Health Organization to declare climate change a public health threat. The idea here is to bring this under public health authority. So if you could declare a COVID emergency or you can declare any kind of public health pandemic you can now call climate change as part of that and that’s what they’re looking for — to bypass democracy.”

Morano: “It’s easier to transition your gender, than it is the transition energy, especially the way the United Nations is going about it — centrally planned, command and control. They’re not backing off of this at any level. But the danger comes from the corporate government collusion that was there.” Over 200 health journals call on the UN & WHO to recognize ‘climate change’ as ‘a global health emergency’

‘COMMAND AND CONTROL’: Nations at COP28 agree to transition from fossil fuels – Climate Depot executive editor Marc Morano calls the United Nations’ climate push ‘absolute virtue-signaling’ on ‘The Ingraham Angle.’

CLICK HERE TO WATCH: ‘The Ingraham Angle.’ – Fox News Channel – Broadcast December 13, 2023

Rough Transcript:

Laura Ingraham:  Joining me now is Marc Morano, executive editor at Climate Depot. We just got back from Cop Out 28 in Dubai mark at the UN Secretary General also applauded the move saying that the era of fossil fuels must end and it must add this is my favorite part with justice and my favorite word equity. Yeah, okay, Marc, what is this really all about? How much is it going to cost us?

Marc Morano: Well, today, you need to hug your children because the UN and 190-plus nations have announced the end of fossil fuels. Now keep in mind that 100 years ago in the world — 80% of our energy came from fossil fuels, and today, 80% of our energy comes from fossil fuels. But hey, it’s going away.

You know what the UN Secretary-General — the former president of Socialist International — which the media doesn’t seem to mention that very much. But the UN Secretary-General said whether you like it or not, fossil fuels are going away.

Well, gee, if that’s the case, then these COP meetings are going away. You had the British Foreign Secretary, King Charles and Richie Rich,  Richie Sunak, their Prime Minister, fly three separate private jets to this summit. In many ways, this is just absolute virtue signaling, Laura.

But here’s the thing since March of 2020, the whole world has changed. They are lusting after what they saw in COVID. And the most significant thing of this COP 28 happened about a week before COP 28 And that’s when the couple 100 medical journals urged the World Health Organization to declare climate change a public health threat. The idea here is to bring this under public health authority. So if you could declare a COVID emergency or you can declare any kind of public health pandemic you can now call climate change as part of that and that’s what they’re looking for — to bypass democracy and that’s the whole setup. And that’s why this is really window dressing for the real power happening behind the scenes.

Laura Ingraham: Well, and that’s when they want to get rid of cash, they can track all of your all your purchases, electric cars, they can stop you from moving out of your allowed territory and so forth. But I know that China got a big free pass as usual and also India, because they’re, I mean, they’ve already said we’re not phasing out of I mean, they’re not going to phase out of anything. It’s vital to their economies and their people. They know what fossil fuels as it is to ours.

Marc Morano: The Indian environmental minister was on record as saying, we’re not going to limit our development because they are 20 to 30% of our population is in poverty. China, on the other hand, they’re going to be exempt, and they are pushing hard – Laurie they had an entire pavilion, the the most elaborate setup with a picture of Xi Jinping over the COP 28 sign.

And they literally were pushing for as much transition to solar and wind from fossil fuels. China was pushing the West to be more reliant on — drumroll please — China, which is what they’re doing,

And I would argue it’s easier to transition your gender, than it is the transition energy, especially the way the United Nations is going about it — centrally planned, command and control. They’re not backing off of this at any level. But the danger comes from the corporate government collusion that was there, and they also had children’s events there. They had sustainable fashion events. They have it all covered at these conferences.

Laura Ingraham: Marc, great to see you.

Over 200 health journals call on the UN & WHO to recognize ‘climate change’ as ‘a global health emergency’

Watch: ‘Stop Net Zero, Save Red Meat!’ Climate skeptics crash COP 28 & engage in traffic blockade at the UN climate summit in Dubai

https://www.climatedepot.com/2023/12/15/were-saved-cop-28-un-climate-claims-to-end-fossil-fuels-morano-goal-is-literally-psychotic-we-have-to-say-hell-no-to-this-whole-idea-of-net-zero/

December 15, 2023 – 10:47 am
Hug your children today! The UN has struck a deal to end fossil fuels & save the planet!
Watch: Morano on Fox w/ Varney on UN climate summit: ‘We have to say HELL NO’ to this whole idea of Net Zero’ – ‘This is an insane goal. It’s an insane meeting’
Varney & Co. – Fox Business – Broadcast December 13, 2023 – Phasing out fossil fuels is an ‘insane goal’: Marc Morano – Climate Depot executive editor Marc Morano discusses worldwide calls to phase out fossil fuels and Al Gore blaming the mental health crisis on climate change.
Watch: Morano on Fox News w/ Ingraham on COVID/Climate merging: ‘The most significant event of COP 28 happened before COP 28, when 200 medical journals urged the WHO to declare climate change a public health threat’
‘The Ingraham Angle.’ – Fox News Channel – Broadcast December 13, 2023Over 200 health journals call on the UN & WHO to recognize ‘climate change’ as ‘a global health emergency’Watch: Morano gives analysis and sums up UN climate summit with Alex Newman on TNT’s Unleashed with Marc Morano – 12 December 2023

COP28: Hype and Reality – ‘COP28 was futile climate theatrics’ – Full of ‘phony climate promises’ – ‘We must abandon Net Zero before it’s too late’

You have NO CHOICE! UN Sec. Gen. António Guterres (the former president of Socialist International) declares: ‘Whether you like it or not, fossil fuel phase out is inevitable’

UN Celebrates! COP28 Agreement Signals ‘Beginning of the End’ of the Fossil Fuel Era – UN brags it is ‘ratcheting up climate action’CNN: ‘It’s time to limit how often we can travel abroad – ‘Carbon Passports’ may be the answer’ – ‘Drastic changes to our travel habits are inevitable’ – Suggests restrictions will be ‘forced’ upon publicWatch: ‘Stop Net Zero, Save Red Meat!’ Climate skeptics crash COP 28 & engage in traffic blockade at the UN climate summit in DubaiWatch: I participated in a traffic blockade at the UN climate summit in Dubai – Climate skeptics turn the table on climate activists! CFACT’s 1 minute climate protest video here at the COP28 conferencesWatch: Morano on Fox on COP 28: Believing we can abolish fossil fuels & a UN climate pact is going to save us ‘is literally psychotic’ – ‘Net Zero is a Soviet-style central planning technique that has to be roundly defeated’
 
Morano on UN COP28 Climate Summit & Net Zero Goals of Fossil Fuel Phase-Out:

Morano: “Let’s say it out loud. Net Zero is a Soviet-style central planning technique that has to be roundly defeated. We need Republican leadership. We need the House Speaker. We need Mitch McConnell. We need them to do a Sense of the Senate, a declaration of Congress to declare Net Zero an anti-human agenda.

It’s one of the greatest farces that ever come from the United Nations — the idea that the UN is going to act as though they’re they can control the dial of the earth and control the temperature by crushing human energy and development. … 

And just to go back to the whole big picture, 100 years ago, 80% of our energy came from fossil fuels. Today, 80% of our energy comes from fossil fuels both globally and in the US. The idea that we can get rid of fossil fuels in the next few decades and that the UN is going to save us or the idea that the Inflation Reduction Act is going to save us — is literally psychotic. It has no science or common sense behind it.”

NYT: ‘Saudi Arabia Is Trying to Block a Global Deal to End Fossil Fuels, Negotiators Say’

‘Tears flowed’ at COP 28 climate summit as UN agreed to ‘historic’ decision to TAKE AWAY YOUR FOSSIL FUELS to save planet!!

