Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad”

Critical Race Theory is an aspectof the Woke culture that is all the rage in the new neomarxist culture being promoted by the far left:

Lewis Carroll predicts the Woke thinking with the words of Humpty Dumpty:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

― Lewis Carroll

It is best explained by Dr. James Lindsey who has made a deep study of Woke culture:

“If you want to understand the Woke ideology, you have to admit that you’re not ready to understand Woke ideology. Everyone knows that the Woke use terminology with their own inventive and biased definitions, but understanding that terminology requires understanding how the Woke think about the world. It isn’t possible to understand concepts like “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “equity” without first understanding that the Woke see everything in the world through a particular lens of power.

When you do understand how the Woke see the world and thus how they use language to their advantage, you’ll also understand how we’re all being played. Diversity gets revealed as a program to concentrate resources, influence, status, and power in the hands of Woke Critical Theorists while disempowering everyone else. Inclusion is comprehensible as restricted speech, intentional segregation, and a justification to concentrate their idea of “diversity.” Equity is the goal, which has to be understood as a combination of affirmative action and reparations used to redistribute resources and engineer outcomes in the name of correcting past injustices. Everything can be threatened by this change of context in our language to one that interprets everything through “systemic power dynamics.”

Our contracts, our laws, and even our Constitution can all be reinterpreted to mean something completely different without having to change a single word through this Woke manipulation of language. Join James Lindsay as he walks you through the Woke mindset and how it can, and will, be used to turn our societies’ core principles back against them. The Great Awokening Conference, Session 2

James Lindsay

An American-born author, mathematician, and political commentator, Dr. James Lindsay has written six books spanning a range of subjects including religion, the philosophy of science and postmodern theory. He is the founder of New Discourses and currently promoting his new book “Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody.”

One of the most frightening and concerning aspects of Wokeness and ideologies like it is its capacity to narrow the range of empathy someone feels. Being human, we should care about one another and recognize the humanity each of us shares with another. When this is lost, dehumanization and tragedy are the inevitable results. The ideology of Wokeness, then, has to be taken very seriously because it proceeds from a point of view that does exactly this. It dictates to us what we can care about and what is unacceptable to care about. It tells us whose stories have been told and whose need telling in their place. It narrows our range of empathy and scapegoats entire populations of people for whom it encourages and breeds resentment. In this episode of James Lindsay OnlySubs, my subscribers-only podcast, I discuss this important and troubling aspect of the Woke ideology. I hope you’ll join me and see why I find it so concerning.

In 1960, Daniel Bell defined ‘ideology’ as “a set of beliefs… [that] seek[s] to transform the whole of a way of a life.” Ideologues likewise seek to transform your beliefs to match their own, to alter your worldview so that it is identical to theirs.

The notion of ‘woke’ (or ‘wokeness’) signifies a special sensitivity to injustice, especially the various -isms (racism, sexism, ableism) — or, according to the Urban Dictionary, “being very pretentious about how much you care about a social issue.”

A woke ideologue is, in other words, a social justice warrior. She has an agenda to convert the sleeping masses to her pet cause. She’s insufferable.

If you can’t spot the woke ideologues, then you might be manipulated into joining them. So identify them early and avoid becoming their next victim!

The End of Ideology?

Bell thought that incremental improvements in technology, entrepreneurship and methods of governance — not endless debates between capitalists and socialists, liberals and conservatives, fascists and communists — would spell the end of ideology.

With the benefit of hindsight, we know now that Bell was far too optimistic. Ideology is not going away any time soon.

Nevertheless, it’s possible to identify and avoid woke ideologues. They are dogmatic in their moral and political beliefs. They want you to share those beliefs. Their company is unpleasant. Their efforts to recruit (or convert) you to their cause seem to never cease.

In 1960, Daniel Bell defined ‘ideology’ as “a set of beliefs… [that] seek[s] to transform the whole of a way of a life.” Ideologues likewise seek to transform your beliefs to match their own, to alter your worldview so that it is identical to theirs.

The notion of ‘woke’ (or ‘wokeness’) signifies a special sensitivity to injustice, especially the various -isms (racism, sexism, ableism) — or, according to the Urban Dictionary, “being very pretentious about how much you care about a social issue.”

A woke ideologue is, in other words, a social justice warrior. She has an agenda to convert the sleeping masses to her pet cause. She’s insufferable.

If you can’t spot the woke ideologues, then you might be manipulated into joining them. So identify them early and avoid becoming their next victim!

The End of Ideology?

Bell thought that incremental improvements in technology, entrepreneurship and methods of governance — not endless debates between capitalists and socialists, liberals and conservatives, fascists and communists — would spell the end of ideology.

With the benefit of hindsight, we know now that Bell was far too optimistic. Ideology is not going away any time soon.

Nevertheless, it’s possible to identify and avoid woke ideologues. They are dogmatic in their moral and political beliefs. They want you to share those beliefs. Their company is unpleasant. Their efforts to recruit (or convert) you to their cause seem to never cease.

Spotting the Woke Ideologue

How else do you spot a woke ideologue? Here are four strategies:

1. Look for signs or verbal clues

Ideologues prefer symbols and slogans to clear, unadorned speech. If you’re not familiar with the symbols, then you’re not part of their crew, cause or ideological camp.

Appeals to “white privilege,” warnings of “implicit bias” and slogans like “the personal is political” are all examples of ideological sloganeering.

Likewise, Randall Smith of Mercatornet warns:

“Refusing to discuss one’s terms because the point is ‘obvious,’ insisting on using euphemisms rather than plain speech, relying on a very specialized vocabulary and being unable to express one’s thoughts without it, using speech to vilify persons rather than to clarify positions: these are all clues that you’re dealing with ideology, not principle.”

In ancient Athens, the philosopher Socrates (469–399 B.C.) confronted ideologues such as the sophist Gorgias and the priest Euthyphro, pushing them to define their terms, symbols and slogans, similar to how a gadfly annoys a horse.

2. Identify fallacies

Ideologues also tend to use fallacious forms of reasoning.

Ad hominems or attacks against the person substitute for reasoned argument, since the point is to avoid addressing the claims of their critics.

Hasty generalizations (e.g., “All conservatives are dumb”) replace arguments based on statistical evidence and rigorous scientific research.

Smith also notes that woke ideologues want to score points or appear clever in any exchange:

“If an interlocutor seems more concerned with “looking smart” than with coming to some common understanding of the truth, then he or she is probably an ideologue. If the most pressing argument is the prestige and ostensible expertise of the speaker, or the supposed lack of these on the part of the interlocutor, then you’re probably dealing with an ideology.”

Woke ideologues are more concerned with the appearance of winning an argument than the reality of reaching a shared consensus or a reasoned conclusion.

3. Detect irrational exuberance

Finally, ideologues often display what former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan called ‘irrational exuberance.’ They start to believe their own hype, symbols and slogans.

They become enraptured with speculative fervor about the spread of their ideas. Unfortunately, any ascendant ideology eventually runs headlong into conflict with other ideologies and then undergoes a period of consolidation and decline.

Alas, the ideologue doesn’t disappear with the ideology. Instead, he often just latches on to the next ascendant ideology.

4. Note carelessness about truth and justice

Woke ideologues or so-called ‘social justice warriors’ almost never care about truth or justice, even though they claim otherwise.

In Michael Huemer’s blog post “My Problems with Social Justice,” he remarks that “[w]hat is noteworthy [about social justice warriors] is their lack of concern about the truth — e.g., the lack of interest in waiting to find out what actually happened, in doing the basic investigation of the facts of a case [ . . . ], and the almost total lack of regret for attacking innocent people.”

Typically, woke ideologues quickly judge a matter and leave the operation of warranting the judgment until later or not at all. “Eating animals is wrong.” “Anybody who disagrees with me is a racist.” Evidence is optional.

New Book by Dr. Kathleen Brush Shows America Is an Anti-Racist Leader

SEATTLE, Sept. 2, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — Turn on the TV, open a newspaper. Racism, racism, racism. America is being painted as a nation of hate and racism. A new book, “Racism and anti-Racism in the World: before and after 1945,” will surprise many because it builds a compelling case that America is not a racist nation. It is instead a leading anti-racist nation that has tried to compel others to commit to the same.

The reader takes a tour of discrimination around the world before and after 1945. Eyes will widen as it becomes clear that discrimination has been and continues to be pervasive. Anti-racist countries are in the minority. A reader will learn that in some countries, discrimination affects people of different races or ethnicities, in others it is religion, and still others diversity of thought. Slavery is alive and well in several areas of the world. In many cases it’s hereditary. Minority populations are denied rights and can be made stateless at the stroke of a pen because nations don’t want them. For the limited woke nations trying to end discrimination, these countries offer testimonials on how complex it is to end practices rooted in history and perpetuated at home, in the media, and in society. Nowhere are those complexities as great as the United States.

Author Dr. Kathleen Brush said, “I was crushed when reading about Americans that were not proud of their country because of its racism. I have studied racism in the world for over ten years, including traveling and working in 111 countries. America’s demonstrable commitment to anti-racism is something to be proud of.”

Brush said she hopes this book will change people’s views, and also expand people’s horizons on views toward diversity, racism and anti-racism in the world.

Architects of Woke: The 1619 Project

Critical Race Theory: The Enemy of Reason, Evidence, and Open Debate

By PETER J. WALLISON | April 26, 2021 6:30 AM

As we will see, this is an insignia of what is now called critical race theory (CRT), which for reasons outlined below will not — actually cannot — accept any white person’s view that he or she is not a racist or oppressor..Critical Race Theory: The Enemy of Reason, Evidence, and Open Debate | National ReviewHow this pernicious ideology rejects rational inquiry and objective truth.

obin DiAngelo

Robin DiAngelo is the main spokesperson for the “Woke” agenda. She is a priveleged white woman making a fortune on advising corporations on how to deal with “the perception of racism and biases against gays, lesbians and transgender people”

“White America’s racial illiteracy: Why our national conversation is poisoned from the start”

The author of “What Does It Mean to Be White?” examines the ways white people implode when they talk about race.

Robin DiAngelo is not insane, she only sells insanity for great profit and fame.

Is America a Racist Country?


“Senator Scott’s argument seems to leave open the possibility that America may have been a racist country but that it has matured out of it, that it has graduated into egalitarianism.

I personally don’t make much of Scott’s ability to reason. This is the same man who said in March that “woke supremacy,” whatever that is, “is as bad as white supremacy.” There is no world in which recent efforts at enlightenment can be equated to enslavement, lynching and mass incarceration. None.

It seems to me that the disingenuousness on the question of racism is largely a question of language. The question turns on another question: “What, to you, is America?” Is America the people who now inhabit the land, divorced from its systems and its history? Or, is the meaning of America inclusive of those systems and history?”

Mr. Blow’s argument is uncanny in it’s simalarity to the persistant racist bigots that still inhabit much of the deep south, They too are still fighting the Civil War. I can answer Blow’s question definitively, the majority of Americans acknowledge America’s history, which did not end with the Civil War but continues to develope and mature to this very day, where the Woke agenda is founded on “critical race theory” that is in fact as racist as that of the southern slave owners who started the Civil War. This absurd reactionary neomarxist agenda promoted by none other that the supposed “President” of the United States, is divisive and dangerous in the extreme. It could lead to another civil war if it pushes the rational patriotic Americans too far in laying the unwarranted guilt trip on them as this woke agenda is doing.—WW

Opinion | Is America a Racist Country?The answer is “yes,” and that’s not a radical statement.

Woke woowoo goes pathologically medieval in transgender holocaust.

Naïveté is not innocence, it is gross and moribund ignorance.~ww

“It is not education, of course, but as political indoctrination it will be highly effective.
Blame it on the early indoctrination in the imperial system.
The results of this indoctrination campaign are already evident.”—H. L. Mencken

COMPULSORY SCHOOLING – INDOCTRINATIONCOMPULSORY SCHOOLING – INDOCTRINATION Naïveté is not innocence, it is gross and moribund ignorance.~ww It is not education, of course, but as political indoctrination it will be highly effect…

The woke grandchildren of the former outsiders are now more ruthless systematic insiders. The woke and wired new establishment knows how to use money and power to rebirth America as something the founders and most current Americans never envisioned.

Name one mainline institution that the woke left does not now control — and warp. The media? The campus? Silicon Valley? Professional sports? The corporate boardroom? Foundations? The K-12 educational establishment? The military hierarchy? The government deep state? The FBI top echelon?

The left absorbed them all. But this time around, members of the left really believe that “by any means necessary” is no mere slogan. Instead, it is a model of how to disrupt or destroy American customs, traditions and values.

Woke revolutionaries are not panhandlers, street people or Grateful Dead groupies. They are not even a few nutty and murderous Symbionese Liberation Army terrorists fighting against “the Man.”

They are “the Man.”

Our 21st century revolutionaries are multibillionaires with flip-flops, tie-dye T-shirts and nose rings, but with the absolute power and desire to censor how half the country communicates — or cancel them entirely.

They don’t flock to campus free-speech areas; they are the campus administrators who ban free speech.

They don’t picket outside the Pentagon; they are inside the Pentagon.

They don’t chant “eat the rich”; they are the rich who eat at Napa Valley’s French Laundry.

They don’t protest “uptight” values, because they are more intolerant and puritanical than any Victorian.

They don’t believe in racial quotas based on “proportional representation,” because they are racists who demand underrepresentation of “bad” racial groups and overrepresentation of “good” groups. The color of our skin is their gospel, not the content of our character.

They are top-down revolutionaries. None of their agendas, from open borders and changing the Constitution to critical race theory and banning clean-burning fossil fuels, are ever favored among a majority of the population.

Their guiding principle is “never let a crisis go to waste.” Only in times of a pandemic, a national quarantine or volatile racial relations can the new upscale leftist revolutionaries use fear to push through policies that no one in calm times could stomach.

Pyramid of White Supremacy" Draws Controversy at SU | Delmarva Public Radio

Critiacal Racism Woke Chart.



      1. Exposing the REAL Racists at the Capitol Siege | Slightly Offens*ve

        The January 6th hearing was probably one of the most dramatic things Americans have watched all year. From crocodile tears to stories of racism, let’s expose the real racist who was actually at the Capitol on January 6th. WATCH more Slightly Offens*ve ⬇️



      2. What is a modernist paradigm?
        Modernism was the dominant philosophy, at least in the Western world, between approximately 1650 and the 1950s. … In a modernist approach reason and science is said to provide an accurate, objective, reliable foundation of knowledge. Science is regarded as the paradigm of all true knowledge.

        In 1962, Kuhn’s renowned The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Structure) helped to inaugurate a revolution—the 1960s historiographic revolution—by providing a new image of science. For Kuhn, scientific revolutions involved paradigm shifts that punctuated periods of stasis or normal science.



    1. Want to Save America? Don’t Act Like a Conservative

      “But the Woke are not zany guests. They are home-invasion robbers. The structure they intend to leave behind will contain but a handful of the cultural artifacts they encountered. Bringing down statues of Abe Lincoln, books by Dr. Seuss and schools named for the country’s founders? That’s just their casing the joint. The large-scale heist hasn’t even started.

