The Trump administration hopes to begin taking in thousands of Afrikaner refugees from South Africa by the end of this summer, a State Department official told the Daily Caller Friday.
In February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order promoting resettling Afrikaner refugees in the U.S. In early May, 59 Afrikaners arrived in the U.S. before a meeting later in the month between Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. The official told the Caller that the number of Afrikaner refugees is expected to rise sharply “towards the second half of summer.”
“We won’t be talking about dozens of arrivals, but hundreds and perhaps thousands,” the official said.
Although the official said he does not have an exact time frame, he said he “would feel confident in saying that … towards the second half of summer, we’ll start to massively scale this up.”
The official said that there is a backlog of over 50,000 refugee applications, and they expect that this number will “continue to rise.”
Trump’s EO accused South Africa of showing “disregard” for the rights of its citizens through “countless government policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education, and business, and hateful rhetoric and government actions fueling disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners.”
The order cut off aid to South Africa and announced that the U.S. will “promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation.”
“Everyone who has been admitted to the United States thus far … has demonstrated a persecution claim,” the official told the Caller. “People have suffered attacks on their farms that were racially motivated.”
The official said nine Afrikaner refugees arrived in Atlanta on Friday morning, following the first wave. Many advocates for refugee settlement have inexplicably changed their tune when the Afrikaners are involved. Episcopal Migration Services, the Episcopal Church’s refugee service, decided to begin winding down its partnership with the federal government when Trump started promoting Afrikaner resettlement. The Church World Service, another Christian group, said it was willing to assist the Afrikaners but claimed they had received preferential treatment over other applicants.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2025-05-31 12:45:372025-05-31 12:47:55EXCLUSIVE: Trump Admin Hopes To Bring ‘Thousands’ Of Refugees From South Africa By Late Summer
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Vlad Tepes Bloghttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngVlad Tepes Blog2025-05-17 13:08:062025-05-17 13:12:57South African Orphanage Denied Food Because Children Are White
Dozens of refugees from South Africa arrived in Washington on Monday as part of President Donald Trump’s decision to accept South Africans who have been discriminated against by their government.
South African leaders have been calling to kill white people and the media won’t cover it.
Escaping “shoot to kill, kill the Boer, the farmer.”
The Democrats feral opposition to white refugees from South Africa is real racism. And further proof that their illegal migrant invasion under the Biden regime has nothing to do with helping the oppressed and everything to do with destroying America. Imagine if Republicans opposed migrants because they were black.
President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to address serious human rights violations occurring in South Africa.
As encapsulated in its recent land confiscation act to seize disfavored citizens’ property without compensation, the government of South Africa blatantly discriminates against ethnic minority descendants of settler groups.
As long as South Africa continues to support bad actors on the world stage and allows violent attacks on innocent disfavored minority farmers, the United States will stop aid and assistance to the country.
The United States will establish a plan to resettle disfavored minorities in South Africa discriminated against because of their race as refugees.
STANDING UP AGAINST INJUSTICE AND OPPRESSION: President Donald J. Trump is committed to holding South Africa accountable for its actions.
South Africa has taken positions against the United States and its allies.
Merely two months after the October 7th terrorist attacks on Israel, South Africa accused Israel, not Hamas, of genocide in the International Court of Justice.
South Africa also strengthened ties with Iran, which supports terrorism globally.
While championing terrorism and autocratic regimes abroad, South Africa has committed similar human rights violations at home. The recent Expropriation Act enables the government of South Africa to seize ethnic minority descendants of settler groups’ agricultural property without compensation.The Expropriation Act follows countless government policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education, and business, and hateful rhetoric and government actions fueling disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners.
Years ago, the South African government disbanded volunteer forces defending rural farmers, turning a blind eye to the ensuing farm attacks.
REAFFIRMING OUR COMMITMENT TO HUMAN RIGHTS: A commitment to human rights is central to President Trump’s America First agenda.
President Trump: “South Africa is confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people very badly […] I will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of this situation has been completed!”
President Trump believes in sending a clear message to the world’s bad actors—and to their victims—by condemning human rights abuses in no uncertain terms.
MSNBC’s Yamiche Alcindor Whines After 59 White South African Refugees Waving American Flags Arrive in US (VIDEO)
The first group of white South African refugees arrived in the United States on Monday.
Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau and DHS Deputy Secretary Troy Edgar welcomed the refugees, who are fleeing violence, racial discrimination and persecution.
Fifty-nine white South African refugees were welcomed in DC, proudly waving American flags.
The new refugees beamed as they waved American flags.
MSNBC’s Yamiche Alcindor said a lot of people are appalled after the Trump Admin reportedly said South Africans assimilate better.
“So the Trump admin, they’re saying that essentially these white South Africans assimilate better, and they’re also not as much of a security risk,” Yamiche Alcindor whined. “That’s really causing a lot of of of people to be appalled, frankly.”
“And I also should tell people that this violence that they’re talking about that are dealing with these Afrikaners,” she said.
“I’ve been hearing from people that say there is violence in South Africa, but it’s affecting everybody of every single race,” she added.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2025-05-14 05:51:522025-05-15 05:00:37Democrats and Their Media Lapdogs Oppose South African Refugees Escaping Genocide….Because They Are White
The Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Joe Biden awarded K-12 schools $100,113,942 in grants aimed at increasing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts since 2021, a new report says.
The DOJ divvied up at least 30 grants that explicitly mentioned DEI or stated an intention to improve outcomes for a specific demographic group. Many more included topics of restorative justice and social emotional learning, according to Parents Defending Education (PDE). A total of 102 grants involving such topics were sent to 946 school districts in 36 states, representing about 3,235,414 students.
Nearly $2 million went to the Minnesota Department of Education to “create safe learning environments where practices of anti-racism and anti-oppression are embedded,” PDE said. The award said the Minnesota department was committed to “supporting LGBTQ inclusion” within all school districts.
Many of the grants mirrored this promise, specifically naming LGBT and nonwhite students as their intended targets.
Pennsylvania State University received $1,785,773 as part of an anti-bullying campaign to help K-12 schools “provide an opportunity to meaningfully advance equity in violence prevention for communities historically underserved, marginalized, adversely affected by inequality, and disproportionately impacted by crime, violence, and victimization (People of Color (POC), women, people with disabilities, and LGBTQIA+ community),” according to the grant document.