Flashback 2020: Crying over ‘climate change’ – Tears, sobbing, & ‘climate grief’ is an actual thing for activists – Special Report

Via Climate Nexus: https://newsletter.climatenexus.org/saudis-had-unregistered-oil-employees-at-cop-tesla-recalls-cars-more

COP28: Was COP28 a success or flop? Depends who you ask (TIME), The world has a new floor for climate ambition (The Atlantic), Climate talks end on a first-ever call for the world to move away from fossil fuels (NPR), What to make of the deal struck at COP28 (Economist), Heard at UN climate talks: Quotes that tell the story (AP), Climate summit makes ‘historic progress’ — but the world still can’t quit oil (E&E News), How an oil executive led the world to an agreement to ditch fossil fuels (Grist), COP28 deal just about keeps net zero on the road (Reuters), COP28 kicks carbon trading down the road as EU blocks deal (Reuters), COP28 agreeable to Saudis as it lets nations chart own course – source (Reuters), The world just made it clear the fossil fuel era is ending — with some wiggle room (Washington Post $), Analysis: At COP28, Sultan al-Jaber got what the UAE wanted. Others leave it wanting much more (AP), In the end, an oil man won a climate summit deal on moving away from oil (New York Times $), Oil companies are fine with call to move away from fossil fuels (New York Times $), COP28 ends with legacy potential after breakthrough fossil fuel pact (Axios)

JUSTICE: The last residents of a coastal Mexican town destroyed by climate change (AP), Climate reparations are becoming a reality. Here’s what they could look like. (Grist), Analysis: It’s uncertain if push to ‘Stop Cop City’ got enough valid signers for Atlanta referendum (AP)

Technocracy: Critics Slam UN ‘Climate Scientists’ Bid for Dictatorial Power

Over 200 health journals call on the UN & WHO to recognize ‘climate change’ as ‘a global health emergency’

COP 28: UN scientists seek Fauci-like ‘powers – Gore & Kerry demand phase-out of fossil fuels – ‘Clothing limited to 3 new items per person’

Eliminate fossil fuels for the kids’ future! Climate activist: ‘COP28, the clock’s ticking’ – ‘Phase out fossil fuels? Yes, please’

Scientist Dictators emerge at Cop28! UN IPCC scientists declare: ‘We need power to prescribe climate policy’ – ‘Scientists should be allowed to make policy prescriptions & potentially oversee implementation’

Gore declares: Agreement to phase out fossil fuels would be ‘one of the most significant events in the history of humanity’

‘Climate lockdowns are here & now’ – Marc Morano Joins Rose Unplugged From COP28 Climate Conference in Dubai

Watch: Morano on TV from Dubai COP 28 UN climate summit on Destroying The World’s Energy Supply

Not again!? ‘This may be our last chance’: Cop28 talks ‘enter final phase’ — But every climate summit is hailed as the ‘last chance!’

UN climate summit serving burgers, BBQ as it calls for US to stop eating meat – Offerings include ‘juicy beef,’ ‘slabs of succulent meat,’ smoked wagyu burgers & Philly cheesesteaks

©2023. Marc Morano. All rights reserved.

Is the Middle Class Vanishing? The Slow Death of America

“The future of this republic is in the hands of the American Voter” – Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States.

“Get involved in politics, or you will be governed by your inferiors.” — From Plato’s Republic to our American Republic.

“In order to save the planet, we must destroy capitalism.” – Maurice Strong.


So giving TAXPAYER dollars to the same people who created the problem coupled with those great economists, Cloward and Piven, the RINOS and DEMS under bipartisan measures will destroy the middle class and the American economy in an effort to redistribute your wealth and “level the playing field with a New World Order,” Joe Biden.

RINO Republicans are the gift to the Globalists that keep on giving. Today, because Affirmative Action Graduates are running the government, they will never stop until America is destroyed, and

  • 40 million+ illegals
  • Poverty is up while wages are down (except for illegals)
  • 48 Million on Food stamps, including illegals
  • $32 Trillion in debt (approx)
  • Minimal Economic Growth with massive inflation
  • Obamacare skyrocketing costs
  • Common Core – robot education
  • Fed Reserve prints more money
  • Elimination of private property and 2Amendment rights
  • Destruction of the energy and food sector
  • Corrupt elections, corrupt leaders ignoring the Law and the Constitution
  • Endless wars
  • Constant lies from the people we trusted to do the right thing
  • Covid lie
  • Climate lie.
  • J6 lie

Due to corrupt elections and getting the wrong people in office, we now face the probability of America imploding in the biggest economic disaster ever as the middle class is taxed into oblivion. Question: Federal Law says you must know English to become a citizen. So why are our ballots printed in foreign languages?

And the winner is total destruction of America, with the Dems who will never get voted out of office.

The Republicans are truly the useful idiots of the left. The entire Biden Regime is corrupt, and instead of impeachment, they still can’t determine if there is enough evidence. We still have a few brave Congressmen who get the picture and are willing to demand NO Border, No Funding, No CR. Thank you, Matt Gaetz, and the group voting with you. Call our legislature and demand NO Border, No Funding, No CR.

The UN Elite want the dollar gone. Very little is seen on the MSM, but for those of us who still can think, we know the economy is tanking as the BRICS Bank will now compete against the dollar. Socialist Brazil, Communist Russia, Socialist India, Communist China, and Socialist South Africa have determined the best way to destroy America by working together and trading for oil in a new currency. In the last few months, these countries bought Billions of gold in preparation to destroy the dollar. We can never allow digital currency (CBDC). That is the last nail and will result in total control.

Economic collapse is coming to every town and city in America. Prices will skyrocket, ATMs will close, there will be no food or fuel, and the loss of the dollar will destroy every American. Sadly, that is their goal.

The Republicans are following the path laid out to them by the Democrats using Cloward and Piven. They must have missed that class. They intend to give our money to corrupt Ukraine to donate back to the Dems and then blame the middle class. They intend to attack Social Security, which IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT. It is a benefit. We pay into SS, and if they would stop robbing it blind, there would be plenty of money. They intend to destroy the lifeless middle class.

This week, I have talked to seniors who are scared and upset as their programs (you know, the ones they pay into) are being cut so illegals can get welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid. I met a woman who can barely make it since she has cancer and can not work. She was told her only income SS is $6, which is too high for food stamps. But the illegals get $750 food stamps + housing + medical.

Look at the statistics. The last time amnesty was presented, 40% became citizens. The rest raped Americans as they sent their untaxed dollars back to their home country. Does anyone think that someone getting $ 3,000 a month doing nothing will now want to become a citizen so they can pay a fine and taxes? What drugs are they on?

The Republicans are truly the useful idiots of the left.

Is America worth saving? If not you, who? If not now, when?

Join us and learn the truth about America’s communist past and present featured in the new book by Cuban Refugee – The Revolution of Promises: Reflections of a Cuban Exile.

Chris Wright is an independent liberty activist. www.Spider-and-the-Fly.com

Erik Seligman translated the book. Stories of Communism podcast.

Ed Vidal, born in Cuba, is a grassroots liberty activist working on election integrity and other issues in Florida. Executive Producer and General Counsel of WSQF 94.5 FM Radio – Miami, Florida. Ed writes a regular column for www.miamiindependent.com

Important Messages

In 2021, Florida Statute 101.5604 was signed into law. Look at the last sentence: A county must use an electronic or electromechanical precinct-count tabulation voting system. Florida is mandated to use corrupt machines. Call your legislator and tell them to change “must” to “may.” Does your state have a similar statute?