      Aw Shucks Conservatives are willing to disagree with the Left, but they first want to get all the terminology right—“Now, which is it again: is ‘non-binary’ the same as they/them? Or ‘she/they?’” They don’t understand that the chaos is the point. While they strain to avoid a faux pas, they don’t even feel the dagger going in. They chuckle with their buddies that Woke beliefs are “nonsense upon stilts,” to use Bentham’s term—and that voters will surely respond in the next midterm election. They do not fight Silicon Valley—they are confused about whether their belief in free market economics allows it. They do not fight for women—not if it means any mud splashed on their full-break trousers. They have lost every important cultural battle and – if given over to their protection – we would lose America.”



      1. What Is American Wokeness Really About?
        Victor Davis Hanson | July 29, 2021

        Most Americans were as indifferent to the U.S. women’s soccer team’s recent loss to Sweden in the Olympics as they were excited about the team’s World Cup win in 2019. In between was the team’s nonstop politicking, from whining about compensation to virtue-signaling their disrespect for the United States. The celebrity face of the team, perennial scold Megan Rapinoe, is going the way of teenage grouch Greta Thunberg, becoming more pinched the more she is tuned out.

        Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Marie Khan-Cullors Brignac used her corporate grifting to buy four homes. The one she bought in California’s Topanga Canyon is surrounded by a new $35,000 security fence.

        Critical race theory guru Ibram X. Kendi offers virtual, one-hour workshops for $20,000 a pop. He is franchising woke re-education kits—in between bouts of damning capitalism as a catalyst of racism.

        The woke movement is a slicker, more sophisticated and far more grandiose version of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson’s shakedowns of the 1990s. Those, at least, were far more honest in leveraging cash with charges of racism—and came without the academic gobbledygook of critical race theory.

        Cable news networks CNN and MSNBC fueled the story that former President Donald Trump allegedly colluded with Russia. They contextualized (to excuse) the summer looting and rioting of 2020. And they cheered on two impeachments as a prelude to their 24/7 woke drumbeat. Their ratings, too, have now dived.

        Never has TV been more politicized. Sitcoms, dramas, and commercials are designed more to resonate woke messaging than to entertain. So naturally, dismal TV ratings reflect the expected public boredom that ensues when art serves politics.

        How many times will disingenuous Dr. Anthony Fauci swear that he never sent federal money to the Wuhan virology lab for gain-of-function research, or blame his critics for pointing out his gyrating advice on masks, or offer yet another noble lie on herd immunity?

        In short, Americans are worn out from elite virtue-signaling and woke performance art from critical race theory capitalists, multimillionaire CEOs, revolving-door Pentagon brass, Malibu celebrities, and credentialed elite.

        The problem is not just that most of America is exhausted from being smeared as racists, or hearing that a wonderful country—the most free, just, equitable, affluent, and leisured in civilization’s history—must continually pay penance for its past and present. The public is more tired of projectionist hypocrisy. Those who scream the loudest are usually the most guilty of woke crimes.

        The woke madness coincides with an epidemic of crises that go largely ignored as a distracted America cannibalizes itself.

        The border is being breached at a time of pandemic. Migrants barge in without either COVID-19 testing or vaccinations—during a coronavirus spike that has government officials talking about going door to door to roust out American citizens to get vaccinated.

        Whiteness is supposedly the cause of America’s problems. But our inner cities are suffering historic levels of violent crime. Couldn’t our critical race theory accusers take time out from their merchandising to address the soaring violence?

        The Biden administration denies that huge deficit spending and generous cash payments to workers fueled inflation. But America hasn’t seen anything like the current price hikes and labor shortages in the last 40 years.

        The military, CIA, and FBI have lost the confidence of the public—and not just because of their woke politicking. They are perceived as distracted and ignoring their primary missions of winning wars, catching terrorists before they strike, and offering superb intelligence about our enemies.

        Wokeness is many things. But increasingly it seems a cover for careerism, profiteering, and utter incompetence.

        Victor Davis Hanson is a conservative commentator, classicist, and military historian. He is a professor of classics emeritus at California State University, a senior fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University, a fellow of Hillsdale College, and a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness. Hanson has written 16 books, including “The Western Way of War,” “Fields Without Dreams,” and “The Case for Trump.”



    2. JK Rowling Blasts Trans Activists After Death Threat: ‘This Movement Poses No Risk To Women Whatsoever?’

      By Hank Berrien • Jul 19, 2021

      On Sunday, famed “Harry Potter” author JK Rowling, who has endured vitriol and abuse from transgender activists, fired back at someone who sent her a death threat over Twitter, wishing her to receive a pipe bomb in her mailbox. Rowling blasted, “To be fair, when you can’t get a woman sacked, arrested or dropped by her publisher, and cancelling her only made her book sales go up, there’s really only one place to go.”

      The exchange had been triggered when Rowling replied to a critic who quoted her saying, “I’ve ignored porn tweeted at children.” Rowling fired back, “Juan, I’ll give you a moment to think hard about leaving that up. I reported every bit of porn so-called trans allies tweeted into Twitter threads where children were sending me artwork for the Ickabog. I didn’t respond or retweet it because I didn’t want more kids to see it.”

      She continued, “I’m not sure how these tactics – using porn as a weapon against women you dislike, not caring that children get caught in the crossfire and then misrepresenting what really happened – are supposed to help trans people. Nor do I see how what you’ve done here helps correct the impression that the end game for you & your ilk is to intimidate women out of speaking up for our own rights, no matter how low you have to go to do it.”

      An admirer encouraged Rowling, writing, “Please keep fighting Jo. It must be so hard sometimes with the abuse you face but you are a voice for so many of us who feel the same and don’t have a voice. We have your back.”

      Rowland responded, “And together, we will win.”

      That prompted Sam (Egocom.Arc) @queergerard to tweet at Rowling, “I wish you a very nice pipebomb in your mailbox.” Rowling replied, “To be fair, when you can’t get a woman sacked, arrested or dropped by her publisher, and cancelling her only made her book sales go up, there’s really only one place to go.”

      Someone asked, “Is this still because of her comments about the safety of women in toilets/changing rooms if men can use them by simply saying they identify as a woman?”

      “Yes, but now hundreds of trans activists have threatened to beat, rape, assassinate and bomb me I’ve realised that this movement poses no risk to women whatsoever,” Rowling answered.

      The Daily Wire reported in June 2020 that a member of the United Kingdom’s Labour Party, responding to an essay by Rowling in which she stated she was “a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor” and defended women’s rights because women-only spaces and women’s safety were under attack by gender-advocates, accused Rowling of weaponizing her history of sexual assault and domestic violence. Rowling had written:

      When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is a simple truth.

      In December 2020, following a British High Court ruling that it would be difficult for children under the age of 16 believing they are transgender to give informed consent to undergo treatment with puberty-blocking drugs, Rowling stated in an interview with Good Housekeeping magazine that when it came to discussing transgender issues, “Many are afraid to speak up because they fear for their jobs and even for their personal safety. This climate of fear serves nobody well, least of all trans people.”

      Rowling, who had been reviled by many members of the transgender community for her stance on transgenderism, stated: “Many women are concerned about the challenges to their fundamental rights posed by certain aspects of gender identity ideology. I’ve had a huge postbag since speaking up on this issue and more than 90 per cent of the letters and emails have been supportive. My correspondents have included medical staff, social workers, prison workers, workers in women’s refuges and members of the LGBT community, including trans people.”


      I have tweeted my support for J.K.Rowling myself when this bullshit first erupted.

      I also sent a tweet to Daniel Radcliffe for failing to support her, and in fact joining the bandwaggon of her nutloaf critics himself. I simply called him a traitor and an asshole for abandoning her after making millions of dollars off of her character.

      This affair shows how vicious these transgender and queer freaks really are. They want to play the victim card, but they are fascist asswipes.



      1. Critical race theory is an intellectual movement and a framework of legal analysis according to which (1) race is a culturally invented category used to oppress people of colour and (2) the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social,

        This paper endeavors to evaluate the current body of research conducted on Critical Race
        Theory (CRT). It fixates on historically marginalized populations within the urban school
        setting and the larger society. This evaluation is carried out through a literature research
        synthesis. First, the origins of CRT are articulated. The history of CRT in the United
        States is discussed. The article lists the five tenets of CRT, providing brief overviews and
        examples of the tenets. Focus is drawn upon studies done on CRT: Universalistic
        Paradigms vs. Relativistic Paradigms. The penultimate section of this paper asks,
        knowing what we know, where do we go from here? Propositions for future research are
        made. Lastly, implications for further research are cited. It is the author’s intent to
        elaborate and provide insights into an abundantly-written-about topic, CRT, in such a
        way that both Crits and laypeople will have their paradigms and conceptions challenged
        and expanded.

        Click to access ED506735.pdf



    3. Tom Cotton Puts Biden On Notice, Introduces Bill that Will Ban Critical Race Theory Once and For All

      Derrick Bell and other legal scholars began using the phrase “critical race theory” (CRT) in the 1970s as a takeoff on “critical legal theory”, a branch of legal scholarship that challenges the validity of concepts such as rationality, objective truth, and judicial neutrality.



    4. The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory

      The Frankfurt School, known more appropriately as Critical Theory, is a philosophical and sociological movement spread across many universities around the world. It was originally located at the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), an attached institute at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany. The Institute was founded in 1923 thanks to a donation by Felix Weil with the aim of developing Marxist studies in Germany. After 1933, the Nazis forced its closure, and the Institute was moved to the United States where it found hospitality at Columbia University in New York City.

      The academic influence of the critical method is far reaching. Some of the key issues and philosophical preoccupations of the School involve the critique of modernity and capitalist society, the definition of social emancipation, as well as the detection of the pathologies of society. Critical Theory provides a specific interpretation of Marxist philosophy with regards to some of its central economic and political notions like commodification, reification, fetishization and critique of mass culture.

      Some of the most prominent figures of the first generation of Critical Theorists were Max Horkheimer (1895-1973), Theodor Adorno (1903-1969), Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), Walter Benjamin (1892-1940), Friedrich Pollock (1894-1970), Leo Lowenthal (1900-1993), and Eric Fromm (1900-1980). Since the 1970s, a second generation began with Jürgen Habermas, who, among other merits, contributed to the opening of a dialogue between so-called continental and the analytic traditions. With Habermas, the Frankfurt School turned global, influencing methodological approaches in other European academic contexts and disciplines. It was during this phase that Richard Bernstein, a philosopher and contemporary of Habermas, embraced the research agenda of Critical Theory and significantly helped its development in American universities starting from the New School for Social Research in New York.

      The third generation of critical theorists, therefore, arose either from Habermas’ research students in the United States and at Frankfurt am Main and Starnberg (1971-1982), or from a spontaneous convergence of independently educated scholars. Therefore, tthird generation of Critical Theory scholars consists of two groups. The first group spans a broad time—denying the possibility of establishing any sharp boundaries. It can be said to include also scholars such as Andrew Feenberg, even if he was a direct student of Marcuse, or people such as Albrecht Wellmer who became an assistant of Habermas due to the premature death of Adorno in 1969. Klaus Offe, Josef Früchtl, Hauke Brunkhorst, Klaus Günther, Axel Honneth, Alessandro Ferrara, Cristina Lafont, and Rainer Forst, among others, are also members of this group. The second group of the third generation is instead composed mostly of American scholars who were influenced by Habermas’ philosophy during his visits to the United States.
      Marcuse’s book Eros and Civilization (1955). The School’s interest in psychoanalysis coincided with a marginalization of Marxism, a growing interest into the interrelation between psychoanalysis and social change, as well as with Fromm’s insight into the psychic (or even psychotic) role of the family. This interest became crucial in empirical studies of the 40s that led, eventually, to Adorno’s co-authored work The Authoritarian Personality (1950). The goal of this work was to explore, on the basis of empirical research making use of questionnaires, to define a “new anthropological type”—the authoritarian personality (Adorno et. al. 1950, quoted in Jay 1996, p. 239). Such a character was found to have specific traits such as: compliance with conventional values, non-critical thinking, as well as absence of introspectiveness.
      In 1933, due to the Nazi takeover, the Institute was temporarily transferred, first to Geneva and then in 1935 to Columbia University, New York. Two years later Horkheimer published the ideological manifesto of the School in his Traditional and Critical Theory ([1937] 1976) where he readdressed some of the previously introduced topics concerning the practical and critical turn of theory. In 1938, Adorno joined the Institute after spending some time as an advanced student at Merton College, Oxford. He was invited by Horkheimer to join the Princeton Radio Research Project. Gradually, Adorno assumed a prominent intellectual leadership in the School and this led to co-authorship, with Horkheimer, of one of the milestones works of the School, the publication of Dialectic of Enlightenment in 1947. During the time of Germany’s Nazi seizure, the Institute remained the only free voice publishing in German language. The backlash of this choice, though, was a prolonged isolation from American academic life and intellectual debate, a situation described by Adorno with the iconic expression “message in the bottle” to refer to the lack of a public American audience. According to Wiggershaus: “The Institute disorientation in the late 1930s made the balancing acts it had always had to perform, for example in relation to its academic environment, even more difficult. The seminars were virtually discussion groups for the Institute’s associates, and American students only rarely took part in them” (1995, p. 251).
      What is Critical Theory?
      “What is ‘theory’?” asked Horkheimer in the opening of his essay Traditional and Critical Theory [1937]. The discussion about method has been always a constant topic for those critical theorists who have attempted since the beginning to clarify the specificity of what it means to be “critical”. A primary broad distinction that Horkheimer drew was that of the difference in method between social theories, scientific theories and critical social theories. While the first two categories had been treated as instances of traditional theories, the latter connoted the methodology the Frankfurt School adopted.
      Under several aspects, what Critical Theory wants to reject in traditional theory is precisely this “picture theory” of language and knowledge as that defined by “the first” Wittgenstein in his Tractatus. According to such a view, later abandoned by “the second” Wittgenstein, the logical form of propositions consists in showing a possible fact and in saying whether this is true or false. For example, the proposition “it rains today” shows both the possibility of the fact that “it rains today” and it affirms that it is the case that “it rains today.” In order to check whether something is or is not the case, one must verify empirically whether the stated fact occurs or not. This implies that the condition of truth and falsehood presupposes an objective structure of the world.



    5. One either understands Foucault and rejects his philosophy, or one doesn’t understand his philosophy and pretends to defend it.Like the new Woke practitioners, Foucault claimed the only value of knowledge was to use it to gain power. The use of knowledge for understanding and comprehending a complex world was useless unless put to the purposes of changing that world to ones own ends. It is such thinking that creates the hubris of authority and thus brings injustice from those with authority without empathy.

      It is the lust for personal power without personal responsibility.This philosophy is diametrically opposed to the principles set forth in our Declaration of Independence.



    6. The Members of the Frankfurt School escaped Germany watching the rise of the Nazis. some ended up in Britain at Cambridge, others in the US at Yale and Stanford.
      It was the rise of German and Italian fascism and the lack of a Marxist revolution in the Urbane Europe intellectual class that led to the Neo-Marxist reaction to attempt to explain the failure of Marxism in the higher technological centers of Europe and America.
      This is why the adoption of “cultural marxism” as opposed to Political Marxism, which had expected a world wide revolution of the workers of the world.
      So the Frankfurt alumni moved into the entellectual mellue of the university systems of England and America wher they developed, “critical theory” (Law) and then cultural critical theories which eventually became Critical Race Theory. All of it madcap absurdist nonsense to try to explain away the failure of original Marxist economic-political theory.