The Milwaukee Public Schools was awarded $986,757 for a project meant to “promote racial equity” and “dismantle institutionalized barriers,” documents show. Another program implemented in Pennsylvania school districts received $1,688,668 from the DOJ to teach students “community policing, trauma informed conflict emphasizing racial/historical and intergenerational trauma, impacts of social media on conflict and conflict escalation and management, anti-bias education, restorative practices.”
DEI is being uprooted in many states as governors move to ban such programs. Major companies like Walmart and several universities are also moving to end their employee and student DEI trainings and race-based admission and hiring decisions.
A report released after Texas banned the programs said that schools with DEI policies did not improve learning outcomes for their target groups. Another report said that DEI policies made people much more likely to agree with racist statements from Adolf Hitler.
The DOJ did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
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.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2025-01-04 06:49:422025-01-04 06:52:28Biden DOJ Poured Over $100,000,000 Into ‘Restorative Justice,’ DEI Efforts For K-12 Students, New Report Finds
At the beginning of his administration, President Joe Biden explained why he planned to institute Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs across the federal government. “[O]ur soul will be troubled as long as systemic racism is allowed to persist,” he said. Yet a new study finds that being exposed to DEI training or materials makes people more likely to agree with statements made by Adolf Hitler — yes, “literally Hitler.”
Researchers had subjects read “anti-oppressive DEI educational materials frequently used in interventional and educational settings.” Then they presented subjects with a series of statements based on quotations from Adolf Hitler, replacing the word “Jews” with “brahmins,” the favored class in India’s caste system. The subjects “exposed to the DEI content were markedly more likely to endorse Hitler’s demonization statements, agreeing that Brahmins are ‘parasites’ (+35.4%), ‘viruses’ (+33.8%), and ‘the devil personified’ (+27.1%),” the study found. “These findings suggest that exposure to anti-oppressive narratives can increase the endorsement of the type of demonization and scapegoating characteristic of authoritarianism.”
Rather than engendering racial harmony, DEI training made subjects hypersensitive to sleights and likely to detect offense where none was given, researchers discovered. “[W]hile purporting to combat bias, some anti-oppressive DEI narratives can engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors in the absence of evidence for a transgression deserving punishment,” added the researchers from Rutgers University Social Perception Lab and the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in their study titled “Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias.”
Further, they concluded, DEI trainings’ extreme and often distorted view of race relations creates participants’ “demands for more anti-oppressive DEI training, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of suspicion and intolerance.”
“Diversity, Equity and Inclusion — those are three words that sound great but, when implemented into the policy by the Biden administration, have been very devastating, even toward the stated goals that they claim to espouse,” Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) told “Washington Watch” last week.
The chairman of the anti-discrimination organization Do No Harm, Stanley Goldfarb, had previously linked DEI to anti-Semitism. Hitler regularly accused Jews of discriminating against ethnic Germans and conspiring to enrich themselves from German labor — much as DEI and allied radical theories accuse white people of doing today.
DEI Promotes Racial Discrimination
DEI self-consciously bases itself on critical race theory (CRT). The Marxist-inspired ideology holds that all differences in outcome between ethnic groups stem exclusively from racial discrimination, that American society systemically discriminates against minorities, and that all white people share in unearned privilege. “[N]o white member of society seems quite so innocent,” wrote CRT pioneers Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic in their book “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction.” Teachers in Buffalo, New York, taught students that “all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism.”
To overturn alleged “systemic racism,” CRT/DEI activists urge the federal government and private employers to discriminate in favor of racial minorities. Ibram X. Kendi wrote in his bestselling book, “How to be an Antiracist”:
“[R]acial discrimination is not inherently racist. The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity [minority wealth], then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist. Someone reproducing inequity through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power is entirely different than someone challenging that inequity by temporarily assisting an underrepresented racial group into relative wealth and power until equity is reached. The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
Kendi removed this passage from the Kindle version of his book sometime last year, complaining it had “been heavily quoted by the conservators of racism to attack me and this book.” Kendi made a stealth edit, allegedly to make it “harder to distort the meaning of these sentences.” The updated passage changes the words but not the meaning, stating:
“The only remedy to negative racist discrimination that produces inequity is positive antiracist discrimination that produces equity. The only remedy to past negative racist discrimination that has produced inequity is present positive antiracist discrimination that produces equity. The only remedy to present negative racist discrimination toward inequity is future positive antiracist discrimination toward equity.”
Public opposition to DEI’s advocacy of racial discrimination against white people has led numerous corporations to step away from the controversial ideology. Walmart recently walked back its DEI policies, joining such corporate titans as Caterpillar, Boeing, and Toyota.
Yet DEI and CRT currently thrive on college campuses. Two out of three major universities require students to take courses in DEI, according to the Goldwater Institute. The Supreme Court ruled last June that racial discrimination in college admissions violates the 14th Amendment. “To rigorously enforce yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, I will eliminate all ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion’ programs across the entire federal government,” promised then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.
For threatening to ding DEI, Democrats denounced the 45th president as a fascist. Biden charged Trump with “echoing the same exact language used in Nazi Germany.” After receiving the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination — despite bypassing the primary process — Vice President Kamala Harris closed her campaign by calling Trump a threat to “our democracy,” falsely accusing the former president of threatening to use the military against “the enemy within” on election day 2024, and agreeing with the statement that “Donald Trump is a fascist.” The Associated Press reported that two-thirds of Kamala Harris supporters named the so-called threat to democracy as their top issue.
DEI and Acts of Political Violence
President-elect Trump and those close to him have suffered as a result. He experienced two attempted assassinations on the campaign trail this summer. On Wednesday morning, the day before Thanksgiving, the Trump campaign announced several Cabinet nominees faced “violent, unAmerican threats to their lives and those who live with them.” The threats included bomb threats and “swatting” — falsely calling the SWAT team to target a family. “This is what happens when you call a major party candidate ‘literally Hitler’ and ‘a threat to [d]emocracy’ for years,” observed former Michigan State Representative Brett LaFave.
DEI concepts have exploded into violence in the past. The target of Nashville school shooter Audrey Hale, who identified as a transgender man named Aiden and killed six people at Covenant School last March, exhibited signs of CRT-based self-loathing. In her journals, Hale referred to herself as a “white nothingness” festooned in thoughts of “white privilege [sic], an embarrassment to self.” Later, she wrote, “I am nothing. Brown love is the most beautiful kind.” She referred to her future victims as “white privileges.”
The federal government’s caricature of Trump voters has denied them aid after this summer’s hurricanes. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2022-2026 Strategic Plan ranks as “Goal 1: Instill Equity as a Foundation of Emergency Management.” A FEMA worker, Marn’i Washington, instructed canvassers to avoid storm-ravaged Florida homes that sported signs supporting Donald Trump for president. Washington later said she was “simply following orders” from above: FEMA characterized Trump supporters as anti-government and potentially violent.