Important Video, Lara Logan, The Rest of the Story:

Glenn Beck: Why $100 BILLION of YOUR TAX MONEY went to Ukraine

Argentina’s New Hope Javier Milei. Will he become President of Argentina, or will his election be stolen like Bolsanaro? The Biden Regime hates him. Will they use our tax dollars to interfere?

Get your kids out of the indoctrination clinics masquerading as Public Schools. Check out goflca.org MicroSchools.

Remember: Everything is connected. Nothing is random. Everyone follows the same plan. ALL PLANS ARE BASED ON LIES. Globalists must control opposition. Globalists must take away our voices.

Globalists only care about MONEY, POWER, and CONTROL. Don’t give them yours. Boycotts work. Stop using their services and products. Vote the RINOS out. Vote with your fingers and with your wallet. There is a lot you can do.

©2023. Karen Schoen. All rights reserved.

Biden Gets Drowned Out By Boos As He Tries To Speak With Reporters During Lake Tahoe Vacation

President Joe Biden was drowned out by loud booing from a crowd in Lake Tahoe as he spoke with reporters Friday, video shows.

The onlookers booed Biden as he left a pilates class and spoke to reporters during his family vacation in Lake Tahoe. The Bidens, including first son Hunter Biden, are currently on a weeklong vacation to Lake Tahoe, staying at the home of billionaire climate activist and Democratic megadonor Tom Steyer.

“Have you seen Donald Trump’s mugshot yet?” a reporter asked the president. Former President Donald Trump had his mug shot taken at the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office after surrendering in Georgia on Thursday night. Trump and 18 others are facing charges for their alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in the state.

“I did see it on television,” Biden answered as he continued to receive loud booing from the crowd.

“What did you think?” the reporter asked.

“Handsome guy,” Biden said as the yelling continued.

As the Biden family vacations at Steyer’s multi-million dollar mansion in Nevada, the Department of Justice and House Republicans are continuing their investigations into the younger Biden. Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty in July to two tax misdemeanors, while the diversion agreement for his felony gun charge dissolved under scrutiny from Delaware U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika.

Officials launched an investigation into Steyer over his alleged violation of Vacation Home Rental (VHR) policies regarding the rental of his home to the Biden family. A local resident reportedly filed a claim earlier in August, alleging Steyer did not have a VHR permit. The complaint was “being researched,” VHR Program Manager Ernie Strehlow told the Daily Caller on Aug. 21.

AUTHOR

ELIZABETH WEIBEL

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hunter Biden Spotted Sneaking Out Of Yoga Studio As Investigations Continue

‘Sorry … Mr. President’: Hawaiian Business Torches Biden’s Wildfire Response With Viral Marquis Message

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

The Creativity Crisis: Are Schools Killing Creativity?

A Sign is an object, action, or event which, when put together, creates a pattern. It is the ability to connect signs and create patterns that enable people to anticipate, prepare and become self-reliant, enabling people to make fewer mistakes. In business, we are taught the one who makes the least mistakes wins.

The purpose of education is to show the individual how to recognize signs and put them together so they can anticipate and prepare. These skills are often called common sense, predictions, and anticipations, and they enable people to gain confidence in their decisions while preparing for the future.

Education today altered and erased history because the Globalists know that those who know history will not repeat it; they will not be doomed to follow the mistakes of the past. If history is not altered the Globalists know they can not win. If Globalists/Progressives lie and change history:

  • Americans will not know that in the Constitution, i.e., ALL means ALL. NO Class distinctions. Our founders realized that class distinctions cause division.
  • Your children will not know their rights and power. Students are taught division under the name of diversity.
  • Your children will believe that Stalin, Mao, and Che were great patriots.
  • Your children will believe that humans, not the sun, are the cause of climate problems and will gladly pay taxes to protect the planet.
  • Your children will not know that practicing communism means certain death to all opposition while mass genocide becomes the norm as people are coached to turn on each other for minor absurd infractions like a finger gun or statue.
  • Your children believe using aborted babies is OK if you use them for the good of the collective.
  • Your children will not know land, resources, and America belongs to We the People and is not the property of any government official to sell to a foreign company or country.
  • Your children will not know that equal opportunity provides the greatest wealth, not social justice (which they can not define) or Diversity, Inclusion, or Equity (DIE).
  • Your children will not know that each person has their own special skill and not all skills are the same: building computer programs, cutting hair, or running a mile in under 10 minutes.
  • Your children will not know that each of us has different skills, not equal skills, and free choice enables us to develop those skills. Our children no longer have choices as the school now only trains them to work in a government-approved corporate job under a school-to-work program.
  • Your children will not know America was greatest when immersed in freedom, communication, and liberty for all. Not like today, as were are divided into government-inflicted classes in order to keep us from talking.
  • Your children will not know that through its dark past, there was always a sign of change toward a bright future for all Americans. There is no country today that gives all the opportunities America offers
  • Your children are Your children
  • When school is no longer the incubator of innovation, creation, common sense, and self-reliance, America slips into mediocrity. (The true goal of the Globalists). Mediocre people expect less and have fewer needs and wants. More money for them.

When exceptional people stop doing exceptional things, America fails. When was the last time you heard, “Think outside the box?”

Educated people demand more freedom from their government. Therefore, education today must be changed from learning how to think to learning what to think. You are OK as long as you think the government-approved way. Education has become training. We train pets, not people. Why training? Training is one of the most expensive pieces of a corporate budget. If training is on the backs of the taxpayer, think of the record profits a corporation can show.

What are Americans missing? Understanding the Constitution! Look at section 2 for a sampling of the rights and freedom you are losing due to the deliberate American deception. You will be surprised. Not Infringed means not infringed. Regulations, licenses, statutes, fees, and taxes ARE forms of INFRINGMENT.

What is the solution? Let’s examine the following:

You are being told we must have a Convention of the States (COS). We must change the Constitution. Is the Constitution the problem? NO, so then why fix it? The problem is that most people have NEVER read or understood the Constitution. Would it not be smarter to read, follow and enforce this constitution before we change anything? Ah! Common sense is needed. Are we so ignorant that we believe the people in charge who do not know the Constitution and do not follow the Constitution will actually “FIX” anything? Can they be trusted? I think not.

The sign portrayed by the RINOS, who will do anything to stop Trump, says legislators no longer look out for and protect the People. Refusing to impeach, refusing to censure, and refusing to stop mutilating our children are the clearest sign of FAILURE one can imagine.

The sign says legislators protect special interests and those that donate to keep them in power. The sign says time to make a change.

Today’s guests are two Americans who took it upon themselves to do something to help save this great republic through education. The sign says education is not taking place. Simple skills like reading, writing, math, creativity, and innovation are missing. The object of school is to promote mediocrity. Do you see the signs?

America…Great people doing great things. What will you do? Doing nothing is affirmation. Is America worth saving?

Chad Robert Stewart is an international award-winning and bestselling author, educator, and global strategist. Through his National School Tours, Stewart traveled 9,000 miles through 23 states, presenting at over 180 schools to more than 40,000 students.

The Britfield Institute is committed to bringing creativity into the classroom, promoting literacy, and fostering a child’s imagination. Impacting all demographics, we provide students, teachers, educators, and schools the opportunity to read and write with passion while inspiring critical thinking, communication, and collaboration. The Britfield Institute provides underprivileged schools and children resources, workshops, and opportunities.

Barbie Rivera, A mother whose son was deemed “mentally handicapped” for not thriving under a rigid confusing public curriculum, took matters into her own hands. She decided to homeschool him, and after finding a method that helped her son become his best self, she opened her own school to help others.

Remember: Everything is connected. Nothing is random. Everyone follows the same plan. ALL PLANS ARE BASED ON LIES. Globalists must control opposition. Globalists must take away our voices.