      1. As I explained in the comment you are replying to, Neo-Marxism arose as a response to the LACK of the expectated revolutions predicted by Marx and by Marxist intellectuals. For you to assert that these Marxists have no relation to Marx and his Das Capital is ludicrous.

        You can refuse admit to clear historical facts if you wish. But as a historian I have to dismiss your complaints as a form of quakism. Rather Humpty Dumpty like yourself….

        Sure their apologia became more and more absurd as they attempted to make excuses for why the expected world revolution of workers didn’t materialize. However the Franfurt Shool was indeed a Marxist institution in Germany:

        “The term Frankfurt School informally describes the works of scholarship and the intellectuals who were the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), an adjunct organization at Goethe University Frankfurt, founded in 1923, by Carl Grünberg, a Marxist professor of law at the University of Vienna”

        The Frankfurt School and “Critical Theory”



    7. Gender Ideology Run Amok
      June/July 2021 • Volume 50, Number 6/7 • Abigail Shrier
      Abigail Shrier
      Author, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters

      In 2007, America had one pediatric gender clinic; today there are hundreds. Testosterone is readily available to adolescents from places like Planned Parenthood and Kaiser, often on a first visit—without even a therapist’s note.

      How did we get to this point? How is it that we are all supposed to pretend that the only way you can know I’m a woman is if I tell you my pronouns? How did we get to an America in which a 13-year-old in the State of Washington can begin “gender affirming” therapy without her parents’ consent? How did we get to an America in which a 15-year-old in Oregon can undergo “top surgery”—elective double mastectomy—without her parents’ permission? And what can we do about it?


      To understand how we got to this point, it is useful to begin by considering gender dysphoria—the feeling of severe discomfort in a person’s biological sex. Gender dysphoria is certainly real. It is also exceedingly rare. It afflicts about 0.01 percent of the population, most of whom are male.

      For nearly 100 years of diagnostic history, gender dysphoria typically began in early childhood, between the ages of two and four, and usually involved a boy who insisted that he was not a boy but a girl. Children afflicted are insistent, consistent, and persistent in the feeling that they are in the wrong body. It is by all accounts excruciating—I’ve talked to many transgender adults, most of them biological males, who describe the relentless chafe of a body that feels all wrong.

      Historically, this has been the classic presentation of gender dysphoria. When these children were left alone—when no one intervened medically or encouraged what we today call “social transition”—over 70 percent of them naturally outgrew their gender dysphoria. Most of those who outgrew it became gay men. Those who did not outgrow it became what used to be known as transsexuals. They did not believe they were women, but they felt most comfortable presenting themselves as females.

      Today, however, we don’t leave these children alone. Instead, the moment children seem not to be perfectly feminine or perfectly masculine, we label them as “trans kids.” Teachers encourage them to reintroduce themselves to their classes with new names and new pronouns. We take them to therapists or doctors, nearly all of whom practice so-called affirmative care—meaning they think it is their job to affirm the diagnosis of gender dysphoria and help the children medically transition.

      The typical first step in treatment administered to these kids is puberty blockers, which shut down the part of the pituitary gland that directs the release of hormones catalyzing puberty. The most common of these drugs is Lupron, whose original purpose was the chemical castration of sex offenders. To this day, the FDA has never approved this drug for halting healthy puberty.

      One has to wonder why a parent or a doctor would take measures to stop a child’s puberty, given that even a child with genuine gender dysphoria would most likely outgrow that condition if left alone. Some argue that it is traumatizing to let children go through the puberty of the sex to which they do not wish to belong. But in many cases, puberty seems to have helped children overcome gender dysphoria. The truth is that there is no satisfying answer, given that scientists have no way of predicting which children will outgrow the dysphoria on their own and which won’t.

      Proponents of “affirmative care” also argue that allowing puberty to occur is dangerous, because suicide rates for trans-identified youth and trans adults are very high. Therefore, they say, we need to start treating children with gender dysphoria as soon and as dramatically as possible.

      Yet there are no good long-term studies indicating that puberty blockers cure suicidality or even improve mental health. Nor are there studies that show puberty blockers are safe or reversible when used in this manner.

      What we do know is that puberty blockers prevent the development of secondary sex characteristics, sexual maturation, and bone density. Indeed, because of the inhibition of bone density and other risks, doctors don’t like to keep children on puberty blockers for more than two years.

      We also know that in almost every case when a child’s healthy puberty is medically arrested, placing the child out of step with his or her peers, that child proceeds to cross-sex hormones. And when puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are administered to a girl, she becomes infertile. She may also have permanent sexual dysfunction given that her sex organs never reach adult maturity.

      Given this, the claims made by so many doctors and gender activists today that these medical transition measures for children are safe and reversible—that they are a “pause button,” without serious downsides—are not only dishonest, but destructive. We would not accept this sort of glib salesmanship in any other area of medicine.

      Trans Identification among Teenage Girls

      As I mentioned, for the nearly 100-year history of scientific study of gender dysphoria, it has been diagnosed almost exclusively in young children, and mostly in boys. But over the last decade, large numbers of teenage girls have begun to claim they have gender dysphoria.

      Prior to 2012, in fact, there was no scientific literature on gender dysphoria arising in teenage girls. Dr. Lisa Littman, then a Brown University public health researcher, used the phrase “rapid onset gender dysphoria” to refer to the subsequent sudden spike in transgender identification among teenage girls with no childhood history of gender dysphoria.

      Read entire article at:



    8. “I am a critical theorist”–Roger

      Well no wonder everything you write is absurdist woke woo.

      Critical theory is indeed Marxist and evolved directly from the Frankfurt school.

      The Frankfurt School was a school of social theory and critical philosophy associated with the Institute for Social Research, at Goethe University Frankfurt Germany in 1929.

      The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory

      The Frankfurt School, known more appropriately as Critical Theory, is a philosophical and sociological movement spread across many universities around the world. It was originally located at the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), an attached institute at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany. The Institute was founded in 1923 thanks to a donation by Felix Weil with the aim of developing Marxist studies in Germany. After 1933, the Nazis forced its closure, and the Institute was moved to the United States where it found hospitality at Columbia University in New York City.

      The academic influence of the critical method is far reaching. Some of the key issues and philosophical preoccupations of the School involve the critique of modernity and capitalist society, the definition of social emancipation, as well as the detection of the pathologies of society. Critical Theory provides a specific interpretation of Marxist philosophy with regards to some of its central economic and political notions like commodification, reification, fetishization and critique of mass culture.

      Some of the most prominent figures of the first generation of Critical Theorists were Max Horkheimer (1895-1973), Theodor Adorno (1903-1969), Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), Walter Benjamin (1892-1940), Friedrich Pollock (1894-1970), Leo Lowenthal (1900-1993), and Eric Fromm (1900-1980). Since the 1970s, a second generation began with Jürgen Habermas, who, among other merits, contributed to the opening of a dialogue between so-called continental and the analytic traditions. With Habermas, the Frankfurt School turned global, influencing methodological approaches in other European academic contexts and disciplines. It was during this phase that Richard Bernstein, a philosopher and contemporary of Habermas, embraced the research agenda of Critical Theory and significantly helped its development in American universities starting from the New School for Social Research in New York.



  1. Mike Pompeo on Critical Race Theory, 1619 Project: ‘An Attempt to Divide the Country’
    July 5, 2021 Updated: July 6, 2021

    Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has weighed in on the national debate over the teaching of critical race theory (CRT) and The New York Times’s “1619 Project,” warning of what he called an attack on the “central understandings” of a history shared by all Americans.

    Pompeo, in a July 4 radio appearance on New York City’s WABC 770 AM. When asked about his concerns and fears over America’s future, he replied that while the nation has been resilient to threats, “some of the things that are being taught in our schools” are what is particularly worrying him.

    “If we teach that that somehow this founding of the United States of America was somehow flawed, it was corrupt, it was racist, that’s really dangerous,” he told “The Cats Roundtable” host John Catsimatidis. “It strikes at the … very foundations of our country. I certainly worry about that.

    “It’s called critical race theory or the 1619 Project. … But at the end, they’re attacking the central understandings that we have shared together for 245 years, and attempt to divide the country.”

    The CRT is rooted in the Marxist theory of class struggle, but with a particular focus on race. Proponents of CRT see racism in every aspect of the American public and private life, and seek to dismantle American institutions—such as the Constitution and legal system—which they deem to be inherently and irredeemably racist.

    An effort to promote those ideas in American schools drew national attention in April, when the Education Department proposed a rule to prioritize funding education programs that incorporate the works of CRT proponent Ibram X. Kendi and the 1619 Project, which recasts American history on the claim that the United States was founded on racism, and remains today, a racist nation.

    If such effort continues to advance, warned Pompeo, Americans could be at risk of losing interests and values that make their country unique.

    “I’m an optimist, but I do worry that if we become fractured, or if we lose faith in our constitutional principles, that somewhere, somehow, or some adversary, like the Chinese Communist Party, will come undermine what’s made our country so special,” he said.

    In a call to action, Pompeo encouraged all Americans to “take firm control” over their children’s education, and make sure they learn about the history of socialism and communism, including how attempts to implement those ideologies failed around the world.

    “They should be taught a broad array of history and then conform good judgements on their own, and have critical thinking on their own,” he said.



    1. LIMBAUGH:- Who Are The Real Bullies On Race?

      “It’s not just Black Lives Matter — not by a long shot. Pretty much the entire leftist freight train is steamrolling its way through our cultural, educational and media institutions — even our bar associations — not to stamp out actual racism but to ensure that it thrives, to force people to obsess on it as much as they do and to divide us as a people along racial lines.

      A friend’s son was given an assignment in a university writing class requiring him, essentially, to explain why white people are privileged and bad. You can nitpick over my words, but you’ve surely heard similar stories. But be careful that you don’t confirm that you’ve heard of such experiences lest you be accused of “white fragility,” you know, the unwillingness to condemn yourself as a racist for what others may or may not have done, and your audacity in disputing the narrative. Just imagine being wrongly accused of one of the most egregious sins imaginable and lifting one of your pinkies in self-defense. How dare you!”–David Limbaugh



      April MatthewsJuly 8, 2021

      Teachers demand control from parents on choosing school curriculums, so much so, that they’ve slated $2.5 million to wage war in the courts.

      Conservative Treehouse explained:

      I’m not 100% sure whether this is unbridled arrogance or just jaw-dropping tone-deafness, but this is absurd. These are toxic sociopaths operating on a level of totalitarian outlook that is alarming as heck.

      The American Federation of Teachers (AFT), a national union led by hard-line leftist Randi Weingarten, has announced adding $2.5 million to a legal fund specifically intended to fight parents for control over the education curriculum.

      Apparently, the AFT feels they should be permitted to determine the curriculum of what they teach. Parents do not get a say in what is taught to their children; this is a remarkable admission of indoctrination. The arrogance of this is really quite remarkable and highlights just how out-of-touch with teaching the education system has become.

      WASHINGTON – […] “Mark my words: Our union will defend any member who gets in trouble for teaching honest history,” Weingarten said in remarks for a virtual address to union members. “Teaching the truth is not radical or wrong. Distorting history and threatening educators for teaching the truth is what is truly radical and wrong.”

      In an interview, Weingarten said the union is adding $2.5 million to an existing legal defense fund in anticipation of local fights over the teaching of race. The funding will be used to defend teachers who are disciplined for teaching about slavery and racism, Weingarten said. The union is also considering filing lawsuits to get clarification about new state laws limiting how racism can be discussed in schools, she said.

      “We’re looking at these laws to see if courts will give some clarification in advance,” Weingarten said. “It just looks like it’s an attempt to erase so much of the history of the United States.” (read more)

      If you find yourself quite stunned by this open intent of the teachers union to fight parents, you might be well-served to remember how open they have been about this objective for almost a decade. This video was from 2013:



    3. The People v. Critical Race Theory
      Kimberly Hermann, City Journal July 18, 2021

      The battleground for America’s future is in our nation’s K-12 public schools. Public schools across the country have replaced traditional education with race-based programming in the name of “equity” that evidently justifies punishing students as young as four years old based on the color of their skin.

      For years, critical race theory in schools flew under the radar, but now, thanks to investigative reporting by Christopher Rufo and others, parents have seen enough. They want their state-funded schools to stop promoting concepts like race essentialism that divide Americans into groups based solely on skin color.

      America remains a government of laws, not men. The American Founders knew that a strong government could threaten liberty, so they dispersed powers The battleground for America’s future is in our nation’s K-12 public schools. Public schools across the country have replaced traditional education with race-based programming in the name of “equity” that evidently justifies punishing students as young as four years old based on the color of their skin.

      For years, critical race theory in schools flew under the radar, but now, thanks to investigative reporting by Christopher Rufo and others, parents have seen enough. They want their state-funded schools to stop promoting concepts like race essentialism that divide Americans into groups based solely on skin color.

      America remains a government of laws, not men. The American Founders knew that a strong government could threaten liberty, so they dispersed powers. It was to defend these principles that a brave teacher in Evanston, Illinois, represented by the Southeastern Legal Foundation, where I am general counsel, recently filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop Evanston/Skokie School District 65 from discriminating against its teachers and students on the basis of race through illegal and unconstitutional teacher training, classroom curriculum, and overall policies. The lawsuit became necessary after the Biden administration withdrew, without explanation or legal justification, the Department of Education’s January 2021 finding that the school district’s policies and procedures violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

      Since 2017, District 65 has openly declared its commitment “to focusing on race as one of the first visible indicators of identity.” The lawsuit challenges what this commitment looks like in practice. For example, the district required its teachers to attend mandatory “antiracist” training, part of which involved segregating teachers into racially exclusive affinity groups and requiring them to engage in racial discrimination against one another. District 65 also required teachers to participate in mandatory “privilege walks,” in which they were segregated by skin color. Through these trainings, teachers were conditioned to see one another’s skin color first and foremost.

      District 65 then turned to students. It divided them into racially exclusive affinity groups, required them to participate in racially segregated “privilege” walks, and administered race surveys to students. The district’s curriculum walks, and administered race surveys to students. The district’s curriculum for pre-K through eighth grade includes books that reinforce discriminatory messages, such as Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness.

      Unfortunately, the facts of the lawsuit against District 65 are not unique. Parents and teachers across the United States need to speak up. Legislators need to uphold their oath to the Constitution. More lawsuits will no doubt be needed to stop school districts from implementing practices that turn the idea of “equity” into a license to punish Americans because of their skin color.

      Kimberly Hermann is general counsel for Southeastern Legal Foundation, a national constitutional public interest law firm and policy center.



    4. Hitler and the Nazis drew from a long line of racial theorists going back to Sir Francis Galton (British), and his protege’ Margaret Sanger, who promoted sterilization of the “lesser people” or the later ‘untermensch’ ideology of the Nazis.

      So the Nazis were far from unique in the history of racism.

      The Nazis even pointed to US ‘Indian Reservations’ as the model for their concentration camps.

      The only unique aspect of Nazism was that it took place in a highly modernized industrial society.

      Francis Galton, the youngest of their eight children, was born in 1822, 13 years after his cousin Charles Darwin. … He was also Charles Darwin’s cousin. And, inspired by his reading of Darwin, he was the founder of eugenics: the “science” of improving the human race through selective breeding.



  2. General Milley, Secretary Austin Answer Critical Race Theory Questions from Matt Gaetz Testimony: Transcript

    Matt Gaetz: (00:00)
    Mr. Secretary, why was Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Lohmeyer released of his command?