“I can tell you for this particular incident, at the direction of our employee, 20 homes were skipped,” testified the Biden administration’s FEMA administrator, Deanne Criswell, before the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability on November 19.
The same day, the committee passed the Dismantle DEI Act (H.R.8706), introduced by Cloud, by a 23-17, party-line vote. Among its other provisions, the Dismantle DEI Act would end all federal training that requires employees to agree “that a particular race, color, ethnicity, religion, biological sex, or national origin is inherently or systemically superior or inferior, oppressive or oppressed, or privileged or unprivileged.”
“DEI programs masquerade as fairness while instead fostering division, inefficiency, and discrimination in our institutions,” commented Cloud in an email sent to The Washington Stand. “The Dismantle DEI Act takes aim at this harmful ideology and will root it out of our government.”
“True justice is — and must remain — blind. It should not consider race, sex, or other characteristics when evaluating an individual. Instead, it must focus on fairness, merit, and equal opportunity,” Cloud told the committee before the vote. DEI represents “a dangerous detour that risks erasing the strides we’ve made toward a more perfect union. By dismantling these harmful policies, we can reaffirm our commitment to the ideals of equality, merit, and justice that make our nation great.”
Outgoing conservative Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) introduced two bills to right DEI-inspired discrimination emanating out of the government into the private sector. The No Discrimination in Housing Act (H.R.10195) would prevent large corporate landholders that have a DEI initiative, such as Vanguard and Blackstone, from receiving the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). The Flexibility in Housing Act of 2024 (H.R.10194) would halt the implementation of a Biden-Harris administration rule from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requiring HUD grant recipients to implement equity-driven housing plans.
Christians Oppose the Suspicion and Offense at the Heart of DEI/CRT
Christians should welcome bills that eliminate DEI, CRT, and other forms of left-wing discrimination from government, education, and broader society. Further, Christians must make clear such racial discrimination is incompatible with the word of God. Christian love “is not easily provoked” (I Corinthians 13:5). “He who busies himself with the sins of others, or judges his brother on suspicion, has not yet even begun to repent or to examine himself so as to discover his own sins,” wrote St. Maximos the Confessor. Conversely, the Greek word translated as “the devil” (δι?βολος) literally means the “accuser, slanderer.”
Ironically, DEI supporters will likely impute false racist motivations to these bills, while slouching toward endorsing the words of the most racially focused totalitarian of the 20th century — and the spiritual power that stands behind all forms of ungodly oppression.
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2024-11-29 06:54:582024-11-29 07:01:15DEI Training Makes You More Likely to Agree With … Literally Hitler: Study
Remember when a major candidate for the U.S. presidency was nearly assassinatedtwice, and a chorus of voices momentarily urged everyone to tone down the political rhetoric? That ceasefire is officially over. At a CNN town hall last Wednesday, Vice President Kamala Harris repeatedly called former President Donald Trump — get this — a “fascist.” I bet you’ve never heard that one before.
The impulse to restrain violent rhetoric was never going to run through Election Day. In fact, it couldn’t even make it a whole fortnight. But now, the rhetoric has built once again to a white-hot crescendo, as a last-minute media frenzy seeks to squeeze every last possible vote out of The Narrative before vote-counting begins. Now is not a time to discourage political violence, the rationalization goes; there’s an election to win, after all.
According to The Narrative, voters need look no further for proof of Trump’s fascist — even Nazi-like — preferences than his latest rally, an all-day affair in Manhattan’s Madison Square Garden (MSG). The connection — obvious only to historians with a magnifying glass and a debilitating case of confirmation bias — is that the wrestling, hockey, basketball, and concert venue was once the site of a pro-Hitler rally in 1939, three years before Joe Biden was born.
That was a sufficient connection for MSNBC to play footage from the 1939 rally along coverage of Trump’s 2024 event, along with a chyron informing viewers, “Trump’s MSG rally comes 85 years after pro-nazi rally at famed arena.” The live commentary held the same note: “that jamboree happening right now — you see it there on your screen — in that place is particularly chilling because in 1939, more than 20,000 supporters of a different fascist leader, Adolf Hitler, packed the Garden for a so-called pro-America rally.”
It wasn’t just the far-Left media. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D), Harris’s vice presidential running mate, alleged a “direct parallel” between Trump’s rally and “a big rally that happened in the mid-1930s at Madison Square Garden.” He added, “Don’t think that he doesn’t know for one second exactly what they’re doing there. So, look, we said we’re all running like everything’s on the line because it is.”
If Trump’s MSG rally was, subtly, a pro-Nazi event, it chose a strange way of showing it. Israeli flags hung from the rafters. Speakers included businessman Vivek Ramaswamy and Trump’s running mate Senator J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), who has two children with his Indian wife. Black attendees from Harlem and Bronxville, N.Y. told National Review that all the black people in their circles are planning to vote for Trump. This is hardly the stuff of Aryan supremacy.
The only evidence from the rally the media could use to propel its “racism” narrative were some poor jokes from a little-known insult comic who was booed by the crowd.
But that hasn’t stopped the media from trying, nor from finding political figures eager to assist them in building that narrative. Even Hillary Clinton, who lost the 2016 presidential election to Trump after making similar Nazi allegations, suggested on CNN that the Trump rally was “actually reenacting the Madison Square Garden rally in 1939.”
A more neutral interpretation is that the Trump campaign chose MSG as the site of their New York rally because it is a large venue, capable of seating 20,000 attendees. If Trump himself had any mental associations with the site, they probably had more to do with WrestleMania than with American Nazism.
Indeed, more recent political associations with MSG are both bipartisan and mainstream. It has hosted four Democratic National Conventions and one Republican National Convention, including those for Carter (1976), Clinton (1992), and Bush (2004) — three out of the six living former presidents. Was Hillary Clinton’s husband Bill “actually reenacting the Madison Square Garden rally in 1939” at his nominating convention? Or is there a double standard at play?
In any event, “Attacking Trump’s Fascism Is Not That Persuasive,” admitted a recent email from Future Forward, which The New York Times described as “the leading pro-Harris super PAC.” Future Forward urged the Harris campaign to adjust its messaging to those that play better with focus groups. “Purely negative attacks on Trump’s character are less effective than contrast messages that include positive details about Kamala Harris’s plans to address the needs of everyday Americans,” they wrote.