Globalists only care about MONEY, POWER, and CONTROL. Don’t give them yours. Boycotts work. Stop using their services and products. Vote the RINOS out. Vote with your fingers and with your wallet. There is a lot you can do.

©2023. Karen Schoen, The Prism of America’s Education. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Curse of the Cat People: Are UK schoolchildren really self-identifying as animals?

‘Invasion’: Trump Vows To End Birthright Citizenship For Children Of Illegal Immigrants

Former president and 2024 presidential contender Donald Trump pledged to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants in a video posted to Twitter Tuesday.

Trump vowed that on his first day in office, if he’s elected president, he will sign an executive order that the children of illegal immigrants won’t be eligible for citizenship, according to his social media video. A wave of illegal immigration began at the U.S.-Mexico border soon after Biden assumed the presidency, where federal authorities have recorded more than 5.3 million migrant encounters since January 2021.

“It’s things like this that bring millions of people to our country, and they enter our country illegally. My policy will choke off a major incentive for continued illegal immigration, deter more migrants from coming and encourage many of the aliens Joe Biden has unlawfully let into our country to go back to their home countries, they must go back, nobody could afford this, nobody could do this and even morally it’s so wrong,” Trump said.

Trump also seeks to end “birth tourism” where pregnant women wait out the end of their pregnancies on U.S. soil to “jump the line” for green cards and bring other family members to the U.S., Trump said, adding that he will require at least one parent to be a citizen or lawful resident.

“Joe Biden has launched an illegal foreign invasion of our country allowing a record number of illegal aliens to storm across our borders. From all over the world they came,” Trump said. “Under Biden’s current policies, even though these millions of illegal border crossers have entered the country unlawfully, all of their future children will become automatic U.S. citizens, can you imagine? They’ll be eligible for welfare, taxpayer-funded health care, the right to vote, chain migration and countless other government benefits, many of which will also profit the illegal alien parents.”

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Agenda47: President Donald J. Trump Announces “Salute To America 250” – A One-Year Celebration of 250 Years of American Independence at the Iowa State Fairgrounds

Migrants Once Excited By End Of Trump-Era Order Now Frustrated With Biden’s Policies

Authorities Arrest Driver Claiming To Have Explosive In Vehicle At Northern Border

The Biden Disaster That Gives Republicans A Winning Card For 2024

EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Cruz Leads Bicameral Republicans In Defending American Sovereignty, Protecting Second Amendment

Biden Justice Department Targets Cash Raised By Jan. 6 Rioters Amidst Mounting Donations

In the US election, will Ron DeSantis ‘Make America Florida’?

Chris Christie To Announce Presidential Bid Next Week

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


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Government’s Sprawling Effort to Censor [True] Information During the Pandemic

In July 2022, Twitter permanently suspended Rhode Island physician Andrew Bostom after awarding the epidemiologist and longtime researcher at Brown University a fifth strike for spreading “misinformation.”

A July 26 tweet alleging that there was no solid evidence Covid-19 vaccines had prevented any children from being hospitalized—”only RCT data we have from children reveals ZERO hospitalizations prevented by vaccination vs. placebo”—was apparently the final straw.

The funny thing was, it appeared Bostom’s tweet was true.

Dr. Anish Koka, a cardiologist and writer, said he was initially skeptical of Bostom’s claim. But after speaking with him for more than an hour, he realized Bostom was citing the government’s own data, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) briefing document that included randomized controlled trial (RCT) data on children.

“…Dr. Bostom’s tweet appears quite correct as per the FDA documents,” Koka wrote on Substack. “In the RCTs available, there does not appear to be evidence that the vaccine prevented hospitalizations.”

Bostom’s permanent suspension was one of many anecdotes shared by journalist David Zweig in a December Twitter Files thread viewed by more than 64 million people, which exposed how the government worked with Twitter to try to “rig the Covid debate.”

It turns out this was not the only one of Bostom’s tweets that was true but was nevertheless flagged for “misinformation.”

“A review of Twitter log files revealed that an internal audit, conducted after Bostom’s attorney contacted Twitter, found that only 1 of Bostom’s 5 violations were valid,” Zweig notes. “The one Bostom tweet found to still be in violation cited data that was legitimate but inconvenient to the public health establishment’s narrative about the risks of flu versus Covid in children.”

In other words, all five of Bostom’s tweets that had been flagged as “misinformation” were legitimate. At the very least, four-out-of-five were, and that’s according to Twitter’s own internal audit.

How this happened was partially explored by Zweig, who explained Twitter’s convoluted censorship process, which relied heavily on bots, contractors in foreign countries who lacked the expertise to make informed decisions, and Twitter brass who carried their own biases and incentives. This structure led to a predictable result.

“In my review of internal files,” writes Zweig, “I found countless instances of tweets labeled as ‘misleading’ or taken down entirely, sometimes triggering account suspensions, simply because they veered from CDC guidance or differed from establishment views.”

The CDC had effectively become the arbiter of truth.

This is alarming for at least two reasons. First, for anyone familiar with the government’s track record on truth, there’s reason to be skeptical of putting any government agency in charge of deciding what is true and false. Second, the CDC has been, to put it kindly, fallible throughout the pandemic. Indeed, the agency has been plagued with so much dysfunction and made so many crucial mistakes that its own director announced less than a year ago the organization needed an overhaul.

So there’s some reason to believe that Bostom and people like him—including epidemiologists like Dr. Martin Kuldorff (formerly of Harvard) and mRNA vaccine creator Dr. Robert Malone—were being suspended, banned, and de-amplified simply because Twitter was poorly situated to determine what was true and what was false.

There’s reason to doubt this claim, however.

Months after Zweig published his report on the Twitter Files, journalist Matt Taibbi published a separate deep dive exploring the Virality Project, an initiative launched by Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center.

The project, which Taibbi described as “a sweeping, cross-platform effort to monitor billions of social media posts by Stanford University, federal agencies, and a slew of (often state-funded) NGOs,” is noteworthy because officials made it clear that a goal was not just to flag false information, but information that was true but inconvenient to the government’s goals. Reports of “vaccinated individuals contracting Covid-19 anyway,” “worrisome jokes,” and “natural immunity” were all characterized as “potential violations,” as were conversations “interpreted to suggest that coronavirus might have leaked from a lab.”

In what Taibbi describes as “a pan-industry monitoring plan for Covid-related content,” the Virality Project began analyzing millions of posts each day from platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Medium, TikTok, and other social media sites, which were submitted through the JIRA ticketing system. On February 22, 2021, in a video no longer public, Stanford welcomed social media leaders to the group and offered instruction on how to join the JIRA system.

In contrast to Twitter’s previous internal guidance, which required narratives on Covid-19 to be “demonstrably false” before any censorship actions were taken, the Virality Project made it clear that information that was true was also fair game if it undermined the larger aims of the government and the Virality Project.

Specifically noted were “true stories that could fuel [vaccine] hesitancy,” personal testimonials about adverse side effects of vaccination, concerns over vaccine passports, and actual deaths of people following vaccination, such as Drene Keyes.

As NBC noted in 2021, Keyes, a 58-year-old black woman, died after receiving the Pfizer vaccine in February 2021. Described as an “elderly Black woman” by the Virality Project, Keyes’s death became a “disinformation” event after it garnered attention from “anti vax groups”—even though no one denied that she died within hours of taking the vaccine.

No autopsy was conducted on Keyes and there’s no way of knowing if the vaccine caused her death. But merely raising the possibility could have resulted in a ban. Officials at the Virality Project warned platforms that “just asking questions”—at least the wrong questions—was a tactic “commonly used by spreaders of misinformation.”