    Secretary Austin: (00:05)
    It was a decision made by his chain of command. And typically those decisions are made based upon either having confidence or a lack of confidence. This issue is under investigation by the IG. And so, I won’t comment any further on that.

    Matt Gaetz: (00:23)
    In my previous discussions with service members, and particularly officers, I would hear about complaints over parts, not arriving on time, long deployments. And in my more recent discussions with those officers, the number one issue that they raised to me with concern often unable to speak publicly for fear of the type of retribution that Lieutenant Colonel Lohmeyer faced, they say that your stand down regarding extremism did not help our military. It hurt the military. And I want to share with you that perspective that it caused service members to otherize one another. It impaired group cohesion. And interesting to me is that I’ve heard those sentiments most frequently from units that are majority minority, that this was not particularly helpful. So I wanted to give you the opportunity to maybe share with us more specificity regarding the definitions that seem to be a challenge when Ms. Hartzler was asking questions. How should the Department of Defense think about critical race theory?

    Speaker 3: (01:32)
    Could I make a comment, Secretary? I’m sorry.

    Matt Gaetz: (01:34)
    I’m very limited on my time, General.

    Speaker 3: (01:36)
    I just want to make comment that-

    Matt Gaetz: (01:38)
    I’ve asked the question to the Secretary Austin.

    Secretary Austin: (01:41)
    I don’t know what the issue of critical race theory is and what the relevance here in the department. We do not teach critical race theory. We don’t embrace critical race theory. And I think that’s a spurious conversation. And so we are focused on extremist behaviors and not ideology, not people’s thoughts, not people’s political orientation. Behaviors is what we’re focused on. But in one final point, and thanks for your anecdotal input. But I would say that I have gotten 10 times that amount of input, 50 times that amount of input on the other side that have said, hey, we’re glad to have had the ability to have a conversation with ourselves and with our leadership, and that’s what we need-

    Matt Gaetz: (02:33)
    Reclaiming my time, Mr. Secretary. It may be that you’re receiving that input in the ratios you describe because it was your directive. It may be that people are concerned about criticizing your decision because Lieutenant Colonel Lomeyer was not relieved of his command for his actions. He was not relieved of his command because of poor performance regarding his duties. He was relieved of his command precisely because of his thoughts and because of his critique of critical race theory.

    Matt Gaetz: (03:02)
    It is particularly helpful that you have said that the Department of Defense does not embrace critical race theory, and that you think the discussion is not appropriate. I would suggest that it is the ideology that is not appropriate. And it is particularly concerning to me that you have hired a critical race theorist to give you advice on personnel matters. And that person is Bishop Garrison. And I would particularly observe that on July 27th, 2019, Bishop Garrison tweeted regarding former President Trump, “He’s dragging a lot of bad actors out into the sunlight, normalizing their actions.” And here’s the relevant part. “If you support the president, you support that. There is no room for nuance in this. There is no more, but I’m not like that talk.” And then he replies to his own tweet with what seems to be a very ethno nationalist hashtag, #black44. Could you enlighten us as to what advice Mr. Garrison has given you? And are you concerned that while you testify publicly to our committee, that the department doesn’t embrace critical race theory, you have hired someone who is precisely a critical race theorist?

    Secretary Austin: (04:14)
    This is the first I’ve ever heard Mr. Garrison be described as a critical race theorist. So this is new and I’m sure-

    Matt Gaetz: (04:24)
    Did you review his tweets before you hired him personally? Did you review his tweets before you hired him?

    Secretary Austin: (04:30)
    I did not personally review his tweets.

    Matt Gaetz: (04:32)
    I would just ask that maybe that’d be helpful. Is there anything you can share in just these final seconds regarding any advice he’s given you?

    Secretary Austin: (04:39)
    Let me just share one other thing that you brought up, congressmen about the input that comes to me. You know, I trust my leadership from top to bottom that they will give me fair and balanced and unvarnished input. And for you to say that people are telling me what I want to hear, I get it, but I’m smart enough that-

    Matt Gaetz: (05:02)
    That does happen.

    Secretary Austin: (05:02)
    Yeah. You know, maybe they’re telling you what you want to hear.

    Matt Gaetz: (05:06)
    Well, I don’t know that they even know what I want to hear.

    Mr. Chairman: (05:08)
    The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Brown is recognized for five minutes.

    Speaker 5: (05:11)
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman-

    Ms. Houlahan: (05:13)
    … Mr. Chair, and thank you gentlemen, for joining us today. I know my time is very precious, but I would like to yield some of my time to General Milley, because I know that he had some comments that he wanted to make when Representative Gaetz was talking, as well as Mr. Waltz, about a similar subject of the stand down and race theory. Would you like a minute or so to comment on that? Do you remember what your line of questioning, your thought was there?

    General Milley: (05:37)
    Sure. First of all, on the issue of critical race theory, et cetera, I’ll obviously have to get much smarter on whatever the theory is, but I do think it’s important actually for those of us in uniform to be open-minded and be widely read. And the United States Military Academy is university and it is important that we train and we understand. And I want to understand white rage and I’m white, and I want to understand it. So what is it that cause thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the constitution of the United States of America? What caused that? I want to find that out. I want to maintain an open mind here, and I do want to analyze it. It’s important that we understand that because our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and guardians, they come from the American people. So it is important that the leaders now and in the future do understand it.

    General Milley: (06:33)
    I’ve read Karl Marx. I’ve read Lenin. That doesn’t make me a communist. So what is wrong with understanding, having some situational understanding about the country for which we are here to defend? And I personally find it offensive that we are accusing the United States military, our general officers, our commissioned, non-commissioned office rs of being quote woke or something else because we’re studying some theories that are out there. That was started at Harvard Law School years ago. And it proposed that there were laws in the United States, antebellum laws prior to the Civil War that led to a power differential with African-Americans that were three quarters of a human being when this country was formed. And then we had a Civil War and Emancipation Proclamation to change it. And we brought it up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took another a hundred years to change that.

    General Milley: (07:19)
    So look, I do want to know, and I respect your service. And you and I are both Green Berets, but I want to know, and it matters to our military and the discipline and cohesion of this military. And I thank you for the opportunity to make a comment on that.

    Ms. Houlahan: (07:31)
    Thank you, general.

    Transcribe Your Own Con


    1. What Happened To You?
      The radicalization of the American elite against liberalism
      Andrew Sullivan
      20 hr ago

      What happened to you?”

      It’s a question I get a lot on Twitter. “When did you become so far right?” “Why have you become a white supremacist, transphobic, misogynistic eugenicist?” Or, of course: “See! I told you who he really was! Just take the hood off, Sully!” It’s trolling, mainly. And it’s a weapon for some in the elite to wield against others in the kind of emotional blackmail spiral that was first pioneered on elite college campuses. But it’s worth answering, a year after I was booted from New York Magazine for my unacceptable politics. Because it seems to me that the dynamic should really be the other way round.

      The real question is: what happened to you?

      The CRT debate is just the latest squall in a tempest brewing and building for five years or so. And, yes, some of the liberal critiques of a Fox News hyped campaign are well taken. Is this a wedge issue for the GOP? Of course it is. Are they using the term “critical race theory” as a cynical, marketing boogeyman? Of course they are. Are some dog whistles involved? A few. Are crude bans on public servants’ speech dangerous? Absolutely. Do many of the alarmists know who Derrick Bell was? Of course not.

      But does that mean there isn’t a real issue here? Of course it doesn’t.

      Take a big step back. Observe what has happened in our discourse since around 2015. Forget CRT for a moment and ask yourself: is nothing going on here but Republican propaganda and guile? Can you not see that the Republicans may be acting, but they are also reacting — reacting against something that is right in front of our noses?

      What is it? It is, I’d argue, the sudden, rapid, stunning shift in the belief system of the American elites. It has sent the whole society into a profound cultural dislocation. It is, in essence, an ongoing moral panic against the specter of “white supremacy,” which is now bizarrely regarded as an accurate description of the largest, freest, most successful multiracial democracy in human history.

      We all know it’s happened. The elites, increasingly sequestered within one political party and one media monoculture, educated by colleges and private schools that have become hermetically sealed against any non-left dissent, have had a “social justice reckoning” these past few years. And they have been ideologically transformed, with countless cascading consequences.

      Take it from a NYT woke star, Kara Swisher, who celebrated this week that “the country’s social justice movement is reshaping how we talk about, well, everything.” She’s right — and certainly about the NYT and all mainstream journalism.

      This is the media hub of the “social justice movement.” And the core point of that movement, its essential point, is that liberalism is no longer enough. Not just not enough, but itself a means to perpetuate “white supremacy,” designed to oppress, harm and terrorize minorities and women, and in dire need of dismantling. That’s a huge deal. And it explains a lot.

      The reason “critical race theory” is a decent approximation for this new orthodoxy is that it was precisely this exasperation with liberalism’s seeming inability to end racial inequality in a generation that prompted Derrick Bell et al. to come up with the term in the first place, and Kimberlé Crenshaw to subsequently universalize it beyond race to every other possible dimension of human identity (“intersectionality”).

      A specter of invisible and unfalsifiable “systems” and “structures” and “internal biases” arrived to hover over the world. Some of this critique was specific and helpful: the legacy of redlining, the depth of the wealth gap. But much was tendentious post-modern theorizing. The popular breakthrough was Ta-Nehisi Coates’ essay on reparations in the Atlantic and his subsequent, gut-wrenching memoir, “Between The World And Me.” He combined the worldview and vocabulary of CRT with the vivid lived experience of his own biography. He is a beautifully gifted writer, and I am not surprised he had such an emotional impact, even if, in my view, the power of his prose blinded many to the radical implications of the ideology he surrendered to, in what many of his blog readers called his “blue period.”

      The movement is much broader than race — as anyone who is dealing with matters of sex and gender will tell you. The best moniker I’ve read to describe this mishmash of postmodern thought and therapy culture ascendant among liberal white elites is Wesley Yang’s coinage: “the successor ideology.” The “structural oppression” is white supremacy, but that can also be expressed more broadly, along Crenshaw lines: to describe a hegemony that is saturated with “anti-Blackness,” misogyny, and transphobia, in a miasma of social “cis-heteronormative patriarchal white supremacy.” And the term “successor ideology” works because it centers the fact that this ideology wishes, first and foremost, to repeal and succeed a liberal society and democracy.

      In the successor ideology, there is no escape, no refuge, from the ongoing nightmare of oppression and violence — and you are either fighting this and “on the right side of history,” or you are against it and abetting evil. There is no neutrality. No space for skepticism. No room for debate. No space even for staying silent. (Silence, remember, is violence — perhaps the most profoundly anti-liberal slogan ever invented.)

      And that tells you about the will to power behind it. Liberalism leaves you alone. The successor ideology will never let go of you. Liberalism is only concerned with your actions. The successor ideology is concerned with your mind, your psyche, and the deepest recesses of your soul. Liberalism will let you do your job, and let you keep your politics private. S.I. will force you into a struggle session as a condition for employment.

      What happened to me? You know what I want to know: What on earth has happened to you?

      I have exactly the same principles and support most of the same policies I did under Barack Obama. In fact, I’ve moved left on economic and foreign policy since then. It’s Democrats who have taken a sudden, giant swerve away from their recent past.

      My favorite moment was a very simple one. He referred to the anniversary of the March on Selma, how he went and how he came back and someone (I don’t remember who now) said to him: “That was a great celebration of African-American history.” To which Obama said he replied: “No, no, no, no, no. That was not a great celebration of African-American history. That was a celebration of American history.”

      How much further can you get from the ideology of the 1619 Project — that rejects any notion of white contributions to black freedom? In his Jeremiah Wright speech, the best of his career, this is what Obama said of Wright’s CRT-inspired words, damning America:

      They expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above
      all that we know is right with America… The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country — a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past.

      This is what I still believe. Do you?



  3. President Joe Biden & Vice President Kamala Harris held a news briefing on June 17, 2021 before Biden signed a bill making Juneteenth a national holiday.

    Read the full transcript here.

    Vice President Kamala Harris: (00:00)
    Please have a seat. Good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon.

    Speaker 2: (00:22)
    Good afternoon.

    Vice President Kamala Harris: (00:28)
    Throughout history, Juneteenth has been known by many names, Jubilee Day, Freedom Day, Liberation Day, Emancipation Day, and today, a national holiday. [inaudible 00:00:59].

    Vice President Kamala Harris: (01:02)
    Looking out across this room, I see the advocates, the activists, the leaders who have been calling for this day for so long, including the one and only, Ms. Opal Lee, who just received a very special recognition from the President of the United States.

    President Joe Biden: (01:42)
    She deserves it.

    Vice President Kamala Harris: (01:45)
    I see members of Congress, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, members of the United States Senate, who passed this bill unanimously and all of whom, collectively, were responsible for delivering this bill to the president’s desk. I thank you all. We thank you all. Your nation thanks you all.

    Vice President Kamala Harris: (02:18)
    When we establish a national holiday, it makes an important statement. National holidays are something important. These are days when we as a nation have decided to stop and take stock, and often to acknowledge our history. As we establish Juneteenth as our newest national holiday, let us be clear about what happened on June 19th, 1865, the day we call Juneteenth, because you see that day was not the end of slavery in America. Yes, on that day, the enslaved people of Galveston, Texas learned that they were free, but in fact, two and a half years earlier, the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery in the Confederacy.

    Vice President Kamala Harris: (03:18)
    Think about that. For more than two years, the enslaved people of Texas were kept in servitude. For more than two years, they were intentionally kept from their freedom. For more than two years. Then on that summer day, 156 years ago, the enslaved people of Texas learned the news. They learned that they were free and they claimed their freedom. It was indeed an important day.

    Vice President Kamala Harris: (04:02)
    And still let us also remember that day was not the end of slavery in America. The truth is it would be six more months before the 13th amendment was ratified, before enslaved people in the south in the north were free. As we commemorate the history of Juneteenth, as we did just weeks ago with the history of the Tulsa Race Massacre, we must learn from our history and we must teach our children our history, because it is part of our history as a nation. It is part of American history.

    Vice President Kamala Harris: (04:47)
    Let me end by saying this, we are gathered here in a house built by enslaved people. We are footsteps away from where President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. And we are here to witness president Joe Biden establish Juneteenth as a national holiday. We have come far and we have far to go, but today is a day of celebration. It is not only a day of pride. It is also a day for us to reaffirm and rededicate ourselves to action.

    Vice President Kamala Harris: (05:31)
    With that, I say, happy Juneteenth, everybody. And with that, I introduce the President of the United States, Joe Biden.

    President Joe Biden: (05:41)
    Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Vice President.

    President Joe Biden: (06:00)
    156 years ago, 156 years, June 19th, 1865. John, thanks for being here. The major general of the Union army arrived in Galveston, Texas to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation and free the last enslaved Americans in Texas from bondage. That day, as you all know, I’m going to repeat some of what was said, became known as Juneteenth. You all know that. A day that reflects what the Psalm tells us: “Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.”

    President Joe Biden: (06:42)
    Juneteenth marks both the long, hard night of slavery and subjugation and a promise we’re bright and morning to come. This is a day of profound, in my view, profound weight and profound power. A day in which we remember the moral stain, the terrible toll that slavery took on the country and continues to take; what I’ve long called America’s Original Sin. At the same time, I also remember the extraordinary capacity to heal and to hope and to emerge from the most painful moments in a bitter, bitter version of ourselves, but to make a better version of ourselves.