Future Forward may be correct that voters would rather hear a candidate talk about what they will accomplish, rather than their opponent’s faults. But the Harris campaign and its allies also perceive correctly that their messages about Harris’s policy agenda are weaker than their messages about Trump’s faults — when they can make them stick.
Trump’s rally in MSG was not the only recent occasion for his opponents to reopen cans of Nazi Smear Sauce that expired eight years ago. Last Tuesday, The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg published an article suggesting that Trump wanted “the kind of generals that Hitler had,” according to Trump’s estranged, former chief-of-staff John Kelly.
Goldberg devoted the majority of the article to Vanessa Guillén, a U.S. Army private of Mexican descent who was murdered by a fellow soldier at Fort Hood in Texas. In Goldberg’s telling, “Trump became angry” over the cost of funeral arrangements, declaring, “it doesn’t cost 60,000 bucks to bury a [explicit] Mexican!” Goldberg added that Trump ordered White House Chief-of-Staff Mark Meadows not to pay.
But there was a problem. Virtually everyone present when these exchanges allegedly took place went on record denying Goldberg’s account, some before the story was published. Trump spokesperson Alex Pfeiffer “emailed me a series of denials,” writing “President Donald Trump never said that. This is an outrageous lie,” said Goldberg. Similarly, he recorded, Meadows “denied having heard Trump make the statement” and “also denied that Trump had ordered Meadows not to pay for the funeral.”
Former Trump National Security official Kash Patel added a characterization of events that contradicts the ethnic disdain portrayed by Goldberg. “As someone who was present in the room with President Trump, he strongly urged that Spc. Vanessa Guillen’s grieving family should not have to bear the cost of any funeral arrangements, even offering to personally pay himself in order to honor her life and sacrifice,” he said. “In addition, President Trump was able to have the Department of Defense designate her death as occurring ‘in the line of duty,’ which gave her full military honors and provided her family access to benefits, services, and complete financial assistance.”
Goldberg published the story anyways, presenting his version of events as factual, without citing his first-hand source. This provoked further denials from those who were actually present. “Wow. I don’t appreciate how you are exploiting my sister’s death for politics,” tweeted Guillén’s sister Mayra. “President Donald Trump did nothing but show respect to my family & Vanessa. In fact, I voted for President Trump today.” Trump official Theo Wold, who was present that day as a translator, was more direct: “The Atlantic hit piece is a lie.” Meadows issued a public denial of the story, and his spokesman Ben Williamson took The Atlantic to task for watering down the denial he issued from Meadows from “Trump ‘absolutely did not say that,’” to he “didn’t hear Trump say it.”
The mainstream media is not known for letting the facts get in the way of a good narrative, even if that should be their primary purpose. Sometimes, it seems that they self-consciously assume the role of the titular villain from “Larry-Boy and the Rumor Weed.” So, it’s no wonder that “most people believe the media is biased,” admitted Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos in a recent op-ed.
Their ceaseless and unsubstantiated accusations of “Nazi” and “fascist” seem to be hurting their own cause. In a recent focus group of undecided voters in Pennsylvania, one man said that “part of the reason why I’m being pushed towards Trump so strongly is I find that the Democrats and the Left keep going straight to Hitler all the time with everything. … It pushes me away from their position. It’s so hyperbolic that it makes it impossible to have good discussions, and I think it ruins the discourse.” When asked, the other focus group participants also agreed that bringing up Hitler so often is not helpful.
Some partisans may respond by declaring that Trump represents a unique threat to democracy, making the Trump-Hitler comparison apt. But progressives undermine that argument when they smear other politicians, advocating mainstream policy positions, as “fascist.” For instance, left-wing opinion-maker Joy Reid recently declared that standard pro-family positions were “fascist.” When progressives label normal Americans with the same smear they use against Trump, the only effect is to convince normal Americans that Trump is a lot like them.
Following Trump’s MSG rally, a sect of Satmar Hasidic Jews led by Grand Rabbi Aharon Teitelbaum endorsed Donald Trump for president. Trump is many things, but a Nazi is not one of them.
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2024-10-30 11:39:102024-10-30 11:42:27Election Time Nazi Smears Are Back
In an article published on the Ohio State Senate’s website, Michele Reynolds wrote, “Abortion is killing the black community.” Abortion “is not health care,” it “is extermination.” And Reynolds is right — this industry is not only murderous, but its origins are inherently racist.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of the infamous abortion hub Planned Parenthood, was an open believer in eugenics, which is the theory that “humans can be improved through selective breeding of populations.” When Sanger put her “birth control” plan into action, she had her eyes set on decreasing the amount of black people that walked the earth. And interestingly enough, Planned Parenthood does not hide this disturbing history.
On its website, the organization provides a multi-paragraph explanation of its history, including the details of Sanger’s “harmful” vision. “Margaret Sanger’s racism and belief in eugenics are in direct opposition to Planned Parenthood’s mission,” the abortion group concluded. “Planned Parenthood denounces Margaret Sanger’s belief in eugenics. Further, Planned Parenthood denounces the history and legacy of anti-Blackness in gynecology and the reproductive rights movement.”
But the reality is, these claims can only be described as pure lip service. Only a brief overview of modern statistics proves that Planned Parenthood, for all intents and purposes, is still discriminatory to its core.
As guest host and former Congressman Jody Hice said on Tuesday’s episode of “Washington Watch,” Planned Parenthood is “obviously trying to run from their racist roots.” Ryan Bomberger, co-founder and chief creative officer of the Radiance Foundation, agreed. “Well, sure,” he said, “they can try to run, but they can’t change their DNA.” But even beyond their inability to alter the foundation upon which they were built, Bomberger argued that this baby-victimizing organization has no interest in changing their DNA.
As if murdering babies of any ethnicity wasn’t enough, a policy report published by the Center for Urban Renewal and Education highlighted data from a 2011 report that found “black women make up 14 percent of the childbearing population, yet obtained 36.2 percent of reported abortions.” Additionally, “Percentages at these levels illustrate that more than 19 million black babies have been aborted since 1973.” And yet, the statistics only get increasingly bleak.
The research emphasized that an analysis of “abortion by ethnicity” confirms “black women disproportionately lead in the numbers.” For example, “in Mississippi, 79 percent of abortions are obtained by black women; in Washington, D.C., more than 60 percent; in Georgia, 59.4 percent; in Alabama, 58.4 percent.” And “in state after state, similar numbers are found, with black women aborting at two, three or more times their presence in the population.”