Ironically, Taibbi notes, the Virality Project itself was often “extravagantly wrong” about Covid science, describing breakthrough events as “extremely rare events” (a fact it later conceded was wrong) and implying that natural immunity did not offer protection from Covid.

“Even in its final report, [the Virality Project] claimed it was misinformation to suggest the vaccine does not prevent transmission, or that governments are planning to introduce vaccine passports,” Taibbi writes. “Both things turned out to be true.”

‘You Can’t Handle the Truth’

It’s clear that the Virality Project’s primary purpose was not to protect Americans from misinformation. Its goal, as Taibbi notes, was to get the public to submit to authority and accept the state’s Covid narrative, particularly the pronouncements of public figures such as Drs. Anthony Fauci and Rochelle Walensky.

The official policy can be summed up in the immortal words of Colonel Nathan Jessup, the villain portrayed by Jack Nicholson in Aaron Sorkin’s popular 1992 film A Few Good Men: “You can’t handle the truth.”

It’s important to understand that public officials, just like Col. Jessup, genuinely believe this. Jessup utters these words in anger in a wonderful monologue, after he is baited by Lt. Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) into telling the court how he really feels. Similarly, the Twitter Files reveal a program designed to control information—even true information—because it serves the state’s plan.

The last word—plan—is important, because it calls to mind Ludwig von Mises’s warning about those seeking to plan society.

“The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans,” Mises wrote. “He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute preeminence of his own plan.”

‘Sometimes They Are Five’

Mises’ words apply perfectly to the Virality Project, a program designed specifically to get people to submit to the government’s narrative and objectives, not their own. The preeminence of the plan is so important that it requires censoring information and targeting individuals—as the Virality Project did—even if it’s true.

It’s difficult to overstate how Orwellian this is.

In Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, Winston Smith, the protagonist of the story, says, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four.”

Absent any context, the quote doesn’t make much sense. But it’s important to understand that Orwell saw statism and politics as forces destructive to the truth. His own brushes with state propaganda during the Spanish Civil War left him terrified that objective truth was “fading out of the world,” and he saw the state as inherently prone to obfuscation and euphemism (regardless of party).

“Political language,” he wrote, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Within the context of Nineteen Eighty-Four, the meaning of Winston Smith’s words becomes crystal clear. Saying “two plus two makes four” might be an objective truth, but sometimes objective truth runs counter to Big Brother’s plan. Winston Smith is a slow learner, state agents tell him, because he can’t seem to grasp this simple reality.

“How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”

“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder.”

Many people who lived through the Covid-19 pandemic likely can identify with the terror of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Orwell’s fear that objective truth is “fading out of the world.” We witnessed public officials say things that were demonstrably false and face no consequences, while Andrew Bostom and countless others were exiled from public discourse because they said things that were true, but ran counter to the state’s narrative.

Fortunately, in large part because of Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, we now know how this happened.

“Government, academia, and an oligopoly of would-be corporate competitors organized quickly behind a secret, unified effort to control political messaging,” Taibbi writes.

All of it was designed to control information. And in doing so, the state—which actually attempted to create a “Disinformation Governance Board,” which critics promptly dubbed a Ministry of Truth—created an environment hostile to free speech and truth.

Ironically, despite the egregious abuse delivered upon the truth over the last three years in the name of fighting “misinformation,” polls show roughly half of Americans believe social media companies should be censoring such material from their sites. Few seem to realize this will almost certainly involve those with influence and power—especially the government—deciding who and what are censored.

This is a recipe for disaster. History shows there’s no greater purveyor of falsehood and propaganda than the government itself. The Twitter Files are a reminder of that.

AUTHOR

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. (Follow him on Substack.) His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

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

Why Are There No EV Charging Stations at Interstate Rest Stops? Blame the Feds!

Joe Biden’s $5 billion funding plan for electric vehicles failed to allow rest stops to offer charging stations, an Atlanta news station discovered.


When Georgia resident Anita Jefferson pulls her Tesla out of her garage each morning, she knows it’s fully charged and ready to go. But she told a local reporter her confidence disappears when she hits the interstate. Charging stations seem few and far between, even at places where you’d expect them to be, like rest stops.

“The one place you would want to travel and stop would be a state rest stop,” Jefferson told an Atlanta news station. “I want to get an answer as to why they’re not there.”

Jefferson got her answer from WXIA-TV Atlanta’s Verify team: There are no charging stations at rest stops because they are prohibited under a federal law—one that stretches all the way back to the Eisenhower administration.

In 1956, Ike signed into law a bill—the Federal-Aid Highway Act—that paved the way (pun intended) for the interstate highway system, which included rest areas at convenient locations.

While there were numerous problems with the legislation, a relatively minor one was that it created strict limits on what could be sold at these rest stops. Today, federal law limits commercial sales to only a few items (including lottery tickets), the Verify team found. When President Joe Biden rolled out a $5 billion funding plan for states to create EV charging stations, he neglected to carve out a commercial exemption for EVs.

“You would be paying for that energy,” Natalie Dale of the Georgia Department of Transportation told WXIA-TV Atlanta. “That would count as commercialized use of the right-of-way and therefore not allowed under current federal regulations.”

If you think this sounds like an inauspicious roll out to the massive federal EV program, you’re not wrong.

Allowing drivers to charge their EVs at convenient, familiar locations that already exist along interstate highways is a no-brainer—yet this simple idea eluded lawmakers in Washington, DC.

Unfortunately, it illustrates a much larger problem with the top-down blueprint central planners are using to create their EV charging station network.

“We have approved plans for all 50 States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia to help ensure that Americans in every part of the country…can be positioned to unlock the savings and benefits of electric vehicles,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a 2022 statement.

While it’s good the DOT isn’t trying to single-handedly map out the locations of thousands of EV charging stations across the country, there’s little reason to believe that state bureaucrats will be much more efficient. A review of state plans reveals a labyrinth of rules, regulations, and stakeholders dictating everything from the maximum distance of EV stations from highways and interstates to the types of charging equipment stations can use to the types of power capabilities charging stations must have.

The primary reason drivers enjoy the great convenience of gasoline stations across the country—there are some 145,000 of them today—is that they rely on market forces, not central planning. Each year hundreds of new filling stations are created, not because a bureaucrat identified the right location but because an entrepreneur saw an opportunity for profit.

Bureaucracy will never be able to match the efficiency of markets, which use millions of signals to reach decisions, and are constantly being corrected by market changes, all in the pursuit of serving customers and making a profit.

This, the economist Ludwig von Mises pointed out, is precisely the opposite of what bureaucrats do.

“A bureaucrat differs from a nonbureaucrat precisely because he is working in a field in which it is impossible to appraise the result of a man’s effort in terms of money,” Mises wrote in his seminal work Bureaucracy.

Just how burdensome these regulations will prove remains to be seen.

While some states will develop EV charging plans more amenable to market forces than others, all of them are likely to suffer to some extent because the push toward EVs itself has been top-down, driven by politicians trying to push consumers off of gas-powered vehicles.

What’s clear is that the bureaucratic structure of DOT’s charging station blueprint does not bode well for consumers. Charging technology and transportation are constantly evolving, and politicians and bureaucrats simply can’t respond to these changes as efficiently as markets.

So while there is much talk today that EV charging stations will soon outnumber gas stations, there’s reason to be skeptical of this claim—even with the government’s $5 billion spending spree.

There’s little reason to believe that state planners will create a framework with the proper incentive structure to meet the market’s needs. Bureaucrats and politicians lack both the knowledge and proper incentives to create a functional EV market.