    President Joe Biden: (07:40)
    Today, we consecrate Juneteenth for what it ought to be, what a must be. A National holiday. As the vice president noted, a holiday that will join the others of our national celebrations, our independence, our laborers, who built this nation, our service men and women who served and died in its defense, and the first new national holiday since the creation of Martin Luther King holiday, nearly four decades ago.

    President Joe Biden: (08:10)
    I’m grateful to the members of Congress here today, in particular, the Congressional Black Caucus, who did so much to make this day possible. I’m especially pleased that we showed the nation that we can come together as Democrats and Republicans to commemorate this day with an overwhelming bipartisan support of the Congress. I hope this is the beginning of a change in the way we deal with one another.

    President Joe Biden: (08:39)
    We’re blessed to mark the day in the presence of Ms. Opel Lee. As my mother would say, “God, love her.” I had the honor of meeting her in Nevada more than a year ago, she told me she loved me, and I believed it. I wanted to believe it. Ms. Opal, you’re incredible. A daughter of Texas, grandmother of the movement to make Juneteenth a federal holiday. Ms. Opal is, you won’t believe it, she’s 49 years old, or 94 years old. But you are an incredible woman, Ms. Opal, you really are.

    President Joe Biden: (09:28)
    As a child growing up in Texas, she and her family would celebrate Juneteenth. On Juneteenth 1939, when she was 12 years old, a white mob torched her family home, but such hate never stopped her, any more than it stop the vast majority of you I’m looking at it from this podium. Over the course of decades, she’s made it her mission to see that this day came. It was almost a singular mission. She’s walked for miles and miles, literally and figuratively, to bring attention to Juneteenth, to make this day possible. I ask once again, we all stand and give her a warm welcome to the White House.

    President Joe Biden: (10:27)
    As they still say in the Senate, and I said for 36 years, if excuse me for a point of personal privilege. As I was walking down, I regret that my grandchildren aren’t here because this is a really, really, really important moment in our history. By making Juneteenth a federal holiday, all Americans can feel the power of this day and learn from our history and celebrate progress and grapple with the distance we’ve come, but the distance we have to travel to.

    President Joe Biden: (11:17)
    I said a few weeks ago, marking the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa Race Massacre, great nations don’t ignore their most painful moments. Great nations don’t ignore the most painful moments. They don’t ignore those moments in the past. They embrace them. Great nations don’t walk away. We come to terms with the mistakes we made. In remembering those moments, we begin to heal and grow stronger. The truth is, it’s simply not enough just to commemorate Juneteenth, after all the emancipation of slave black Americans didn’t mark the end of America’s work to deliver on the promise of equality; it only marked the beginning. To honor the true meaning of Juneteenth, we have to continue toward that promise because we’ve not gotten there yet. The vice president and I and our entire administration and all of you in this room are committed to doing just that.

    President Joe Biden: (12:28)
    That’s why we’ve launched an aggressive effort to combat racial discrimination in housing, finally address the cruel fact that a home owned to this day by a black American family is usually appraised at a lower rate for a similar home owned by a white family in a similar area. That’s why we committed to increasing black home ownership, one of the biggest drivers of generational wealth.

    President Joe Biden: (12:53)
    That’s why we’re making it possible for more black entrepreneurs to access capital because their ideas are as good, they lack the capital to get their fair and get their fair share of federal contracts so they can begin to build wealth. That’s why we’re working to give each and every child, three and four years of age, not daycare but school in a school.

    President Joe Biden: (13:25)
    That’s why we’re unlocking the incredibly creative and innovation of the history of our historical black colleges and universities, providing them with the resources to invest in research centers and laboratories to help HBCU graduates prepare and compete for good paying jobs in the industries of the future.

    President Joe Biden: (13:44)
    Folks, the promise of equality is not going to be fulfilled until we become real. It becomes real in our schools and on our main streets and in our neighborhoods, our healthcare system, and ensuring that equity is at the heart of our fight against the pandemic, and the water that comes out of our faucets, and the air that we breathe in our communities, and our justice system, so that we can fulfill the promise of America for all people. All of our people. It’s not going to be fulfilled so long as the sacred right to vote remains under attack.

    President Joe Biden: (14:23)
    We see this assault from restrictive laws, threats of intimidation, voter purges and more; an assault that offends the very democracy, our very democracy. We can’t rest until the promise of equality is fulfilled for every one of us in every corner of this nation. That, to me, is the meaning of Juneteenth. That’s what it’s about. Let’s make this very Juneteenth, tomorrow, the first that our nation will celebrate all together, as one nation, a Juneteenth of action on many fronts, one of those is vaccinations.

    President Joe Biden: (15:14)
    Tomorrow, the vice president will be in Atlanta on a bus tour helping to spread the word, like all of you have been doing, on life-saving vaccines. Across the country this weekend, including here in Washington, people will be canvasing and hosting events in their communities, going door to door, encouraging vaccinations. We’ve built equity into the heart of the vaccination program from day one, but we still have more work to do to close the racial gap in vaccination rates. The more we can do that, the more we can save lives.

    President Joe Biden: (15:44)
    Today also marks the sixth anniversary of the tragic deaths at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina. A killer motivated by hate, intending to start a race war in South Carolina, he joined his victims in a Bible study class, then he took their lives in a house of worship. It’s a reminder that our work to root out hate never ends, because hate only hides. It never fully goes away. It hides. When you breathe oxygen under that rock, it comes out. That’s why we must understand that Juneteenth represents not only the commemoration of the end of slavery in America more than 150 years ago, but the ongoing work to have to bring true equity and racial justice into American society, which we can do. In short, this day doesn’t just celebrate the past, it calls for action today.

    President Joe Biden: (16:49)
    I wish all Americans a happy Juneteenth, and I’m shortly going to, in a moment, going to sign it into law, making it a federal holiday. I have to say to you, I’ve only been president for several months, but I think this will go down for me as one of the greatest honors I will have had as president. Not because I did it. You did it. Democrats and Republicans. But it’s an enormous, enormous honor. Thank you for what you’ve done. By the way, typical of most of us in Congress and the Senate, I went down the other end of the hall first and thanked your staffs because I know who does the hard work.

    President Joe Biden: (17:36)
    No, they’re down there. They’re at the other end. But I thank them as well. God bless you all, and may God protect our troops. Thank you.

    President Joe Biden: (17:47)
    Now, I’d like to invite up while I sign: Senator Tina Smith, Senator Ed Markey, Senator Raphael Warnock, Senator John Cornyn, Whip John Clyburn, Representative Barbara Lee, Representative Danny Davis, Chair Joyce Beatty, and Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ms. Opal.

    Vice President Kamala Harris: (18:19)
    Why don’t you stand next to me.

    President Joe Biden: (18:24)
    You should have my chair.

    President Joe Biden: (18:36)
    Nope? Okay. All right.

    President Joe Biden: (18:36)
    Anybody else?

    Vice President Kamala Harris: (18:36)
    Ms. Opal gets the first one.

    Ms. Opal Lee: (18:36)
    Thank you so much. I’m sorry.

    Vice President Kamala Harris: (18:36)
    No, please.

    President Joe Biden: (19:12)
    [inaudible 00:19:12].

    President Joe Biden: (19:12)
    There you go.

    Speaker 5: (19:12)
    Thank you, Mr. President.

    President Joe Biden: (19:12)
    Thank you.

    Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee: (19:12)
    Thank you so much.

    President Joe Biden: (19:57)
    Thank you. I’ve got three more. I’ve got to make them [inaudible 00:19:58] my name.

    Sen. Ed Markey: (20:07)
    [inaudible 00:20:07]

    President Joe Biden: (20:08)
    Oh, I’m sorry. I thought for sure.

    President Joe Biden: (20:10)
    There he is. There’s the dude.

    Speaker 8: (20:10)
    The last shall be first, right?

    President Joe Biden: (20:19)
    Texas. Texas. Anybody else?

    Vice President Kamala Harris: (20:23)
    Yeah, Dan.

    President Joe Biden: (20:24)
    Oh, Dan. Okay, man. I’m sorry, man.

    Vice President Kamala Harris: (20:27)
    Congressman Davis.

    President Joe Biden: (20:32)
    Thank you, man.

    Rep. Danny Davis: (20:42)

    President Joe Biden: (20:49)
    All right.

    Speaker 2: (20:50)
    [inaudible 00:20:50]

    Speaker 10: (20:50)
    Is Election Day next, Mr. President? Is Election Day next?

    President Joe Biden: (20:58)
    Don’t tell me you love him more than you love me.

    Speaker 10: (21:01)
    Mr. President, is Election Day next? Is the plan to sign Election Day a national holiday?

    President Joe Biden: (21:05)
    All right. Well, thank you, everybody.

    Speaker 11: (21:05)
    Thank you, Mr. President.

    President Joe Biden: (21:05)
    Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It’s an honor. It’s a genuine honor.


    1. White House Backs Teachers Unions, CRT Curricula
      .By Philip Wegmann – RCP StaffJuly 10, 2021

      The Biden administration signaled its support for the teaching of “anti-racism” curriculum in public schools Friday, wading into an ongoing culture war over critical race theory playing out on cable news and in school board meetings across the nation.

      Asked about a recent decision by the National Education Association to throw its weight behind controversial progressive teachings about race, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told RealClearPolitics that President Biden believes “kids should learn about our history” including the view that “there is systemic racism that is still impacting society today.”


      In that same vein, Russ Vought, president of Center for Renewing America, told RCP that the White House “can continue to sow confusion,” but that people already know that teaching the theory “is not about learning history, it is indoctrination that America is systemically racist and people should be judged based on the color of their skin, instead of the content of their character.”

      Vought, who authored former President Trump’s executive order banning CRT in the federal government, argued that Biden had made the theory “the governing paradigm of his administration, insisting on dividing the country based on race.”

      The back-and-forth comes as schools across the country prepare to welcome students back to the classroom in person later this summer, and as the nation’s two largest teachers unions vow to support their members teaching of the theory.

      At its annual meeting, the National Association of Educators adopted an agenda item stating, “it is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory.”

      NEA President Becky Pringle urged teachers to adopt similar teachings in their lesson plans, saying, “If this grand experiment in democracy is to succeed, if the inhabitants of our nation are to prosper, we must continuously do the work to challenge ourselves and others to dismantle the racist interconnected systems and the economic injustices that have perpetuated systemic inequities.”

      The NEA along with the American Teachers Federation are preparing legal challenges to state laws stripping such lessons from curricula. At least six states have passed new laws limiting how race can be taught in the classroom, the Associated Press reported, and similar proposals are being considered in more than a dozen others.

      Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law last month that bars schools from teaching students that anyone “should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress” because of their race or sex. Liberty and equality, the law states, should be taught as “authentic founding principles,” not slavery or racism, according to a majority of Texas lawmakers.

      It comes as no surprise that the White House stands with the teachers’ unions. On the first full day of the new administration, Dr. Jill Biden hosted a summit to celebrate educators, and just two guests were invited to the White House: the heads of the two largest public teachers unions in the country. “I’m so proud that you are leading the NEA, which as you probably know is my union,” the first lady told Pringle. Weingarten, the leader of the AFT, was described the first lady as “the kind of general who is never far from the front lines.”

      She promised that with her husband as president, the unions “will always have a seat at the table.”

      “Together, we are going to transform our nation’s education system. And when we do that, we will change the course of our future forever,” she added. “And if you ever wonder if it’s possible, just remember that the First Lady of the United States is one of your own.”



  4. New Florida law doesn’t require university students, faculty and staff to register political views
    The law requires an annual assessment of “intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity” at public colleges and universities.

    The bill does not address what questions will be asked, whether participation is mandatory, or if the responses will be anonymous.

    The survey hasn’t been created yet but a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Education said it will be voluntary and won’t ask about individuals’ political beliefs. Instead, it will ask whether individuals “feel they can express their political viewpoints and opinions in their college classrooms.”

    See the sources for this fact-check
    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill on June 23 requiring an annual assessment of “intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity” at public colleges and universities.

    Among the buzz that followed was a claim warning that students and employees of these schools would have to report their political leanings to the government.

    “Dictator alert,” begins a screenshot of a tweet being shared on social media. “Ron DeathSantis just signed legislation requiring students, faculty and staff at Florida’s public universities and colleges to register their political views with the state.”

    This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)



    1. New Florida law doesn’t require university students, faculty and staff to register political views

      Profile photo for David Dixon
      David Dixon
      Former Attorney & Adjunct Professor, Torts & ContractSun
      Here is a frightening and deplorable reality that tells you much about what we have devolved into as a nation:

      Out of 66 answers to this question, 62 labeled DeSantis a fascist, a communist, another McCarthy, disgusting, deplorable and….well you get the idea. Only 4 people actually took the time to actually read the new law and thereby point out that the entire question is based upon a 100% fabrication – a lie – which was made up originally by the media.

      In point of fact, the new law requires nobody to register their political views with anyone. So here’s a question: What does it say about people’s ability in general to render intelligent opinions when only 6% of those rendering those opinions even know the facts necessary for actually doing so competently?

      David Dixon, the only person on Quora to actually look into the veracity of the question about DeSantis making a law to make students and professors reveal their political party affiliations.




    I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
    And to the Republic for which it stands
    One nation, under God
    Indivisible with liberty and justice for all



  6. Profile photo for John Knight
    John Knight
    June 27
    Maybe they should instead teach what Abraham Lincoln taught?

    “It is better for the Negro and white races to be separated,” President Abraham Lincoln said in an address to some 500 free Negroes, on the White House lawn, April 14, 1862.

    President Lincoln said: “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader physical difference than exists between any other two races.

    “Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think.

    “Your race suffer very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason, at last, why we should be separated.

    “Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with white people.

    “On this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours.

    “Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you. I cannot alter it if I would. See your present condition, the Country engaged in war, our white men cutting one another’s throats, and then consider what we know to be the truth — But for your race among us there would be no war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another. It is better for us both therefore to be separated.”
    After searching the web for verification of these quotes attributed to Lincoln, the ONLY source I can find is this NeoNazi, White Supremisist Racist site:



    1. The Right’s War on Education Is Reaching Dystopian Levels

      AFT president Randi Weingarten is vowing to protect members targeted for “teaching honest history” amid GOP efforts to restrict how race and racism is taught and as Fox host Tucker Carlson calls for cameras in the classroom.

      This is the Neo-Marxist reaction in Vanity Fair to the following remarks:

      Tucker: Not only are these people crazed ideologues, they’re stupid.

      The Fourth of July is still a day worth celebrating. Despite what you may read, day in and day out, this is still a great country. Where are you going to go that’s better? Nowhere. America is still full of happy, decent, independent-minded people. The attitudes of our leaders may have changed dramatically in recent years, but the virtues of our population really have not changed. That’s the good news. The bad news is, the people in charge are working hard to make Americans hate our own country. If you made the mistake of going online this weekend, you saw them pouring out their misery on social media. Instead of enjoying hotdogs and fireworks with the kids they don’t have, they were on Twitter yelping about slavery and White supremacy and what a terrible place the United States is. It’s easy to ignore people like this. You just turn off your screen and live your life. Unfortunately, it’s much harder to shield your children from them. That’s the problem.