These details, the report contended, are but a small fraction of evidence that points to a startling reality: “In the 1850s, it was the black slave who sought freedom and equal protection under the law. Today it is the unborn child.”
Bomberger did not hold back any punches. Planned Parenthood, he urged, was “birthed out of the same racist, elitist pseudoscience that birthed the Holocaust, which is called eugenics,” and “they can’t run away from that.” While they like to pretend they’re different from the days of their founder, “They’re actually worse now … [with] over 360,000 [babies] every year killed by Planned Parenthood.”
Needless to say, “The origins of Planned Parenthood are rooted in this mindset that certain people didn’t deserve to live,” Bomberger said. In the early days of the rising push for abortion, those who were considered “unfit,” such as children conceived out of wedlock and poor black communities, were the primary target. But “today,” he stated, “it’s abortion on demand, where literally abortion is the number one killer in the black community. It kills more black lives in two weeks than the KKK killed in a century. That’s the reality.”
“That’s stunning,” Hice stated. “I would imagine there [are] many women who may not know about Planned Parenthood’s origin.” As such, he added, “How can we get this out?” Because “people need to know.” In response, Bomberger explained that Radiance Foundation started “with a billboard campaign that called out the insane and inherent racism in the abortion industry.” Their journey of uncovering the racism in the abortion industry began by calling out the falsehoods that abortion giants promote. “Planned Parenthood and these Planned Parenthood-funded minority groups are trying to say [that] ‘abortions are [an] uplift out of poverty. Abortion is equality. It’s our empowerment.’” However, as Bomberger went on to ask, “How is any community empowered by killing its posterity?”
The truth is, “[A]bortion, no matter the color [of the baby], is devastating and wrong and so tragic.” But these abortion hubs are pushing the notion that there needs to be “more abortions in the black community.” And what people don’t realize, Bomberger urged, is that “Planned Parenthood brags … about how black people are their base,” and it “touts itself as an anti-racism organization.” But when all is said and done, “How can you be anti-racism when you’re the leading killer of black lives?” It just “goes to show the fraud of the anti-racism movement.”
It “is incredible information” to take in, Hice shook his head. But it begs the question, what about “black Christians who have accepted abortion as just simply part of the package when it comes to supporting Democrats?” Additionally, how do we respond to “the preachers who are more Democrat[ic] than they are gospel preachers when it comes to standing up for the unborn?”
According to Bomberger, “[T]he dissonance is just unbelievable.” He elaborated, “[Y]ou’ve got the Democratic Party, which is the party of slavery, the party that went to war for slavery, the party of Jim Crow, the party of poll taxes and literacy tests — all the Jim Crow policies.” This is also “the same party today that is pushing unlimited abortion in the black community.” As such, he said, “What I say to those pastors” is that they need to “wake up.” Abortion is nothing other than “having lives made in the image of God destroyed under the name of some fake sort of equality [and] fake sort of reproductive justice.”
Ultimately, “[T]he only justice that pastors or … any other Christian … should be concerned with is biblical justice. And it’s not biblical justice to slaughter our unborn and to have women exploited by a multi-billion dollar abortion industry.”
So, Hice asked, where’s the encouragement in all this? As Bomberger put it, the encouragement buried in the grim facts is that “we’re seeing an awakening by pastors being bold and actually speaking out about this.” It’s not necessarily a “seismic shift, but even if it’s a handful of people here and a handful of people there, it’s a victory.” And as Hice noted, every movement “starts with a few.”
Bomberger agreed, and he concluded that what he wants to impart to people is this: “Have hope. Because when you are awakened, when you understand the truth, you have clarity and context. And it sets people free.”
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2024-08-15 13:35:522024-08-15 13:35:52Planned Parenthood Came from the ‘Same Racist, Elitist Pseudoscience that Birthed the Holocaust’: Expert
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,” toldThe 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.
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
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - A Compass for Common Sensehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - A Compass for Common Sense2023-03-01 06:17:372023-03-01 06:28:19The Power of Woke: How Leftist Ideology is Undermining our Society and Economy
In an article on the website of the Canadian Public Health Agency entitled “Inequalities in Health of Racialized Adults in Canada,” one reads that “populations who are racialized in relation to a ‘white’ or non-racialized social group experience stressors including inter-personal and systemic discrimination throughout the life course,” that “racialized adults are less likely to feel that their health is either good or excellent,” and that “racialized Canadians are disproportionately impacted by inequalities in safe and stable housing.”)
As a linguist, I was struck by the repeated use in this article of a new past participle that I was not familiar with — “racialized”. I began to wonder about the implications underlying the use of this verb form, which implies the existence of a verb “to racialize”.
So I looked on the internet to see if I could find other forms of this verb. My search turned up examples such as the following: “Coleman Hughes on how America racializes its citizens”; “Not all racializers do the same thing when they racialize”; “Discourses that are racializing and othering muslim*women [sic] can sustain hegemony, by disguising their particularities”.
The past participle of this verb therefore represents the person or group to which it is applied as having undergone the action of being racialized by some agent who is represented as a racializer. This leads to the question as to who is doing the racializing. A further search on the internet showed that the answer to that question is invariably the same — whites.
Behind that little past participle “racialized”, consequently, there lies a whole worldview which sees the relations between different races in terms of racializer/racialized or, in other terms, oppressor/oppressed. As Robin Diangelo states in White Fragility, “white people raised in Western societies are conditioned into a white supremacist worldview because it is the bedrock of our society and its institutions,” and this worldview “brings into existence whites and nonwhites, full persons and subpersons.”
The name of this worldview is Critical Race Theory, and its underpinnings are essentially Marxist. It divides the world into two opposing power groups: the oppressor (capitalists/whites) and the oppressed (workers/nonwhites). Since everything is governed by power-relations in this system, the only recourse of the oppressed is to use whatever power they have to rise up against the oppressor and throw off his yoke: as one of the foundational thinkers of Critical Race Theory, Ibram X. Kendi, has written in How to be an Antiracist: “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
One doesn’t have to be a linguist in order to see that the division of the world into racializer/racialized is a recipe for conflict and violence, and not for the resolution of unjust discrimination.