If you doubt this, just ask Anita Jefferson, who can’t even charge her Tesla at rest stops—because of a federal law passed in 1956.

AUTHOR

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. (Follow him on Substack.) His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

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

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

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 There Are No ‘Fair’ Solutions Out of the Federal Government’s Spending Quagmire

The federal government is facing very serious budget issues, dramatically worsened by the past few years’ expansion in profligate spending. But while that gets most of the fiscal headlines at the moment because of the national debt limit discussion, the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds have far more unfunded liabilities than the official federal deficit. And those huge problems are well past the “something should be done” stage and getting very close to the “something must be done” stage. That has led some to reconsider reforming Social Security, the famous “third rail” of politics.

The mere possibility of that has energized those who fear that a change from the status quo might give them less, even though the huge financial holes involved cannot be sustained for long, meaning that “doing nothing” for now guarantees a worse deal for many soon. So such opponents are gearing up to prevent any move toward improved fiscal responsibility and sustainability that might involve reducing anyone’s benefits now or in the future by asserting that it would be unfair.

Unfortunately, however, if we rule out all options that might “unfairly” reduce benefits for current or future beneficiaries, we must be unfair to others. The reason is that the federal government has promised trillions of dollars more in benefits than taxes to fund them through Social Security (and even more so for Medicare), and those overpromises leave no fair way out.

Consider the option of reducing Social Security retirement benefits in one way or another. That is not fair, because government promises of ongoing retirement support have led people to believe in continued funding at the promised levels, and to adapt their behavior to those promises. Having done so (e.g., saving less privately for their retirement), it is unfair to cut that funding, because many who relied on benefit promises have become dependent on the government living up to them.

But there is a good reason for considering this possibility—if we continue to do nothing to change things, the trust funds will soon run out and benefits will have to fall substantially from then on, which would also be unfair, and potentially even more so.

Despite that, if history is any guide, any serious proposal of potential benefit reductions will not lead to rational discussion, but fights to make sure someone named “not us” will bear as much of the burdens as possible. We will witness a “guilt parade” of the most obviously pitiful and destitute beneficiaries, none of whom should be forced to “do without,” to remind us of its unfairness (just as we see struggling family farmers when agricultural or water subsidies are under fire; the most seriously ill when medical benefit cuts are proposed; poor, inner-city children when cuts to education funding are considered; etc).

Now, this fairness argument is partly correct. But only partly, because it does not consider the fairness of the alternatives. While benefit cutbacks can be considered unfair to those now and soon-to-be dependent on them, every alternative is unfair as well. Rather than choosing between fair and unfair options, we must choose between unfair ones.

Say we look to maintain benefit promises through substantially higher Social Security taxes. The problem is that people have also adapted their behavior to the promised extent of those taxes (already greater than income taxes for the majority of Americans), and some now depend on not losing any more take-home pay just as many recipients depend on not losing anticipated benefits.

Proposing that we just tax “the rich” more, as by increasing or even eliminating the income limits on Social Security “contributions,” would especially increase its unfairness to higher income earners, who are already paying far more in Social Security taxes than they will ever get back in benefits, and who also pay a sharply disproportionate share of income and other taxes as well (not to mention being in the crosshairs for further increases in those taxes).

Benefits could be maintained without increasing Social Security taxes by federal borrowing. But borrowing is just deferred taxation, so that would unfairly burden whichever taxpayers will be left holding the bag for those taxes. It would also increase the tax uncertainty faced by all Americans, who face a harder task of guessing how, where, when, and on who those future taxes will be assessed.

What about some sort of privatization? That could potentially increase the rate of return earned on retirement savings relative to what Social Security offers, improving the system from this point in time forward. However, such a move cannot magically eliminate its current multi-trillion dollar unfunded liabilities. And if future benefits are to be more closely based on private contributions than the current system, as privatization would require, treating those savers more fairly would unfairly take funds now used to subsidize the retirement of current workers, even though many of them paid far less in taxes than they will receive in benefits under the current structure.

Even doing nothing about Social Security to avoid treating people unfairly is unfair, since the status quo is unsustainable, requiring future commitments to be broken in a major way. Even Social Security statements now communicate that there will soon be too little money to meet their benefit promises.

It is time we realized that there is no fair way out from government Social Security commitments that exceed the funds available. Current overpromises mean that everyone has a plausible fairness claim on their side, yet something must give. The closest we can come to being fair is to avoid making any new over-commitments, to search for ways to make the program more sustainable (to reduce future unfairness problems), and to look seriously at the contentious issue of which of the options will minimize the adverse impacts of unfairness that cannot be avoided altogether. Demonizing any real consideration of the various options, as some have already started doing, only increases the likelihood that there will ultimately be more unfairness than necessary.

It’s also important to recognize that the inherent unfairness we must soon address is not limited to Social Security. That problem comes in the wake of any ongoing government program that offers benefits in excess of costs to beneficiaries at the start, because in a world without free lunches, that requires future Americans to be saddled with the burden of paying for those excess benefits.

So “not fair” also applies not only to the introduction and past expansions of Social Security, but also to current attempts to sweeten the Social Security pot, as with the Social Security 2100 Act. It also applies to Medicare, Social Security’s 1965 offspring, which faces an even larger financing hole, since early recipients got far more benefits than they paid for (both because benefits have increased and because early recipients paid for at most a few years at lower tax rates than now, but got benefits for the rest of their lives).

The same unfairness applies to any government trust fund with unfunded liabilities, such as for the Highway Trust Fund, due to be fully depleted within the next dozen years. (Since benefits from the road work began long before much of the associated costs came due, the program leaves more costs than benefits for succeeding Americans.)

The national debt reflects similar benefits that have not been paid for, unfairly leaving the tab for a huge pile of not-even-remotely-justified government spending projects and policies to later generations (not to mention providing the leverage for further expanding not-yet-paid-for benefits every time the debt limit expansion provides a must-pass piece of legislation).

It is worth remembering that in many areas that have been put under government control, the word “unfair” is correct. But that is because unfairness is baked in from the beginning of such government programs.

We can now only choose among unfair options which will be unavoidably difficult and unpleasant, with a government that has shown very little interest in facing those sorts of problems. And the way to prevent further inherent unfairness problems is not by embracing policies that attempt to buy votes today by creating policies where people are disproportionately treated (debt forgiveness, anyone?). Unfortunately, there is an ever-present pile of policy proposals whose political attraction is just such disproportionate treatment, which justifies little optimism for solutions arising out of the beltway anytime soon.

AUTHOR

Gary M. Galles

Gary M. Galles is a Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University and a member of the Foundation for Economic Education faculty network. In addition to his new book, Pathways to Policy Failures (2020), his books include Lines of Liberty (2016), Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies (2014), and Apostle of Peace (2013).

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

The Opponents of Free Speech Are Gaining Ground. Here’s How We Can Fight Back

When we break down the core institution of free speech, we lose a lot of what made America so successful in the first place.


Free speech used to be held up as one of the core American institutions. It was enshrined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights for a reason: while other countries have also adopted free speech, it is a fundamentally American tradition.

More than that, free speech is essential on its own terms. It is the single best way for humans to make progress. None of us are perfect, and none of us know the full truth. Therefore we all need to engage in the marketplace of ideas in order to find the truth and develop the best path forward.

But free speech has been under attack for decades.

One of the earliest—and most influential—critics was Herbert Marcuse, a college professor and the father of the New Left. In an essay called Repressive Tolerance published in 1969, Marcuse recommended removing rights (including the right to free speech) from conservatives. Marcuse didn’t see the world in terms of human beings who all have equal worth; he saw the world in terms of power. Those with power should be forcibly silenced (at least, the ones he disagreed with) so that those at the bottom could have more freedom. For Marcuse, if a majority is being repressed, what is needed is “repression and indoctrination” of the powerful so that the weak get the power they deserve.