      Last week, the largest teachers’ union in the country, the National Education Association, announced that its new, and first, priority is making racist anti-American indoctrination, race-based indoctrination, mandatory in every classroom in the country. All K-12 schools, the union declared, must teach children that, “White supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cis-hetero-patriarchy, capitalism, ableism, and anthropocentrism” are embedded in every aspect of American “society.” So, if you’re a straight White American, even if you’re a very small child, you’re guilty. It’s your fault. You’re a bad person. That’s what teachers will be telling your children this fall.


      The teachers’ union ended its statement with this, which is so hilariously revealing it belongs in a museum somewhere, and we hope it makes it. “As the ancient African proverb says, Know Thyself.” The African proverb. Except it’s not an African proverb. “Know thyself” is, of course, Greek, as any literate person knows. It was inscribed by the ancient Greeks in the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. But the teacher’s union didn’t know this. Not only are these people crazed racist ideologues, but they’re also stupid. Your children are being taught by some of the most ignorant people in the country. How’d that happen? God knows how it happened. But you’d better not complain about it, or else Joe Biden’s praetorian guard will denounce you on TV as a racist:



  7. The Glorious Death of American Legacy Media, and What Comes Next
    The public doesn’t trust our corporate media talking heads, and almost nobody is paying attention to them anymore.

    here was, over the weekend amid a cacophony of media resistance to the formerly unifying celebration of America’s Independence Day, one of the most amateurish and ridiculous cartoons ever produced.

    It came courtesy of Communist China’s Xinhua News Agency, a propaganda shop with its rhetorical guns aimed at the American people and the ideas of our founding. The cartoon depicted a pair of white guys in suits clinking glasses together with “TO FREEDOM” in a quote bubble above their heads, and just to their right a crazed lunatic in a ski hat held a pistol in one hand and an AR-15 style rifle in the other with “OF SHOOTING” in a quote bubble above his. The mass shooter, as he’s clearly supposed to be, is standing over a gravestone upon which is written “DEATH FROM FIREARM.”

    And in the text of the tweet in which the cartoon appears, the Chinese communist apparatchiks at Xinhua said, “How a gun-happy nation spends its #FourthofJuly weekend.”

    The first obvious reaction to this is best expressed not verbally but with a middle finger at a murderous, tyrannical, psychotic regime that has literally killed more human beings than any other in the 100 years since it was birthed into the world as a revolutionary political party. But beyond that is something else, namely gleeful ridicule of the hilariously gawky and ignorant use of the English language by the Xinhua flacks attempting the cartoon.

    If you can’t speak the language any better than a 5-year-old, perhaps it’s best to avoid attempting to insult native speakers in that language. Just a tip.

    But this was lost on MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who is perfectly unoffended by murderous and English-illiterate ChiCom propagandists attacking America over the Fourth of July weekend. Hayes retweeted the idiotic cartoon with his own comment: “Continue to be truly fascinated by how much America’s truly exceptional levels of gun violence figure in the perception of the country around the world.”

    Chris Hayes has lost 36 percent of his audience in the first six months of 2021, though that figure does reflect a momentary post-election spike. His June viewership of 1,339,000 is barely half of the 2,656,000 he had in January. He’s lost 26 percent of his audience since this time last year.

    MSNBC as a network is off 48 percent.

    At CNN, which has lost some 68 percent of its viewership in that same time period, Brian Stelter has now embarked on a crusade to tie Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, who is one of the only cable news hosts holding on to an audience (Carlson has some 2.8 million viewers, compared to Stelter’s 786,000), to Alex Jones.

    As Ace of Spades noted, Stelter is incapable of holding an audience for an hour unless he can demonize and complain about a high-profile conservative target. And without Donald Trump as a viable target, it’s clear he and his producers have decided Carlson is the best thing going.

    The fact that Carlson accused the NSA of reading his emails, per a whistleblower who contacted him to give basis to the accusation, is Stelter’s hook for comparing Carlson to Jones. Interestingly, the NSA issued a non-denial denial after Carlson went public with the charge. At this point it seems certain that something was done with Carlson’s electronic communications, and the real questions are exactly what and how, and for what purpose. Perhaps there were reasons for Carlson’s emails to be caught up in NSA’s net, but what the agency has not said is “we did not collect Tucker Carlson’s electronic communications.”

    That means Tucker Carlson is not Alex Jones, and people who attempt to cast him as such lack credibility.

    This describes Brian Stelter, for certain. But it also applies to American corporate media as a whole, and the numbers proving it are eye-popping.

    The Reuters Institute teamed with YouGov to poll more than 92,000 respondents in 46 countries on media credibility. In some of those countries, people still believe what’s reported in the major media. In Finland, for example, some 65 percent of the respondents said they give credibility to media reports most of the time, which was the highest figure among the 46 countries.

    Interestingly, YouGov didn’t poll China, so we don’t know what the Chinese think of their state-run media. Not that anybody there would be so stupid as to give a pollster anything other than the ChiCom party line.

    How did America’s corporate media fare? Well, not so well.

    In fact, the number for the U.S. legacy media crowd is 29 percent. Dead last of the 46 countries. The French, Greeks, Hungarians, Filipinos, Chileans, Argentinians, and Mexicans all have more trust in their press and TV talking heads than Americans have in people like Chris Hayes and Brian Stelter.

    Or in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Houston Chronicle, among many others, which have been repeatedly caught unquestioningly parroting Chinese propaganda like Hayes did over the weekend. In fact, all of the above publications are known to have included something called China Watch, an insert produced by the Beijing-based English language ChiCom outfit China Daily, in their distribution. China Watch routinely runs CCP propaganda disguised as news, and these corporate-owned media outlets take their money and distribute their swill with zero regard to their readership.

    People notice these things, you know. The ratings and circulation numbers reflect that notice.

    Were it not for an active effort by Facebook and Twitter to prop up legacy corporate media at the expense of independent publishers, you would have probably already seen some of these media companies go bankrupt. The newspapers are all but dead as it is, with massive newsroom layoffs and other clear signs of trouble (like running stories paid for by third parties or even begging for donations) visible to anyone paying attention.

    They’ll tell you it’s just the changing media market. Well, yeah — it’s changing, all right, and for a damn good reason. It’s changing because nobody believes you anymore.

    If people thought the local paper wasn’t full of it then they’d support that paper by buying digital subscriptions or even holding onto their print subscriptions regardless of whether or not they read the paper copy anymore. Newsprint does have uses even if you read the paper online, you know; it’s great for lining a table if you’re eating boiled seafood, it’s quite helpful as kindling to start the charcoal on your barbeque grill … there are lots of uses for it.

    And of course, it you’ve canceled your print subscription to the paper you likely can still avail yourself of those uses, because lots of newspapers keep right on delivering that paper even if you’ve quit paying them. It’s how they keep trying to fleece their advertisers with inflated circulation numbers. That’s a scam that has been going on so long it’s amazing they bother anymore.

    Everybody knows this. Nobody believes them. The whole industry is in abject free fall.

    And it’s a great thing. Don’t be sad about this. This is the creative destruction of the free market at work.

    The news media is just one more cultural institution in America that the Left — not just the liberals, who have run the news media in America almost from the very beginning, but the Left, as in the Marxists of cultural and other bents — has utterly destroyed.

    They’ve done it to everything they’ve touched. They did it to Hollywood, they did it to the arts. They’ve done it to higher education, they’re doing it to elementary and secondary education. They’re busy doing it to corporate America. And they’ve destroyed the legacy corporate news media.

    It’s dead. It’s still twitching, but it’s dead.

    The real question is what arises in its place. Because people are still going to get information about the world. Where it comes from is the subject of the next great game.



  8. Education Union to Target Those Opposing CRT: Florida Mom Says ‘Bring It On’

    Despite growing opposition to Critical Race Theory (CRT) being implemented in public schools, the National Education Association (NEA) not only adopted a resolution to prioritize their effort to implement CRT in “K-12 and higher education,” it vowed to use all resources at their disposal–including friendly media—to go after those who are “attacking educators doing anti-racist work.” In response, Quisha King—a Florida mother who gained notoriety when she blasted the Duval County school board in strong opposition of CRT—says “bring it on.”

    “I think it’s mob rule,” King told The Epoch Times. “Truly these teachers’ unions have a lot of power and a lot of money and they have the resources to do something like that. But obviously, parents are tired of what’s going on. We’re trying to make a difference and we’re trying to draw attention to this thing. It’s bullying to me. It’s a bully tactic.”

    “We are coming out of the worst year on record for modern education and you would think the NEA would focus on reading and writing and math instead of trying to divide us by our skin color,” Tina Descovich, co-founder of Moms For Liberty told The Epoch Times.

    “Parents are not standing for this,” Descovich added. “You already see them standing up all around the country and they will continue to push back against this.”

    “What does it say about the state of affairs when you have the largest union in the U.S., with three million members and $300 million in their budget, that they are afraid of moms and the voice of moms?”

    School Board Recall Efforts
    The NEA isn’t the only teachers’ organization feeling the heat. According to numbers recently released by Ballotpedia, increased efforts to eradicate CRT in education have led to a growing national trend of recalling school board members in the first six months of 2021.

    As of June 30, at least 51 local recall efforts targeting at least 130 elected members on K-12 school boards have been initiated. That’s more than twice the annual average.

    King, who is a member of Moms For Liberty, said she isn’t opposed to the teaching of real history. Nor does she oppose having children learn about racism, as CRT advocates claim they are doing. It’s the growing determination of certain teachers, the NEA, and school board members to push CRT on an increasingly resistant public that has her concerned.

    “You can teach about racial injustices,” King iterated. “You can teach about history and all of these things and not go anywhere near critical race theory. So, to me, it says that there’s an even more sinister plan because if it was just about teaching history I don’t think we’d see any parents up in arms. But because it’s not and they’re pushing so hard, I think their goal is to further divide the country.”

    According to King, most of the feedback she has received since voicing her opposition to CRT before the Duval County school board has been supportive and favorable. However, she said some of the responses have been “absolutely vile.”

    The more tame among her critics call her “a traitor to her race” and claim she is “the reason why black people can’t get ahead.” The worst of them call for her death and express hope that she will be raped “by white men in particular.”

    “It’s been head-scratching,” King said. But she is not backing down.

    “If I’m going to fight for anything and I’m going to put myself on the line it’s for Christ first and of course it’s for my family next,” King attested. “I’m not willing to stand by the wayside and let this type of poison be introduced to my children any further or to anyone else’s child. So, if that’s what they want, what they’re saying is they don’t care about our children. They would rather tear down the parents so we can’t even provide for our children or care for our children.”

    “Essentially, you’re coming after our kids,” King added, addressing the members of the NEA directly. “You’re still coming after our kids and you’re using your money and your connections to do so. That is evil.”

    Despite the growing number of parents and citizens flocking to school board meetings to voice opposition to the implementation of CRT in their schools, and despite the recent polls showing the vast majority of Americans strongly oppose CRT, advocates of the divisive curriculum claim resistance is really coming from elsewhere.

    “The attacks on anti-racist teachers are increasing, coordinated and well-funded organizations such as the Heritage Foundation,” the NEA insisted in their recently adopted resolution. “We need to be better prepared to respond to these attacks so that our members can continue this important work.”

    ‘The Goal Is to Discredit Us’
    “I don’t know where this well-funded group is on the right,” King balked. “This is a parent thing.”

    “What they’re trying to do is paint all of us negatively,” King countered. “They’re trying to disparage us. The goal is to discredit us so people will not listen to what we’re saying. It’s an old media tactic, you discredit someone then you just go about saying negative things about them. It works. I don’t know of any parent that’s going to back down when it comes to our kids. These people have gone too far.”

    “I don’t know anything about the involvement of other organizations,” Descovich said. “I just know about our organization. We are moms that are protecting their child and I believe that a mom that’s upset and worried and trying to protect their child is the most powerful force on earth and I think the NEA knows that.”

    Asked what she thought of the NEA’s vow to target those like her who oppose their effort to push CRT in the school system, King did not hold back.

    “Well,” King said bluntly. “I say bring it on. Because what they don’t realize is that, my Father in Heaven is who I get my strength from. I’m not funded by any group. I’m relying on Him. They can do whatever they want to do. They can say whatever they want to say. Bring it on. You want to go? Let’s go.”

    “We’re not afraid of their three million members or their $300 million budget,” Descovich said in response to the same question. “The voice of one mom protecting her child is stronger than all of them.”



    1. Teachers Union Scrubs Website of Support for CRT After Backlash
      ‘The NEA is working to cover up their indoctrination of America’s students…’

      Just three days after endorsing Critical Race Theory as “reasonable and appropriate,” the nation’s largest teachers union deleted from its website its pledge to teach the radical ideology in public schools.

      The National Education Association published a plan this week in which it vowed to “fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric” and defend teachers who wanted to teach the theory to their students.

      The agenda item says the union will “share and publicize” information “already available on CRT — what it is and what it is not,” and oppose efforts to ban CRT and the New York Times’s 1619 Project from public school classrooms.

      “The Association will further convey that in teaching these topics, it is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory,” the plan stated.

      This agenda item disproved claims by leftists that Critical Race Theory is not being taught in public schools.

      Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe had claimed CRT is “another right-wing conspiracy theory” that was “totally made up by Donald Trump.”

      MSNBC host Chuck Todd said concerns about CRT are “manufactured.”

      And American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten claimed CRT is “not taught in K-12 schools” despite what “the right’s culture warriors” might say.

      However, the NEA’s endorsement of CRT proved the concept is infiltrating the public school system, according to conservatives.

      “The NEA, the nation’s largest teacher’s union, used their annual business meeting to cement a coordinated, national campaign to advance the divisive Critical Race Theory ideology,” Jessica Anderson, the executive director of the Heritage Foundation’s Heritage Action, said in a statement.

      The backlash led the NEA to wipe any mention of CRT from its plan:

      “The NEA is working to cover up their indoctrination of America’s students, and teachers by scrubbing the agenda items from their website,” Anderson continued. “Americans want unity and truth — not the divisive Marxism seeded in CRT.”



  9. Marian Hubbard
    deplorable4h ago

    If Critical Race Theory teaches that race is a social construct that has been used in law to divide people, what are conservatives afraid of it?
    If that were the only thing Critical Race Theory taught, I doubt if many people would oppose it; however, CRT teaches that race is so much more — it is the primary, if not the exclusive determinant of whether a given individual is likely to be an Oppressor or a Victim in their relationships with members of other races.

    This principle is so strongly felt that CRT proponents have actually claimed that being an Oppressor is engrained in the DNA of White people!

    So CRT departs from the core tenants of the United States, which sees the individual as being the enter of existence, because if every individual is nothing more than the representative of a racial construct, which cannot be over-ridden by reason, no one is free, our rights are nonexistent, and our attempts at justice meaningless.

    And this has always been the point.

    Within the intellectual framework of Marxism, always, the solution to the battle between the Oppressors and the Victims is for the Victims to overturn the social order and seize all the levers of power. The government will then be run by the proponents of — guess what? Critical Race Theory!

    They will vigorously pursue and irradicate racism where ever it exists, which in their eyes is everywhere.

    CRT does not coexist with other ideologies because it’s teachings are absolute; if you disagree in any respect, it is entirely because you are a racist.