As Edward Feser points out in his book All One in Christ. A Catholic Critique of Racism and Critical Race Theory, “if one were to replace expressions like ‘whiteness’ and ‘white supremacy’ with terms such as ‘Jewishness’ and ‘Jewry’, it would be difficult to distinguish Critical Race Theory literature from the ugly propaganda of Nazism. Its claims are comparably extreme, even if it has not (yet?) led to comparable levels of violence.” Feser advocates that the way forward entails “not Critical Race Theory’s cancel culture and hermeneutics of suspicion, but rational discourse and mutual understanding. Not the demonization of any race as inherently oppressive, but solidarity and mutual respect.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - A Compass for Common Sensehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - A Compass for Common Sense2023-01-30 05:52:052023-01-30 06:33:28Department of Critical Race Theory Neologisms: ‘To Racialize’
Justice Clarence Thomas, being African American, is seen as a traitor to the woke cause.
After the overturning of Roe v Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas has been a particular target of venomous attack from the woke mob. Why do they hate him so much? One might be forgiven for thinking that it is due to his staunch anti-abortion views. But that explanation does not work.
Pope Francis has long expressed that opposing abortion is “closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right”, and yet, the Left is not obsessed with him (in fact, many even take a liking). At some point, even Joe Biden supported letting States overturn Roe v Wade, and again, the Left did not go ballistic on him.
Not behaving as expected
So, why the animus against Thomas? There can only be one explanation: race. In 1991, as he was accused of sexually harassing Anita Hill, Thomas countered that he was the victim of “a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you.”
This was loose talk, as it trivialised the suffering of real lynching victims in America’s troubled history of race relations. But Thomas did have a point in arguing that in the United States, any black person who dares to deviate from the official narrative of how blacks are supposed to act, will face severe harassment.
In 1991, he anticipated a trend that would become mainstream in our times: if you are born with a particular skin colour, you are supposed to behave in a certain way, and uphold a specific ideology. If not, you are a race traitor. As Biden so neatly phrased it:
“[I]f you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”
Any competent scholar of the history of racism would immediately recognise this as race essentialism. As Angelo Corlett explains in his book Race, Racism and Reparations,
“proponents of race essentialism define human races by a set of genetic or cultural traits shared by all members of a ‘racial’ group.”
Who are the neo-Nazis now?
In the first half of the 20th Century, this view was popular amongst proponents of so-called “racial science”. They believed that racial biological traits determine how people behave. Hitler believed that no matter how much a person with Jewish ancestry tried to assimilate to German society (even converting to another religion), he or she would still be a dangerous Jew, because it was in his or her essence.
Race essentialism is abhorrent, and one might think that after 1945, the world learned a lesson. And yet, race essentialism is alive and kicking, but this time, under the guise of woke progressivism. As per today’s woke rules, if you are black, you must embrace the whole woke mindset.
White people (such as Pope Francis) may occasionally be forgiven for having anti-abortion views, but if you are black and you deviate from the woke line (such as Clarence Thomas), you are a race traitor, an Uncle Tom. Unsurprisingly, Thomas has been called “Uncle Clarence” multiple times.
If you are black, not only do you have to act a certain way, but you must also have a special sexual preference. The woke pay lip service to interracial relationships, but amongst them there is a sense of unease when they contemplate a successful black man marrying a white woman.
For example, when Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, USA Today columnist Barbara Reynolds wrote: “Here’s a man who’s going to decide crucial issues for the country and he has already said no to blacks; he has already said if he can’t paint himself white he’ll think white and marry a white woman.” Russell Adams, chairman of African American studies at Howard University, said that Thomas “marrying a white woman is a sign of his rejection of the black community.”
Truly racist
Frantz Fanon is a figure beloved by the Left. In 1952, he published Black Skin, White Masks, a canonical text of wokeness. In that book, he also scorns black men who fall in love with white women. Fanon castigates himself for, at some point, having had these thoughts: “Out of the blackest part of my soul, across the zebra striping of my mind, surges this desire to be suddenly white. I wish to be acknowledged not as black but as white… I marry white culture, white beauty, white whiteness.” The implication of this passage is that loving a white woman is an act of racial treason.
Fanon felt disdain for black people who embraced Western values. He claimed they were wearing white masks, as if somehow, they were deviating from their real essence, and were therefore living an inauthentic life. Therefore — so Fanon believed — Western civilisation must be rejected entirely. As he explained in The Wretched of the Earth, “When the colonized hear a speech on Western culture, they draw their machetes or at least check to see they are close to hand.” He who admires Western values is a sellout.
Ever since Fanon, racial essentialism in the name of progress has only grown worse. People of color are now encouraged not to honour punctuality, because being on time is part of whiteness. Black kids who are academically talented run the risk of being told they are “acting white”. Analysing things objectively is an act of white supremacy. And so on.
Consequently, Clarence Thomas is not allowed to have anti-abortion views. Nobody cares about his anti-abortion arguments, because he is not supposed to make them in the first place. Other jurists, philosophers or theologians will be allowed to oppose abortion, but only if they are white. Thomas is hated not because of his views, but because of his skin colour. He upsets the arbitrary racial classifications that the woke are so eager to embrace.
As per woke taxonomy, black people cannot be conservative, and if they are, they are only wearing a “white mask”. To paraphrase the late Christopher Hitchens, “identity politics poisons everything”. We can no longer have a meaningful discussion about anything as vital as the ontological status of a fetus, because the race of the discussants will determine who is allowed to uphold a particular view. It’s time to push back against this madness.
Gabriel Andrade is a university professor originally from Venezuela. He writes about politics, philosophy, history, religion and psychology. More by Gabriel Andrade
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2022-07-02 05:30:132022-07-02 05:33:13Why Do The Woke Hate Clarence Thomas So Much?
Over half of Americans don’t think schools have a responsibility to teach students about the ongoing impact of slavery and racism, according to according to a poll released Monday by the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State University in partnership with APM Research Lab.
Two-thirds of Republican respondents and almost half of Independents said educators should only teach the history of slavery, according to the “Mood of the Nation” poll. Only one-fifth of Democratic respondents said exclusively the history of slavery should be taught.
Most respondents said they didn’t think governors and state legislators should have a “great deal of influence” over how concepts such as racism, slavery, creationism and sex education are taught in public schools and responded in favor of parents having the greatest influence on those topics.
Over half of Americans don’t think schools have a responsibility to teach students about the ongoing impact of slavery and racism, according to according to a poll released Monday by the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State University in partnership with APM Research Lab.
Two-thirds of Republican respondents and almost half of Independents said educators should only teach the history of slavery, according to the “Mood of the Nation” poll. Only one-fifth of Democratic respondents said exclusively the history of slavery should be taught.
The survey polled 1,200 people over the age of 18 starting in late November 2021, and the results generally varied depending on political affiliation. That said, the poll showed that 90% of respondents believed schools have a responsibility to teach about the history of slavery and scientific evolution.
NEW MOOD OF THE NATION POLL RESULTS:
HOW AMERICANS THINK SCHOOLS SHOULD TEACH ABOUT RACE, EVOLUTION AND SEX
Most respondents said they didn’t think governors and state legislators should have a “great deal of influence” over how concepts such as racism, slavery, creationism and sex education are taught in public schools and responded in favor of parents having the greatest influence on those topics.
Almost half of respondents said that the biblical stance on creation should be taught alongside scientific evidence of evolution, according to the poll. Respondents with a bachelor’s degree, higher incomes and Democrats were the most likely to take the position that exclusively the scientific evidence of creation should be taught.
Respondents 45 and older were the most supportive of parents having the greatest influence in how evolution is taught.
“It depends on a person’s religious belief,” a 61-year-old Black Democratic woman from Florida who identifies as a born-again Christian said in the survey. “If they believe, as I do, that man was created by God, then I think they should decide what and how their children should be taught concerning evolution.”
Of those polled, 51% of respondents said parents should have “a great deal of influence” over the subject of sex education, the poll showed. Three-fourths of respondents said students should learn about contraception and the dangers of diseases during sex education, while nearly one-fourth said the dangers of diseases and abstinence until marriage should be taught.
Republicans, born-again Christians and respondents 65 and older were the most likely to say parents should have the greatest influence on their children’s sex education, according to the poll results. Additionally, forty percent of respondents said health teachers should also have “a great deal of influence” in sex education.
“Because government departments of education don’t care about students. Parents should be teaching them about safety along with health teachers and professionals,” a 28-year-old Democratic Hispanic man from New York said, according to survey.
Over the course of the pandemic, as school boards have fielded complaints from parents over topics like COVID-19 policies and Critical Race Theory (CRT), multiple state legislatures and governors have proposed legislation and put forth executive orders that would give parents more say and provide more transparency about what their children are taught in public schools. Critics, including many educators and progressives, argue that GOP-proposed legislation censors teachers and restricts how they teach.
The maximum margin of error for the “Mood of the Nation” survey is 3.7 points.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-02-09 05:59:242022-02-11 11:17:27Over Half Of Americans Don’t Think Schools Need To Teach About The Ongoing Impact Of Slavery And Racism
Wednesday afternoon on Twitter, social media users slammed mentally-challenged racist Rep. Hakeem Jeffries for tweeting, “Lock up Kyle Rittenhouse and throw away the key,” referring to the white teenager currently embroiled in a political show trial for shooting three white domestic terrorists in self-defense during a 2020 Black Lives Matter (BLM) riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Jeffries happens to be a very vocal critic of America’s criminal justice system. He has often complained the country jails too many citizens and has called for the defunding of police departments. “End. Mass. Incarceration. Defund The Prison Industrial Complex,” he tweeted in June 2020. As recent as this March, he called mass incarceration a “stain on our democracy.”
Social media users quickly and rightfully pounced on his hypocrisy for calling for Rittenhouse to be imprisoned for life.
“What changed, dude?” one user questioned.
“This is a sitting congressman commenting on a jury trial as it happens. Very disturbing,” tweeted Fox News senior editor Will Ricciardella.
We all know that if Rittenhouse were a black BLM supporter who shot Trump supporters, Jeffries and the bloodthirsty Democrat media complex smearing Rittenhouse as a white supremacist would be supporting his right to self-defense.
In a January 28, 2021 interview with MSNBC, Jeffries characterized supporters of former President Trump as “domestic terrorists and the white supremacists.” Asked “what happens if there’s no accountability for him or the rioters” who had occupied the Capitol on January 6, the congressman replied: “[P]art of the lesson of the first impeachment trial for him was that he could shoot holes in the Constitution on Pennsylvania Avenue and get away with it because Senate Republicans were prepared to bury their heads in the sand…. [E]very available option to hold him accountable for his actions should be undertaken…. And we’re not going to be cowed by the domestic terrorists and the white supremacists and the enemy combatants who want to stop us in our tracks. That would be giving in to them, and that’s not going to happen.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Discover The Networkshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDiscover The Networks2021-11-13 05:11:162021-11-13 05:12:39Rep. Jeffries Blasted on Twitter For Saying ‘Lock Up’ Rittenhouse
During an appearance on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Monday, Former Democratic Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said that “more and more Democrats are pushing” the racialization of American politics and it is “tearing” the nation apart.
WATCH:
“Unfortunately as we see too often, more and more Democrats are pushing this racialization,” Gabbard told host and Daily Caller co-founder, Tucker Carlson. “They are pushing more fomenting of anger and hatred and divisiveness that really is destroying us. It’s causing more suffering and more harm to the American people and the fabric of our country and undermining these values that our country was founded on,” she continued.
The former Democratic presidential candidate said this division can be seen “in how everything in our the country is being racialized: that this is an intentional strategy to tear us apart based on the color of our skin because they think that there’s some political gain to be had from it and don’t care at all about the destruction that they leave in their wake.”
Gabbard argued that “voters need to reject” the strategy just as they “choose leaders who do put the American people and our country first, who share that objective from both political parties.” She also said Democrats and Republicans must share one absolute political objective: doing what’s best for the U.S.
The former congresswoman pointed to the recent gubernatorial election in Virginia as an example of Democrats dividing Americans, and argued that candidate Terry McAuliffe “represented that fomenting of divisiveness, this racialization, and Virginia voters rejected that.”
As the Virginia election results were broadcast on Nov. 2, some members of the left-wing media said the Republicans were winning because of “white supremacy,” despite the election of Winsome Sears, a black woman, who is now the lieutenant governor-elect in the state.
“[White supremacists] are dangerous, they’re dangerous to our national security because stoking that kind of soft white nationalism eventually leads to the hardcore stuff,” Reid said.
Gabbard has also specifically criticized Democratic California Rep. Maxine Waters for using race to “divide” American voters. She has also said Biden’s immigration policy is failing and that he should reconsider reintroducing some of former President Donald Trump’s policies to end an “open border.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2021-11-09 05:33:532021-11-09 05:33:53‘Intentionally Tearing Us Apart’: Tulsi Gabbard Says ‘More And More Democrats Are Pushing’ Racial Division In America
This is the state of American academia today: Gordon Klein has taught courses in business law, tax law, and financial analysis at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management for no fewer than forty years. He is a respected academic who has been on CNBC and quoted in the Wall Street Journal for his economic expertise. But now, after being suspended, he has filed suit in California Superior Court against the university regents over his suspension. Klein has a good case: He was suspended from teaching at UCLA for the crime of refusing to discriminate and treat his black students differently from how he treated others.
“I was suspended from my job,” Klein explained, “for refusing to treat my black students as lesser than their non-black peers.” His ordeal began on June 2, 2020, when “a non-black student in my class on tax principles and law emailed me to ask that I grade his black classmates with greater ‘leniency’ than others in the class.”
In a sane society, a “non-black student” who demanded that black students be graded with greater “leniency” than others would be castigated as a racist. But in the Left’s funhouse mirror ethics, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and treating students differently based on race is racial justice.
The student wrote to Klein: “We are writing to express our tremendous concern about the impact that this final exam and project will have on the mental and physical health of our Black classmates.” Klein believes that the student was using an online racial justice form letter: “There was no project in this class, and it was unclear to me who the ‘we’ in this case was. I suspected the student simply used a form letter he found online and neglected to change the subject.”
The letter went on to claim that black students were too traumatized by racism to do well on the final exam: “The unjust murders of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, the life-threatening actions of Amy Cooper and the violent conduct of the [University of California Police Department] have led to fear and anxiety which is further compounded by the disproportionate effect of COVID-19 on the Black community. As we approach finals week, we recognize that these conditions place Black students at an unfair academic disadvantage due to traumatic circumstances out of their control.” It concluded: “This is not a joint effort to get finals canceled for non-Black students, but rather an ask that you exercise compassion and leniency with Black students in our major.”
Klein notes that “in a subsequent conversation with a university investigator,” the student who wrote the letter made it clear that he “intended that the requested adjustments apply to Black students and not the class generally.” To strengthen the case, the student invoked the Anderson School of Management’s “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion” agenda, which stresses that a “commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion as fundamental to achieving Anderson’s mission.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2021-10-07 04:25:262021-10-07 20:17:21Madness: UCLA Suspends Professor for Refusing to Assign Grades Based on Skin Color
David Carlin: Is “systemic racism” real? Or is it an abuse of language, stretching the meaning of the word “racism” beyond its legitimate bounds?
The issue of equality is almost always on the American national agenda. It was so from the day the Declaration of Independence was signed; it’s been so again and again in the years since 1776. And today it is prominent as Americans once again consider how to reduce inequalities between men and women, between native-born and immigrants, and above all between whites and blacks.
The idea that “all men are created equal” wasn’t discovered in Philadelphia in 1776. For a precise time and place for its beginning, think of Athens around 300 B.C. For that was the approximate year when Zeno of Citium founded the Stoic school of philosophy in the city that was the philosophical capital of the Greek world. Stoicism taught that all humans are equal in that they possess reason, a godlike attribute; and that reason is the best of all human things, better than wealth, health, strength, fame, good looks, etc. In other words, that all humans are equal is what is most important.
This was a great theoretical breakthrough, though it didn’t have much immediate practical effect. In the immediate aftermath of this great Stoic discovery, slaves were still slaves; rich people could still lord it over poor people; men could still push women around, etc.
The coming of Christianity was another great leap forward in the spread of the idea of universal human equality, for a number of reasons.
(1) Christianity was a universal religion, that is, a religion open to any and all humans, regardless of race or nationality or sex or wealth or status as slave or free. This made it a very different thing from the many local religions found in the Roman world, including the Jewish religion. It did however require initiation (Baptism), but this initiation was open to all who were willing to subscribe to the basic Christian articles of faith.
(2) Christianity regarded God as a universal God, as the Creator and Father of all human beings, regardless of race, nationality, etc.
(3) Christianity held that that Jesus Christ had suffered and died in atonement for the sins of all human beings. Centuries later John Calvin and his followers held that Jesus had not died for all, but only for some, namely the Elect. But this notorious Calvinist doctrine is a deviation from ancient Christian orthodoxy.
(4) The great Christian sacrament of the Eucharist was open to all Christians without regard to wealth or power or sex or social status. It was no less open to a slave than to a king, no less open to a homeless person than to a multi-billionaire, no less open to a woman than to a man, no less open to a Greek than to a Jew.
(5) Christianity taught that the rules of morality are the same for all human beings; that all humans should abstain from murder, adultery, theft, lying, and so on; and that all humans should love their neighbors.
(6) Christianity taught that all humans have the potential for becoming saints; that is, for enjoying eternal happiness in the company of God.
(7) Of course sanctity, according to Christianity, is not possible without the assistance of the grace of God; but Christianity also taught that this saving grace is available to all humans. Again, Calvinists disagreed; they held that God’s saving grace is available to the Elect only.
It was inevitable that this religious or spiritual equality would eventually, if slowly, spill over into the secular realm. By the 18th century, equality in the eyes of God had evolved into the idea that all humans are – or rather, should be– equal before the law. This meant that nobles would have to lose their legal privileges, and it also meant that slavery would have to be done away with.
But in a post-slavery world, further inequalities remained, most notably the great gap between rich and poor, a gap that grew greater as capitalist modernization proceeded. In the United States, we have tried to justify this gap with the idea of “equality of opportunity.” To the degree that all runners have an equal chance of winning in the great and universal American race for social and economic prizes, we consider the resulting inequalities to be fair. At the same time, we as a society have a duty to reduce or eliminate whatever might prevent an equal start in this great race – we must, for instance, reduce discrimination based on sex, race, ethnicity, class, religion, etc. And to a great extent, we have done this. Impartial surveys such as the one here show America and other developed countries to be among the least racist in the world.
In recent years, however, many loud and increasingly influential voices have shouted, “Equality of opportunity is not enough; besides, it is impossible to bring about.” Instead, we are told, our national equality slogan should be, “Equality of outcome.” This is especially true when it comes to comparisons between whites and blacks. When blacks (on average) are worse off than whites (on average) in income, wealth, education, arrests, imprisonment, drug addiction, residential quality, life expectancy, and so on, these inequalities are the results (so we are told by these clamorous voices) of “systemic racism” or “structural racism.”
One of the great merits of Catholic colleges in the old days, when these colleges weren’t very good academically in comparison with their secular peers, was that they made students take a course in elementary logic, a course that usually placed a strong emphasis on the nature and importance of definition. Catholic colleges nowadays, far more up-to-date than they were when I was young, don’t worry much about elementary logic courses. Too bad. For before Catholics with a strong social conscience rush into battle against the evils of systemic racism, they should pause for a moment to ask for a definition.
Is systemic racism a kind of racism? Or is it (as I suspect) an abuse of language, stretching the meaning of the word “racism” beyond its legitimate bounds?