In recent years, Marcuse-style attacks on free speech have filtered down from academic institutions into the mainstream.

Ilya Shapiro, adjunct law professor at George Washington University and the University of Mississippi, provides a case study on the new rules around who can speak and what they can say. Early in 2022 Georgetown Law School hired him to teach. When President Biden said he would only nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, Shapiro expressed dismay at this form of blatant affirmative action. At the voicing of this heterodox view, the sky fell down on him.

Georgetown swiftly placed Shapiro on administrative leave, where he languished for months without knowing whether or not he’d be fired. An administrative investigation into the offending Tweets lasted 122 days.

Georgetown finally reinstated Shapiro, but only on the technicality that he hadn’t officially started at Georgetown at the time he sent his tweets. The Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity and Affirmative Action (IDEAA) said that his comments were “objectively offensive” and that saying something similar in future may be enough to get him fired.

Even more disturbingly, the IDEAA adopted a blatantly subjective standard for deciding whether or not speech by faculty would be punishable. “The University’s anti-harassment policy does not require that a respondent intend to denigrate,” according to the report. “Instead, the Policy requires consideration of the ‘purpose or effect’ of a respondent’s conduct.”

As Shapiro puts it: “That people were offended, or claim to have been, is enough for me to have broken the rules.”

This punishment of heterodox speech isn’t an isolated incident. A 2017 survey by the Cato Institute and YouGov found that over a third of Democratic responders said that a business executive should be fired if they “believe psychological differences explain why there are more male engineers.” A substantial number of respondents thus advocated stripping someone of their job for the crime of saying what many psychologists know to be true.

The new cultural norms around free speech aren’t just a problem for right-wingers. In an in-depth explainer on cancel culture, Julian explains the scope of the problem:

“Heterodox Academy surveyed 445 academics about the state of free inquiry on campus, asking them, ‘Imagine expressing your views about a controversial issue while at work, at a time when faculty, staff, and/or other colleagues were present. To what extent would you worry about the following consequences?’

One of the hypothetical consequences Heterodox Academy listed was, ‘my career would be hurt.’ How many academics said they would be ‘very concerned’ or ‘extremely concerned’ about this consequence? 53.43%.

To put it another way: over half of academics on campus worried that expressing non-orthodox opinions on controversial topics could be dangerous to their careers.

We see the same self-censoring phenomenon among college students. In 2021, College Pulse surveyed 37,000 students at 159 colleges. They found that 80% of students self-censor to at least some degree. 48% of undergraduates reported feeling, ‘somewhat uncomfortable’ or ‘very uncomfortable’ expressing their views on a controversial topic in the classroom.

In a panel on free speech and cancel culture, former ACLU president Nadine Strossen said, ‘I constantly encounter students who are so fearful of being subjected to the Twitter mob that they are engaging in self-censorship.'”

It’s not just students and professors. In an article titled “America Has A Free Speech Problem,” the New York Times editorial board noted that 55 percent of Americans have held their tongue in the past year because they were concerned about “retaliation or harsh criticism.”

Extremists on both sides of the aisle increasingly wield their power to shame or shun Americans who speak their minds or have the temerity to voice their opinions in public. This problem is most prominent on social media, but is spilling into offline conversations as well. Citizens of a free country should not live in fear that a woke or far-right mob will come for them because they express an idea that isn’t sufficiently in vogue.

The very concept of free speech is increasingly associated with violence. When former vice president Mike Pence planned to speak at the University of Virginia, the student newspaper Cavalier Daily published a furious editorial saying that Pence shouldn’t be allowed to speak. Why not? “Speech that threatens the lives of those on Grounds is unjustifiable.” It takes a lot of mental contusions to conclude that letting Pence give his opinion could threaten anyone’s life.

It’s not just students. Psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett published an op-ed in the New York Times titled, “When is speech violence?

According to Barrett, “If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech—at least certain types of speech—can be a form of violence.”

She continued: “That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.”

The fact that psychologists are lending the veneer of science to the idea that speech is violence should be deeply troubling to every American.

When we break down the core institution of free speech, we lose a lot of what made America so successful in the first place. Robust norms of free speech helped people build the emotional and mental resilience to cope with ideas they disagreed with. It helped us build bonds with people who believed different things, because we were able to listen to and understand their position.

Free speech also enabled multiple parties to argue from competing worldviews and find a solution that was better than what any party had formulated going into the discussion.

The silver lining is this: Americans increasingly recognize that free speech is a value whose preservation is essential. The New York Times editorial board notes that “84 percent of adults said it is a, ‘very serious’ or ‘somewhat serious’ problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.”

As a strong and integrous person, what can you do to limit the impact of the degradation of free speech on your own life?

First, speak up about what you know to be true—even if no-one else is speaking up, even if there are risks to you. Develop the courage to call a spade a spade. If you see insanity—in your workplace, in politics, in your home—call it out openly and honestly. You’ll sleep better at night. You’ll also become stronger through the act of speaking out. Speaking takes courage, but it also creates courage.

Second, seek out people who disagree with you. Listen to them. Go further; try to be persuaded by them. Skewer your sacred cows and let go of your ideology. Neither one is serving you.

Third, banish forever (if you haven’t yet) the infantile notion that words are violence. This notion is profoundly damaging, because it makes you weak. If mere disagreement can hurt you, after all, then so can everything else in life. So will everything else in your life. Instead, embrace the adage of the Stoics: other people are responsible for their actions, you are responsible for your response. Once you embrace the idea that mere words—whether vicious or merely heterodox—cannot hurt you, you are on the path to emotional strength and groundedness.

Fourth, don’t let yourself become a “tribe of one.” It’s easy, in this environment of chilled speech, to always feel scared to speak up. Find a group of friends who encourage you to speak your truth, and who speak their truth in return to you. Find people who aren’t afraid to share heterodox ideas and to challenge your sacred cows, nor to have their own challenged in return.

Find a group you’d trust to have your back in a firefight, and who will love you and expect you to have theirs in turn.

This article was republished with permission from The Undaunted Man.

AUTHORS

Julian Adorney

Julian is a former political op-ed writer and current nonprofit marketer. His work has been featured in FEE, National Review, Playboy, and Lawrence Reed’s economics anthology Excuse Me, Professor.

Mark Johnson

Mark is an executive coach and men’s coach at The Undaunted Man.

RELATED ARTICLES:

They Paid $3 MILLION to Rig the 2020 Election

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the power of free speech

The Freedom Convoy Debate Demonstrates Why a ‘Right to Free Speech’ Makes No Sense

John Wilkes: The Hero of Liberty Who King George III Arrested for ‘Sedition’

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

Recovering a more perfect union: A rebuke of the 1619 Project

A new book describes the importance of memory, history, and national identity in saving America from desolation.


One of the worst sins of the present — not just ours but any present — is its tendency to condescend toward the past, which is much easier to do when one doesn’t trouble to know the full context of that past or try to grasp the nature of its challenges as they presented themselves at the time.
— Wilfred M. McClay, Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story

Jay Leno used to do a regular schtick, Jaywalking, in which he would interview random persons on the street, often young ones, and ask them questions about American history, such as: “Who did America fight in the Revolutionary War?” “How many branches of the U.S. government are there?” “What year was the War of 1812?” Invariably, they could not answer the question, standing mute with Leno’s impertinent microphone pointed at their gaping mouths, or they gave a ridiculous answer.

As deflating as these performances were, it turns out that the state of American education is even worse than Leno documented. Not only does ignorance characterise so much of the citizenry, but Americans are now also imbibing, i.e., being taught, pernicious lies or partial truths about the founding and history of the United States from a tendentious, ideological, and solidly left-wing perspective.

Twisted narrative

This sorry state of affairs is documented in excruciating detail in Timothy S. Goeglein’s enlightening, depressing, and, ultimately, hopeful new book, Toward a More Perfect Union: The Moral and Cultural Case for Teaching the Great American Story.

The distortion of history now routinely fed to elementary and high school students, as well as those attending hopelessly “woke” universities and colleges, has produced many young people who are “cynical, entitled, and aggrieved.” Continues Goeglein:

Rather than being thankful, they are indignant. Rather than proud, they feel ashamed. Rather than feeling free, they feel oppressed. Rather than wanting to fix America’s faults, they want to burn America down. Rather than asking what they can do for their country, they demand to know what their country can do for them — and the answer is increasingly to “cease to exist.”

We have created “a citizenry divorced both intellectually and emotionally from its heritage.” Further, “[w]hen we disassociate history — and memory — from facts, we are lost,” writes Goeglein, a former special assistant to President George W. Bush, a former Senate staffer, and, presently, vice-president of external and government relations for Focus on the Family.

Our predicament is exemplified by the absurd, anti-historical 1619 Project of the New York Times, an initiative repudiated by many respectedliberal historians. It is being taught in roughly 4,500 schools nationwide.

In a feat of historical and moral inversion, it maintains that the American Revolution was designed primarily to protect the institution of slavery from being destroyed by the British Empire.

Such a one-sided view of history will alienate Americans from one another, given the dissolution of a common identity and love of country, and disregards those who struggled to make the Declaration of Independence a reality in spite of its obvious flaws, such as slavery.

On the matter of slavery, always a leading complaint against America’s founding, the Washington Post’s George Will has rightly observed that the founders’ Constitution “gave slavery no national validation. It left slavery solely a creature of state laws and therefore susceptible to the process that, in fact, occurred — the process of being regionally confined and put on a path to ultimate extinction. Secession was the South’s desperate response when it recognized this impending outcome that the Constitution had facilitated.”

So, it comes as no surprise that, as “a 2020 Pew Research study found a month before the presidential election, roughly eight in ten registered voters in both camps said their political disagreements with others were about core American values, with roughly nine in ten — liberal and conservative — worried [that] a victory by the other would lead to ‘lasting harm’ to the United States” [emphasis added]. We are now in a situation in which tribe is pitted against tribe, race against race, rich against poor, red against blue states.

We have succumbed to the “termites of self-loathing,” to use a term coined by Ben Stein. There is hardly a historic personage — Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Columbus, St Junípero Serra — who is not vilified, “cancelled,” and banished into outer darkness by woke activists and educators. One should be grateful that at least Frederick Douglass and Dr Martin Luther King Jr are spared such treatment, given their devotion to American ideals in the Declaration of Independence, classical literature, and Scripture. They are just ignored.

Dearth of patriotism

Recently, a friend whose daughter attended one of the tonier prep schools in Washington, DC, related that his conversations with her on US and Western history were disappointing. She, and her friends, showed no “piety” toward her country or heritage.

It was an interesting word choice and recalled my own school days studying Virgil’s Aeneid, an epic poem written between 29 and 19 BC. It tells the story of the Trojan Aeneas, who fled the destruction of his city, travelled to Italy, and would later become the ancestor of the Romans.

I remember my Jesuit instructor lauding “pius Aeneas,” “pious” being the most used adjective throughout the poem. In following the will of the gods — he even left the captivating Dido in Carthage — Aeneas demonstrated pietas, a virtue in the eyes of Virgil and my teacher, in his devotion to family, country, and mission. Such piety is no longer encouraged in our educational institutions, or so it would seem.

Major culprit

What brought America to this sorry state? In the beginning there was the “Original Zinn” — Howard Zinn, that is, a Boston University professor of political science and “the godfather of the radical attack on America’s history”, as Goeglein outlines in a pivotal chapter of Toward a More Perfect Union.

Zinn’s “epic screed,” A People’s History of the United States (1980), and his supplemental book for high schoolers, A Young People’s History of the United States (2007), have had an unparalleled impact on social studies teachers. The historian refram[ed]” and “reimagin[ed]” facts to fit a Marxist critique of the US and a Western civilisation marred, claimed Zinn, “by the religion of popes, the government of kings, the frenzy for money.” For Zinn, “standards of historical analysis are merely ‘technical problems’ to be dismissed.”

“You wanna read a real history book?” Matt Damon’s titular character, Will, asks Robin Williams’ Dr Sean Maguire in the movie Good Will Hunting (1997). “Read Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States. That book’ll f***ing knock you on your ass.” Indeed, it does. It also boggles the mind.

Zinn claims that the nation “has been taken over by men [the founders] who have no respect for human rights or constitutional liberties.” Again, in service to ideology, Zinn does not believe in objective history as documented by Mary Grabar, PhD, a refugee of communist Yugoslavia, on whom Goeglein draws heavily.

Nikole Hannah-Jones, the main author of the 1619 Project, backtracked after respected historians critiqued her work. She claimed that the project was not about history but about “memory.” This is not historically grounded memory, but memory saturated with ideology and politics. This is pure Zinn in methodology. Hence, noted historians such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr, Eugene Genovese, and Michael Kammen — hardly a crowd of right-wingers — criticised Zinn as a “polemicist, not a historian.”

“His ultimate goal is not a historical one but a political one,” writes Goeglein. “[H]e wanted to depict the United States as an illegitimate enterprise, one demanding a revolution.”

Pushback

According to the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, today, only 18 percent of colleges require that students take a US history or government class to graduate. Maybe that is a blessing, given what passes for “history” in today’s woke environment. Ultimately, however, this is devastating to national unity.

Goeglein describes survey after survey that all indicate Americans’ ignorance of their rights under law and history. When the Constitution is taught, it is derided as being not radical enough in terms of the outcomes desired by left-of-centre teachers and advocates.

Toward A More Perfect Union does not specify a political agenda for reform, although it does note efforts made by some governors to reign in educational bureaucracies on, say, critical race theory. It does make a plea for parents to make a concerted effort to teach and counsel their children on the history of the nation and to pay close attention to what their schools are teaching.

It points to excellent resources available with which parents can educate themselves and their children on the complete story of American exceptionalism, not excluding the darker chapters. Parents who can afford the cost should look for alternatives to public schools that sacrifice true learning for the sake of ideology. “Classical” schools, home schooling, and parochial schools — all of which boomed during the COVID lockdowns — are possible options.

Parents who cannot afford private schools or who have special-needs children “must be extra vigilant and expect to receive the full wrath of Leftist activists if they stand up and demand that civics be taught while also standing against the indoctrination their children are receiving.” Specifically, they need to insist on the rights to inspect curricula, to opt out of the teaching of certain subjects, and to insist that controversial issues be discussed impartially. No easy tasks these.

Goeglein concludes:

[W]e must rededicate ourselves to the teaching of history — true, verifiable, factual history, with all its glories and tragedies. We need not fear to teach the ugly truths about America alongside the beautiful ones, because America’s founding vision is pure and her ideals are noble. Our failures do not change that.

Toward a More Perfect Union makes a compelling case that the country’s future, as one nation, demands a reclamation of our educational system and a recovery of the authentic teaching of history and constitutional government rightly understood.

This article has been republished from The American Spectator with permission.

AUTHOR

G. Tracy Mehan III

G. Tracy Mehan, III, was Assistant Administrator for Water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the Administration of President George W. Bush. He is an adjunct professor at Scalia Law School,… More by G. Tracy Mehan III

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