    This poisonous branch of Marxism was specifically crafted by adherents of Marxism to fit American society, where classism has never made much headway.

    However, in the traditional society where Marx saw society being over turned when the proletariet became fed up enough with the bourgeoisie to rise up and overturn the government, the proletariet were sufficiently more numerous than the bourgeoisie to make the consequences believable.

    But right now, the proportion of the country that is African American is only about 13% of the total. Hence the need to persuade as many members of the Oppressors as possible in order to get them to join with the victims.

    And that is why we are seeing the push to teach CRT in our schools.

    100 viewsView 2 upvotes



    1. Dr. Ben Carson speaks to Newsmax’s Eric Bolling about racially-charged ideologies and how he truly feels about them and their use politically by liberals and Democrats, in schools, and in Washington.

      Watch Newsmax on Directv 349, Xfinity 1115, Dish 216, Spectrum (see channels), Cox, Optimum, U-Verse 1120, FiOS 615, Suddenlink, CenturyLink 1209, Mediacom 277, Fubo, Sling, WOW!, Armstrong, YouTube live stream, or the Newsmax smartphone APP. Find your cable/streaming provider here:



  10. Conservatism and the Therapeutic Society

    But it isn’t necessary simply to abandon the traditional symbols of the West, however much they have been attacked and enervated. The purpose of the artist and the philosopher is to recall us to the experiences that engender the symbols of order, and we have not been lacking such prophets in this ravaged century. Who has done more to restore the meaning of the “soul” than Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who discovered that totalitarianism can strip man of everything but his irreducible spirit? The answer to Marxist ideologues and the disoriented seekers after “personal growth” is a reawakened sense of order and responsibility. True order does not lie in either the laws of history—or in whatever feels good.

    As Will Herberg concludes in “What is the Moral Crisis of Our Time?”: “Real standards come in and through tradition.” Of course, truth has to be ascertained independently of tradition, but so long as we suffer from collective amnesia, so long as we act as if we can create order out of our heads, we will be condemned to be as the flower of the fields, which passes away. It is no coincidence that Glaucon emphasizes the need to communicate to youth: they are subjective because they have not undergone the process of enculturation. Indeed, the condition of radical subjectivity is a prolonging of adolescence. Richard Weaver, in Visions of Order, noted the relation between the “attack on memory” and the elevation of youth to an exalted position in society.



  11. Yes they are teaching Critical Race Theory in grade school now.

    On June 30, members of the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, voted to approve a plan to promote critical race theory in all 50 states. Union delegates representing 3 million public school employees approved funding for three separate items related to “increasing the implementation” of “critical race theory” in K-12 curricula; promoting critical race theory in 14,000 local school districts; and attacking opponents of critical race theory, including parent organizations and conservative research centers.

    NEA to Promote Critical Race Theory in Schools | City Journal (

    This is all part of the Neo-arxist agenda of the Biden regime and the DNC.


  12. Yes they are teaching Critical Race Theory in grade school now.

    On June 30, members of the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, voted to approve a plan to promote critical race theory in all 50 states. Union delegates representing 3 million public school employees approved funding for three separate items related to “increasing the implementation” of “critical race theory” in K-12 curricula; promoting critical race theory in 14,000 local school districts; and attacking opponents of critical race theory, including parent organizations and conservative research centers.

    NEA to Promote Critical Race Theory in Schools | City Journal (
    This is all part of the Neo-Marxist agenda of the Biden regime and the DNC.


    1. A Lesson on Critical Race Theory

      n September 2020, President Trump issued an executive order excluding from federal contracts any diversity and inclusion training interpreted as containing “Divisive Concepts,” “Race or Sex Stereotyping,” and “Race or Sex Scapegoating.” Among the content considered “divisive” is Critical Race Theory (CRT). In response, the African American Policy Forum, led by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, launched the #TruthBeTold campaign to expose the harm that the order poses. Reports indicate that over 300 diversity and inclusion trainings have been canceled as a result of the order. And over 120 civil rights organizations and allies signed a letter condemning the executive order. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), the National Urban League (NUL), and the National Fair Housing Alliance filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the executive order violates the guarantees of free speech, equal protection, and due process. So, exactly what is CRT, why is it under attack, and what does it mean for the civil rights lawyer?

      CRT is not a diversity and inclusion “training” but a practice of interrogating the role of race and racism in society that emerged in the legal academy and spread to other fields of scholarship. Crenshaw—who coined the term “CRT”—notes that CRT is not a noun, but a verb. It cannot be confined to a static and narrow definition but is considered to be an evolving and malleable practice. It critiques how the social construction of race and institutionalized racism perpetuate a racial caste system that relegates people of color to the bottom tiers. CRT also recognizes that race intersects with other identities, including sexuality, gender identity, and others. CRT recognizes that racism is not a bygone relic of the past. Instead, it acknowledges that the legacy of slavery, segregation, and the imposition of second-class citizenship on Black Americans and other people of color continue to permeate the social fabric of this nation.

      Principles of the CRT Practice
      While recognizing the evolving and malleable nature of CRT, scholar Khiara Bridges outlines a few key tenets of CRT, including:

      Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant. It recognizes that science (as demonstrated in the Human Genome Project) refutes the idea of biological racial differences. According to scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, race is the product of social thought and is not connected to biological reality.
      Acknowledgement that racism is a normal feature of society and is embedded within systems and institutions, like the legal system, that replicate racial inequality. This dismisses the idea that racist incidents are aberrations but instead are manifestations of structural and systemic racism.

      Rejection of popular understandings about racism, such as arguments that confine racism to a few “bad apples.” CRT recognizes that racism is codified in law, embedded in structures, and woven into public policy. CRT rejects claims of meritocracy or “colorblindness.” CRT recognizes that it is the systemic nature of racism that bears primary responsibility for reproducing racial inequality.
      Recognition of the relevance of people’s everyday lives to scholarship. This includes embracing the lived experiences of people of color, including those preserved through storytelling, and rejecting deficit-informed research that excludes the epistemologies of people of color.


      “Crenshaw—who coined the term “CRT”—notes that CRT is not a noun, but a verb. It cannot be confined to a static and narrow definition but is considered to be an evolving and malleable practice. It critiques how the social construction of race and institutionalized racism perpetuate a racial caste system that relegates people of color to the bottom tiers.”

      Consider this sentence from above, which is the rhetorical crux of this matter:

      “It cannot be confined to a static and narrow definition.”

      This disingenuous and specious assertion is the essence of Woke ideology. The essence of this claim is that there is actually no definition of CRT. The concept is “malleable”, it is “evolving”, in other words it is anything they chose it to be. CTR is a term of art, open to interpretation by anyone who chooses to apply it to any circumstance like a coat of delible paint. And that is why Critical Race Theory is a mockery of reason and rationality.



      1. What is an example of genus and species?

        A genus consists of a large number of organisms, whereas species consists of a fewer number of organisms. The best example is animals like zebra, horses, and donkeys which belong to the same Genus “Equss”. Meaning all the different species of zebra, donkey, and horses all belong to Equss.

        The species Homo sapiens sapiens are in the genus Primate.

        There is only ONE human species on planet Earth: Homo sapiens sapiens



  13. Cultural Marxism And Social Unrest (The Reparations Con)
    South Africa’s government under the ANC (African National Congress) was already going full communist in 2018-2019 before the covid pandemic. Under proposed amendments to the constitution, they demanded that “reparations” be taken from white farmers in the form of land grabs, which would then be redistributed to black citizens.

    This is the classic critical race theory argument – That because colonialism once existed, all beneficiaries and their supposed descendants owe dues to the descendants of indigenous people who lost their lands. The problem is, only the descendants of WHITE colonists are required to pay dues.

    This is exactly the same path that socialists/Marxists in the Democratic Party are pursuing in the US, with some states and cities demanding reparations for blacks be written into law because of slavery nearly 200 years ago. The reparations movement is tiny, but like all other social justice initiatives it is gaining power because politicians and corporations are supporting it artificially. Why? That’s easy: It’s all about divide and conquer.

    I think my take on it is simplified, but I feel this needs to be said because CRT and social justice lunatics tend to over-complicate issues in order to distract from certain fundamental realities. Black and brown people invaded each other’s lands and enslaved their neighbors for thousands of years before white people ever showed up on the scene. White people were made slaved within certain civilizations for many centuries as well, and yes, it was just as bad for them as it was for black slaves in America. Slavery and colonialism has NEVER been relegated to only one race or ethnicity. This is historic fact.

    But, that’s all forgotten in the bizarre justifications of critical race theorists. Why are white people the only people that are supposed to pay reparations when the whole world has been killing each other for land and resources since the beginning of recorded history?

    Frankly, if your ancestors lost a bunch of land centuries ago to colonists, then perhaps they should have fought harder for it. You don’t get to suddenly wave your hand and magically claim it back centuries later by default through government enforced eminent domain just because your ancestors sucked at self defense. Go back in time and tell your great-great-great-grandparents to “Get Good.”




    Seventy-six years ago, as the allies were consolidating their victory over the Nazi machine and as the “Nuremburg Tribunals” were quickly being arranged, a new strategy was set into motion by the very same forces that had put vast energy, money and resources into the rise of fascism as “the miracle solution” of post-WWI economic chaos that had spread across Europe and the USA.

    It is among the greatest scandals of our age that the Wall Street- City of London machine that financed Hitler and Mussolini as battering rams for a new world order were never actually brought to justice.

    Although Franklin Roosevelt managed to put a leash on Wall Street between 1933-1945, while setting the world stage for a beautiful post-war vision of win-win cooperation, the darker forces of the financier oligarchy who wanted only to establish a global unipolar system of governance not only avoided punishment, but wasted no time to regain their lost hegemony before the war had come to a close.


    One of the conceptual grand strategists of this process was a man named Julian Sorrel Huxley (1887-1975). Celebrated as a biologist, and social reformer, Julian was a devout life-long member of the British Eugenics Society serving alongside John Maynard Keynes as secretary and later as its president.

    Julian was a busy man, who along with his brother Aldous, worked hard to fill the very large shoes of their grandfather Thomas (aka: Darwin’s bulldog). While simultaneously managing the post-WW2 eugenics movement, Julian found himself setting into motion the modern environmental movement as founder of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature in 1948, co-founding the World Wildlife Fund in 1961, created the term “transhumanism” and also founding an immensely influential United Nations body called UNESCO (abbreviated for the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization) in 1946 which he ran as Director General from 1946-1948.

    The mandate for the new organization was set out clearly in Huxley’s 1946 UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy:

    The moral for UNESCO is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realised through the means assigned to it- education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise, as the only certain means of avoiding war… in its educational programme it can stress the ultimate need for a world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization.”



    1. Nuremburg. failed to address the funding of the Nazis by Wall Street.
      Nazis, and the Soviets were financed by the Wall Street banking cartel. Financing both war and recnstruction is the biggest money making scam on the planet. Real money — Gold.


  15. What liberals get wrong about race
    The media’s fixation with identity has skewed reality

    This media fixation on identity politics, alongside pre-existing misperceptions, ultimately skews the public’s sense of reality. The number of unarmed black men killed by police in the Washington Post’s own database in 2019 was between 13 and, using a very broad definition of “unarmed”, 27. Yet nearly half of “very liberal” Americans think the number is between 1,000 and 10,000. There were over twice as many unarmed whites killed by police as blacks but, as John McWhorter, author of the new book Woke Racism notes, this never makes the news because it doesn’t fit the narrative of white racial violence against African-Americans.



    1. “I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.
      The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance.”

      ~ Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark



      1. A core principle of the academic movement that shot through elite schools in America since the early nineties was the view that individual rights, humanism, and the democratic process are all just stalking-horses for white supremacy. The concept, as articulated in books like former corporate consultant Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility (Amazon’s #1 seller!) reduces everything, even the smallest and most innocent human interactions, to racial power contests.

        It’s been mind-boggling to watch White Fragility celebrated in recent weeks. When it surged past a Hunger Games book on bestseller lists, USA Today cheered, “American readers are more interested in combatting racism than in literary escapism.” When DiAngelo appeared on The Tonight Show, Jimmy Fallon gushed, “I know… everyone wants to talk to you right now!” White Fragility has been pitched as an uncontroversial road-map for fighting racism, at a time when after the murder of George Floyd Americans are suddenly (and appropriately) interested in doing just that. Except this isn’t a straightforward book about examining one’s own prejudices. Have the people hyping this impressively crazy book actually read it?

        DiAngelo isn’t the first person to make a buck pushing tricked-up pseudo-intellectual horseshit as corporate wisdom, but she might be the first to do it selling Hitlerian race theory. White Fragility has a simple message: there is no such thing as a universal human experience, and we are defined not by our individual personalities or moral choices, but only by our racial category.

        If your category is “white,” bad news: you have no identity apart from your participation in white supremacy (“Anti-blackness is foundational to our very identities… Whiteness has always been predicated on blackness”), which naturally means “a positive white identity is an impossible goal.”

        DiAngelo instructs us there is nothing to be done here, except “strive to be less white.” To deny this theory, or to have the effrontery to sneak away from the tedium of DiAngelo’s lecturing – what she describes as “leaving the stress-inducing situation” – is to affirm her conception of white supremacy. This intellectual equivalent of the “ordeal by water” (if you float, you’re a witch) is orthodoxy across much of academia.

        DiAngelo’s writing style is pure pain. The lexicon favored by intersectional theorists of this type is built around the same principles as Orwell’s Newspeak: it banishes ambiguity, nuance, and feeling and structures itself around sterile word pairs, like racist and antiracist, platform and deplatform, center and silence, that reduce all thinking to a series of binary choices. Ironically, Donald Trump does something similar, only with words like “AMAZING!” and “SAD!” that are simultaneously more childish and livelier.

        Read entire article:


        Liked by 1 person

  16. Critical Race Theory: What It Is and How to Fight It
    March 2021 • Volume 50, Number 3 • Christopher F. Rufo
    Christopher F. Rufo
    Founder and Director, Battlefront

    Christopher F. Rufo is founder and director of Battlefront, a public policy research center. He is a graduate of Georgetown University and a former Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. As executive director at the Documentary Foundation, he has directed four films for PBS, including most recently America Lost, which explores life in Youngstown, Ohio, Memphis, Tennessee, and Stockton, California. He is also a contributing editor of City Journal, where he covers topics including critical race theory, homelessness, addiction, and crime.

    The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on March 30, 2021.

    Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy. Yet most Americans have never heard of it—and of those who have, many don’t understand it. It’s time for this to change. We need to know what it is so we can know how to fight it.

    In explaining critical race theory, it helps to begin with a brief history of Marxism. Originally, the Marxist Left built its political program on the theory of class conflict. Marx believed that the primary characteristic of industrial societies was the imbalance of power between capitalists and workers. The solution to that imbalance, according to Marx, was revolution: the workers would eventually gain consciousness of their plight, seize the means of production, overthrow the capitalist class, and usher in a new socialist society.

    During the 20th century, a number of regimes underwent Marxist-style revolutions, and each ended in disaster. Socialist governments in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba, and elsewhere racked up a body count of nearly 100 million of their own people. They are remembered for their gulags, show trials, executions, and mass starvations. In practice, Marx’s ideas unleashed man’s darkest brutalities.

    By the mid-1960s, Marxist intellectuals in the West had begun to acknowledge these failures. They recoiled at revelations of Soviet atrocities and came to realize that workers’ revolutions would never occur in Western Europe or the United States, where there were large middle classes and rapidly improving standards of living. Americans in particular had never developed a sense of class consciousness or class division. Most Americans believed in the American dream—the idea that they could transcend their origins through education, hard work, and good citizenship.

    But rather than abandon their Leftist political project, Marxist scholars in the West simply adapted their revolutionary theory to the social and racial unrest of the 1960s. Abandoning Marx’s economic dialectic of capitalists and workers, they substituted race for class and sought to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories.

    Fortunately, the early proponents of this revolutionary coalition in the U.S. lost out in the 1960s to the civil rights movement, which sought instead the fulfillment of the American promise of freedom and equality under the law. Americans preferred the idea of improving their country to that of overthrowing it. The vision of Martin Luther King, Jr., President Johnson’s pursuit of the Great Society, and the restoration of law and order promised by President Nixon in his 1968 campaign defined the post-1960s American political consensus.

    But the radical Left has proved resilient and enduring—which is where critical race theory comes in.


    Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s, built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism. Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, over the past decade it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions. It has been injected into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs, and corporate human resources departments in the form of diversity training programs, human resources modules, public policy frameworks, and school curricula.

    There are a series of euphemisms deployed by its supporters to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion,” and “culturally responsive teaching.” Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, equality—the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War, and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—is explicitly rejected by critical race theorists. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression.

    In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA Law Professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines. Critical race guru Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism. This department would be independent of (i.e., unaccountable to) the elected branches of government, and would have the power to nullify, veto, or abolish any law at any level of government and curtail the speech of political leaders and others who are deemed insufficiently “antiracist.”

    One practical result of the creation of such a department would be the overthrow of capitalism, since according to Kendi, “In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” In other words, identity is the means and Marxism is the end.

    An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property, but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism, and freedom of speech. These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination, and omnipotent bureaucratic authority. Historically, the accusation of “anti-Americanism” has been overused. But in this case, it’s not a matter of interpretation—critical race theory prescribes a revolutionary program that would overturn the principles of the Declaration and destroy the remaining structure of the Constitution.


    What does critical race theory look like in practice? Last year, I authored a series of reports focused on critical race theory in the federal government. The FBI was holding workshops on intersectionality theory. The Department of Homeland Security was telling white employees they were committing “microinequities” and had been “socialized into oppressor roles.” The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that “virtually all white people contribute to racism” and that they must convert “everyone in the federal government” to the ideology of “antiracism.” And the Sandia National Laboratories, which designs America’s nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day reeducation camp, where they were told that “white male culture” was analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists,” and “mass killings.” The executives were then forced to renounce their “white male privilege” and write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color.

    This year, I produced another series of reports focused on critical race theory in education. In Cupertino, California, an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, and rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.” In Springfield, Missouri, a middle school forced teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” based on the idea that straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class and must atone for their privilege and “covert white supremacy.” In Philadelphia, an elementary school forced fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally to free 1960s radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder. And in Seattle, the school district told white teachers that they are guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance.”

    I’m just one investigative journalist, but I’ve developed a database of more than 1,000 of these stories. When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, it is not an exaggeration—from the universities to bureaucracies to k-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down.

    This is a revolutionary change. When originally established, these government institutions were presented as neutral, technocratic, and oriented towards broadly-held perceptions of the public good. Today, under the increasing sway of critical race theory and related ideologies, they are being turned against the American people. This isn’t limited to the permanent bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., but is true as well of institutions in the states, even in red states, and it is spreading to county public health departments, small Midwestern school districts, and more. This ideology will not stop until it has devoured all of our institutions.


    Thus far, attempts to halt the encroachment of critical race theory have been ineffective. There are a number of reasons for this.

    First, too many Americans have developed an acute fear of speaking up about social and political issues, especially those involving race. According to a recent Gallup poll, 77 percent of conservatives are afraid to share their political beliefs publicly. Worried about getting mobbed on social media, fired from their jobs, or worse, they remain quiet, largely ceding the public debate to those pushing these anti-American ideologies. Consequently, the institutions themselves become monocultures: dogmatic, suspicious, and hostile to a diversity of opinion. Conservatives in both the federal government and public school systems have told me that their “equity and inclusion” departments serve as political offices, searching for and stamping out any dissent from the official orthodoxy.

    Second, critical race theorists have constructed their argument like a mousetrap. Disagreement with their program becomes irrefutable evidence of a dissenter’s “white fragility,” “unconscious bias,” or “internalized white supremacy.” I’ve seen this projection of false consciousness on their opponents play out dozens of times in my reporting. Diversity trainers will make an outrageous claim—such as “all whites are intrinsically oppressors” or “white teachers are guilty of spirit murdering black children”—and then when confronted with disagreement, they adopt a patronizing tone and explain that participants who feel “defensiveness” or “anger” are reacting out of guilt and shame. Dissenters are instructed to remain silent, “lean into the discomfort,” and accept their “complicity in white supremacy.”

    Third, Americans across the political spectrum have failed to separate the premise of critical race theory from its conclusion. Its premise—that American history includes slavery and other injustices, and that we should examine and learn from that history—is undeniable. But its revolutionary conclusion—that America was founded on and defined by racism and that our founding principles, our Constitution, and our way of life should be overthrown—does not rightly, much less necessarily, follow.

    Fourth and finally, the writers and activists who have had the courage to speak out against critical race theory have tended to address it on the theoretical level, pointing out the theory’s logical contradictions and dishonest account of history. These criticisms are worthy and good, but they move the debate into the academic realm, which is friendly terrain for proponents of critical race theory. They fail to force defenders of this revolutionary ideology to defend the practical consequences of their ideas in the realm of politics.


    No longer simply an academic matter, critical race theory has become a tool of political power. To borrow a phrase from the Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, it is fast achieving “cultural hegemony” in America’s public institutions. More and more, it is driving the vast machinery of the state and society. If we want to succeed in opposing it, we must address it politically at every level.

    Critical race theorists must be confronted with and forced to speak to the facts. Do they support public schools separating first-graders into groups of “oppressors” and “oppressed”? Do they support mandatory curricula teaching that “all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism”? Do they support public schools instructing white parents to become “white traitors” and advocate for “white abolition”? Do they want those who work in government to be required to undergo this kind of reeducation? How about managers and workers in corporate America? How about the men and women in our military? How about every one of us?

    There are three parts to a successful strategy to defeat the forces of critical race theory: governmental action, grassroots mobilization, and an appeal to principle.

    We already see examples of governmental action. Last year, one of my reports led President Trump to issue an executive order banning critical race theory-based training programs in the federal government. President Biden rescinded this order on his first day in office, but it provides a model for governors and municipal leaders to follow. This year, several state legislatures have introduced bills to achieve the same goal: preventing public institutions from conducting programs that stereotype, scapegoat, or demean people on the basis of race. And I have organized a coalition of attorneys to file lawsuits against schools and government agencies that impose critical race theory-based programs on grounds of the First Amendment (which protects citizens from compelled speech), the Fourteenth Amendment (which provides equal protection under the law), and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race).

    On the grassroots level, a multiracial and bipartisan coalition is emerging to do battle against critical race theory. Parents are mobilizing against racially divisive curricula in public schools and employees are increasingly speaking out against Orwellian reeducation in the workplace. When they see what is happening, Americans are naturally outraged that critical race theory promotes three ideas—race essentialism, collective guilt, and neo-segregation—which violate the basic principles of equality and justice. Anecdotally, many Chinese-Americans have told me that having survived the Cultural Revolution in their former country, they refuse to let the same thing happen here.

    In terms of principles, we need to employ our own moral language rather than allow ourselves to be confined by the categories of critical race theory. For example, we often find ourselves debating “diversity.” Diversity as most of us understand it is generally good, all things being equal, but it is of secondary value. We should be talking about and aiming at excellence, a common standard that challenges people of all backgrounds to achieve their potential. On the scale of desirable ends, excellence beats diversity every time.

    Similarly, in addition to pointing out the dishonesty of the historical narrative on which critical race theory is predicated, we must promote the true story of America—a story that is honest about injustices in American history, but that places them in the context of our nation’s high ideals and the progress we have made towards realizing them. Genuine American history is rich with stories of achievements and sacrifices that will move the hearts of Americans—in stark contrast to the grim and pessimistic narrative pressed by critical race theorists.

    Above all, we must have courage—the fundamental virtue required in our time. Courage to stand and speak the truth. Courage to withstand epithets. Courage to face the mob. Courage to shrug off the scorn of the elites. When enough of us overcome the fear that currently prevents so many from speaking out, the hold of critical race theory will begin to slip. And courage begets courage. It’s easy to stop a lone dissenter; it’s much harder to stop 10, 20, 100, 1,000, 1,000,000, or more who stand up together for the principles of America.

    Truth and justice are on our side. If we can muster the courage, we will win.



  17. Colorado University-Boulder Conference: “Decolonize” Yourself But Not With a “Sense of Urgency”
    by Jonathan Turley

    Faculty across the country are being asked or required to take courses on diversity and equity as part of anti-racism programs. There are remarkable differences between these programs, including one at the Colorado University at Boulder where faculty and graduate students are taught to shed the “cultural norms of white supremacy” and to “decolonize” their classes. According to the conservative site Campus Reform, this includes rejecting “neoliberal” concepts of time by combating “perfectionism” and the “sense of urgency.”

    The university’s Equitable Teaching Conference, hosted by the University’s Center for Teaching and Learning included a session titled “Anti-racist pedagogy and decolonizing the classroom,” taught by Dr. Becca Ciancanelli. One of the slides reportedly warned against “perfectionism,” “sense of urgency,” “quantity over quality,” and “individualism” as “Cultural norms of White Supremacy.”

    Individualism is not a new matter of debate. When I discuss different legal theories in my class (including feminism, Critical Legal Studies (CLS), and Critical Race Theory (CRT)), a common point of criticism of these scholars is the elevation of the individual over the collective. It can also be part of a dichotomy of rights versus responsibilities in the law. However, these are writings that address the focus or purpose of legal rules or structures in society. The presentation at Boulder suggests that faculty and students should avoid individualism as a trapping of white supremacy in their own lives.

    Ciancarelli’s warnings were based on the work of Professor Sam Bullington, who teaches “unlearning racism, toxic masculinity, and decolonizing teaching, as well as engaged spirituality/spiritual activism” at Boulder.

    There are many cultures that have a “sense of urgency” or a drive for “perfectionism” that are not mere reflections of white supremacy in my view. However, the inclusion of “individualism” as a “cultural norm of White Supremacy” is particularly concerning from the perspective of academic freedom. I value the writings of CLS and CRT scholars on the issue as we discuss the evolution and role of the law in society. However, this program suggests that faculty who believes in strong concepts of individualism are engaging in racist or reactionary conduct. This is an area of great debate among scholars that touches upon core values and beliefs, including classic liberal notions of rights in society. This presentation reduces such beliefs to prejudices or even abusive values in teaching.
    I have no problem with such theories being taught on campuses. They generate important and useful debate. However, the inclusion of such views as part of a teaching conference on best practices is concerning if it is viewed as endorsed by the university. The conference was billed by the university as a resource for “CU Boulder faculty, graduate students and teaching staff who would like to prepare for the fall semester with a focus on equity-minded practices.” That does not sound like a required but rather a recommended course. That is an important distinction. As a conference on “equity-minded practices,” these academics are certainly entitled to present such theories while others (hopefully) can present opposing or alternative views. However, any sense of endorsement by the university would raise serious concerns over academic freedom and free speech.



  18. I think that AI and Transhumanism will implode completely within the next 4 years. So I have to agree with Sam on this.

    We are human, we have souls. We are each of us unique individuals. The neo-tribalism of so-called “Critical Theory” and Wokism is a passing madness that must, and will self implode, by the vacuum it creates in its thin fragile shell.



    1. The Clash of the Two Americas volume 1: The Unfinished Symphony Jul 21, 2021
      by Matthew Ehret, Cynthia Chung

      The United States today sits upon a precipice and the dream of the Founding Fathers of a new age of reason for all humankind may soon be washed away by the sands of time as just another failed effort to bring humanity into alignment with the force of Natural Law.
      Time and again, humanity has been brought closer to this dream of an age of moral reason and cooperation that would define the terms of international law, political-economy, the arts and even science policy. The topic was treated at length in Plato’s Republic, Laws, and Gorgias, just as it was treated by the great Platonist of the Roman Republic, Cicero in his Commonwealth and Laws. It was treated thoroughly by the Platonic Christian St. Augustine of Hippo in his City of God and Free Choice of the Will and it was treated by Augustine’s followers Alcuin (advisor to Charlemagne), Dante Alighieri, Nicholas of Cusa and countless great Renaissance scholars and statesmen.
      The idea of a society founded upon the cultivation of the love of higher pleasures of the spirit rather than the feeding of the lower pleasures of the fleshly passions is thus a long standing one which has never been properly resolved and which has been sabotaged relentlessly by historic forces seeking to keep humanity enslaved to beliefs in sense perceptions as serfs chained to a cave wall believing that those shadows cast before their eyes were all the reality that exists.
      It is our contention that without an appreciation for this dynamic interplay between sets of paradigms as a driving force in global grand strategy, then it were impossible to achieve any truthful understanding of what made such anomalies of history as the 15th century Italian Renaissance, the 1648 Peace of Westphalia or the 1776 American Revolution possible.
      This volume will showcase the international grand design led by Benjamin Franklin that manifested in the establishment of the American republic and trace the next 130 years of world history as the USA was targetted for destruction by oligarchical forces from London and also from within leading up to the assassination of William McKinley in 1901.


  19. In this exclusive interview, Dr. Jordan Peterson joins Steven for the first time in more than a year. They discuss COVID power-grabs, Big Tech censorship, and the dangers of tyrannical government. Don’t miss Tuesday’s episode of “Louder with Crowder.”


  20. Tucker Carlson likened critical race theory to “Nazi stuff” after admitting on his Fox News show that he has “never figured out” what the academic theory actually is, despite talking about it for months.

    Carlson once again brought up critical race theory on Wednesday night following Glenn Youngkin’s gubernatorial victory in Virginia.

    The Fox News host suggested that one of the main reasons why Youngkin won in Virginia is because he listened to parents’ concerns about critical race theory being taught in schools, as opposed to his democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe, who dismissed the debate as a “racist dog whistle.”

    Tulsi Gabbard Calls Youngkin’s Virginia Win a ‘Victory for All Americans’

    Joe Scarborough Says Democrats Must Tackle ‘Wokism’ After Virginia Loss

    Glenn Youngkin Wins Virginia, Blazing 2022 Trail for GOP Through Schools

    McAuliffe was also heavily criticized for suggesting that parents should not “be telling schools what they should teach” while discussing the academic theory during a debate in September.

    During an interview with Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume, Carlson stated that Youngkin won because he “went right to the things that people talk about on social media” such as critical race theory before saying he has never fully worked out what the academic theory is.

    “There’s ample evidence that critical race theory very much influences and is injected into what is being taught in those schools and these parents knew that,” Hume said.


  21. Project Veritas, Assange, and the Authoritarian Decree of Who Is a “Real Journalist”
    On this episode of System Update, I discuss the FBI’s targeting of James O’Keefe, and hallmarks of authoritarian attacks on press freedoms.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: