The End of Basic Education: Biden Issues Universal Public School Critical Race Theory Order

BY KIMBERLY HERMANN

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/columns/kimberlyhermann/2021/04/22/the-end-of-basic-education-biden-issues-universal-public-school-critical-race-theory-order-n1441832;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Biden Department of Education has quietly proposed a new rule prioritizing the use of federal tax dollars for K-12 schools that replace traditional education with “culturally responsive teaching and learning” – more commonly referred to as critical race theory. This is the most significant move by the federal government to redefine the nature of state-funded public schools in U.S. history.

Although the current effort to push public schools receiving federal funding to adopt a detailed indoctrination agenda may feel new and overwhelming for parents, the truth is that the Biden attempt is simply the last phase in a decades-long effort to control local schools and press the progressive agenda on our children. With the power of taxpayer-funded purse strings, the federal government sends a message to public schools that if they want financial aid they must “teach” critical race theory and prioritize its ideologically anti-American, anti-traditional agenda over traditional education.

Under Obama, public schools were thrust into the controversial world of Common Core, a series of federal mandates that included “awareness education” involving a progressive view of race, gender, and so-called “equity” (not to be confused with “equality”).

Under Biden, a far more aggressive level of federal control over our nation’s K-12 classrooms will replace history (and objective truth) with identity politics and a warped view of American civics and institutions. In many cases, teachers are told to hide the racially divisive curriculum from parents. In others, students are encouraged to report the words and views of their parents and caretakers as examples of institutional racism. The initial goal is the indoctrination of young minds, but the long view is to aggregate power behind an alien political worldview that fed the dehumanizing machines of the Soviet Union and communist China.

At its core, critical race theory is the false idea that the United States is a fundamentally racist country and that all of our nation’s institutions – the law, culture, business, economy, education – are designed to maintain white supremacy. Politicians and pundits market critical race theory as inclusive teaching, one that promotes understanding and tolerance. When the truth is exposed, they try to repackage it in a series of euphemisms, including anti-racism, equity, or culturally responsive teaching. But the “scholars,” like Ibram X. Kendi and the 1619 Project behind the related anti-racist rhetoric proposed in the rule – the true believers – admit the truth.

Critical race theory curriculum tells students that they fall into one of two categories – the oppressed or the oppressor – based solely on the color of their skin. It tells students that if they are white then they are privileged and racist, and makes them affirm this ideology through classroom discussion and assignments. Some school districts take it even a step further and physically segregate students based on their race for lessons, reducing them to nothing more than a set of racial stereotypes.

This is not healthy. It erases decades of progress. And it pits our children against each other, teaching them to hate one another. Parents must stay alert because this week’s proposed rule is just the beginning. Senate and House Democrats have already introduced bills, including the Civics Secures Democracy Act, which would require schools to promote critical race theory in exchange for more federal money.

The go-for-broke approach of the Biden administration to upend bulwarks of the American constitutional republic, from Supreme Court-packing to open borders to emptying the public treasury to ensuring federal control of elections, reveals the true agenda: the consolidation of power. And nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in its drive to replace history, reading, and writing with noxious doctrine designed to replace both parental control and constitutional rule of law.

Young America’s Foundation: AZ Elementary School Proposes Race-Based Hiring Quotas, Parents and One Board Member Fight Back in Fiery Meeting

BY KARA ZUPKUS

SEE: https://www.yaf.org/news/video-az-elementary-school-proposes-race-based-hiring-quotas-parents-and-one-board-member-fight-back-in-fiery-meeting/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Litchfield Elementary School District in Litchfield, Arizona has proposed enacting elements of critical race theory in a new “equity plan,” causing controversy and uproar among parents.

Things got heated at a recent school board meeting, where parents against the proposal dominated the public comment portion of the evening slamming the board members who support CRT–with some going as far as threatening to recall them from the board.

“My children are taught at home the value of people–that you treat people the way their character and integrity define them in your view. That is not a place for the district or the board to impose a leftist rhetoric that has no place in our schools,” one parent lamented.

The sole school board member opposed to CRT, Jeremy Hoenack, slammed his fellow board members for their lack of transparency in the truth behind the training.

“How do you increase the diversity of applicants by race? That’s illegal–the diversity of hiring should be based on the applicants’ ability to excel at their job, regardless of their skin color,” Hoenack remarked on the proposal for proposed racial hiring quotas for teachers.

The full proposal, obtained exclusively through Young America’s Foundation’s Campus Bias Tip Line, suggests minimizing punishment for black students and re-examining library book selections and class curriculum to become more inclusive. The proposal centers around Ibram X. Kendi’s definition of “anti-racism.”

The district, composed of 10 elementary schools and 5 middle schools, boasts only a 57 percent proficiency rate in math, and 56 percent proficiency in reading–yet these school board members have taken it upon themselves to instead focus on dividing students with hateful rhetoric and false narratives regarding racial discrimination.

Jeremy Hoenack and these brave parents refusing to bow to the woke mob set an example for the rest of America––we must not be afraid to stand up against what is fundamentally wrong, especially when it comes to the education of our children.

The Resegregation of America

BY JARRETT STEPMAN

SEE: https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/03/31/resegregation-of-america;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to ignore a growing, insidious ethos overtaking America’s most powerful institutions.

Individual merit and reasoned debate are out. “Lived experience” and the hierarchy of group grievance are now what matter most.

Even truth is considered meaningless. Narratives are everything.

The concept of fundamental human equality, derived from ideas at the heart of America’s founding and famously rearticulated by civil rights champion Martin Luther King Jr. in his “I Have a Dream” speech, is now being replaced by the enforced “equity” of the woke.

The end result, ironically, is the resegregation of America.

This new woke ideology, building on critical race theory, not only rejects the concept that people should be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character, it increasingly also embraces actual governmental race-based discrimination.

The evidence of this shift is everywhere.

To no one’s surprise, segregation is popular on modern college campuses, where these ideas originally bubbled up. Many schools, such as New York University, have been besieged with demands for racially segregated student housing, despite that being likely illegal.

Columbia University is now offering segregated graduation ceremonies for various racial and gender identity groups. Columbia, an Ivy League school, insists that these segregated ceremonies are all voluntary and in addition to the larger, integrated ceremony, but who’s to say that will continue?

By next year, would it be a surprise to see schools all over the country copy this practice?

Such ideas are coming to corporate America, too.

Proposition 16 in California, which would have officially brought back race-based affirmative action to the state, was rejected by voters. But it was widely supported by a gaggle of corporations, nonprofit groups, and well-connected billionaires.

Voters may balk at race-based discrimination, but woke corporations are seemingly happy to inject racial categories in their business models.

Open up an app for food-delivery services, such as Uber Eats, for instance, and you will likely see a section for “black-owned businesses.”

Are we now going to start choosing our dinner by racial group rather than by cuisine?

Such moves to create a more racialized society would be bad enough if they were only limited to college campuses and the practices of woke businesses, but they are disturbingly being incorporated into government policy, too.

Two Democratic senators recently said that they would no longer vote to confirm “non-diversity” nominees for federal government posts.

“I am a ‘no’ vote on the floor, on all non-diversity nominees,” said Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., “You know, I will vote for racial minorities, and I will vote for LGBTQ, but anybody else, I’m not voting for.”

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, concurred with Duckworth.

“We’re not just calling for [Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders],” Hirono said. “This is not about pitting one diversity group against them. So, I’m happy to vote for a Hispanic or black person and LGBTQ person and AAPI person.”

So, they’d vote to confirm any nominee—as long as he wasn’t straight and white.

Duckworth and Hirono eventually backed down from that stance, but the threat was telling.

Qualifications are irrelevant. Racial discrimination is good, as long as you discriminate against the right people.

The efforts to place identity before all other considerations do not just stop at those who can serve in government.

Several senators have floated legislation to create race-based programs that would direct funding toward specific racial groups. The Biden administration is backing the creation of a commission to investigate the possibility of reparations for slavery.

Cities are experimenting with race-based laws, too.

Libby Schaaf, the mayor of Oakland, California, announced that the city will be creating a universal basic income program in partnership with a nonprofit organization that will only give money to “black, indigenous, and other people of color,” according to KPIX-TV, the CBS affiliate in the Bay Area.

The program, which will give $500 a month to 600 low-income families for 18 months, was justified by supporters as based on statistical poverty disparities among racial groups.

The money for the program will come from Blue Meridian Partners, a philanthropic organization.

That opens up a few questions, beyond just its legality.

Will American citizens now need to take a genetic test to qualify for government services?

After all, we live in an age where gender is supposedly “fluid,” but race and culture, we’re told, are absolute.

Also, what exactly does a group disparity or statistic mean to anyone living in poverty who doesn’t qualify as a “person of color”?

You won’t receive aid, but there’s good news: You’re helping the government create more equity by being poor. Congratulations!

As my colleague Mike Gonzalez wrote for City Journal, many of these proposals are likely unconstitutional and illegal violations of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and Titles VI and VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

That clearly won’t stop the woke from pushing them on Americans anyway.

“The woke Left understands that, as written and amended, the Constitution stands in the way of many of the things that it wants to do,” Gonzalez wrote. “This is why the Left has set about to cast the Constitution as illegitimate by, for example, purposely mischaracterizing the three-fifths compromise, pretending that the document perpetuated slavery, or calling it, as Kendi does, a ‘colorblind Constitution for a White-supremacist America.’”

That’s a reference to Ibram X. Kendi, a so-called anti-racist intellectual who has become massively popular in media and in higher-education circles.

Kendi aims to redefine racism as a collective, systemic act, rather than an individual one; denounces the concept of a colorblind society; and argues that racial discrimination can be good—as long as it’s pointed in the right direction.

Whether you’ve heard of Kendi or not, his ideas are now everywhere and are being delivered in a steady and growing dose to Americans and other people throughout the West.

America hasn’t always lived up to the promise of equality laid out in the Declaration of Independence. Slavery and segregation ran alongside our institutions and culture of liberty.

But the founding generation designed our system to bend toward justice and the truth. In time, we have built upon our cornerstone of freedom and corrected our flaws as a nation.

The intellectual vanguards of wokeness and critical race theory demand that the most fundamental aspects of self-government and preservation of individual rights be abandoned to serve the cause of destroying “systemic racism.”

Arguing to the contrary may be racist and, if Kendi gets his way, practically illegal—at least illegal for anyone in a position of power.

So, not only is America to be resegregated, but unlike in our past—when the American people were persuaded and freely chose to abandon and prohibit race-based policies—this time we will have no choice, and will simply be at the whim of woke apparatchiks.

Today, we may be debating whether our national origin is 1776 or 1619, but if our current course continues, our future will look more like 1917, the year of the communist Russian Revolution. For one group to rise, another must come down.

Race will simply replace class as the prime motivator of the revolution and eventual tyranny.

What we will end up with is misery, recriminations, and segregation now, tomorrow, and forever.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.

Minnesota Dinner Theater: ‘Cinderella’ Falls Prey to the Woke ‘Diversity’ Mob

If the Woke Fascists Decide to Target and Destroy You, They'll Target and Destroy You

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/culture/robert-spencer/2021/03/29/theater-of-the-absurd-cinderella-production-canceled-for-being-too-white-n1435784;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

You’ve heard of the theatre of the absurd? Well, here’s some more: the Daily Wire reported Friday that “a Minnesota suburban theater canceled its production of ‘Cinderella,’ citing that the cast had too many white actors.” Whiteness is the root of all evil these days, and Minnesota, what with its winsome Rep. Ilhan Omar, is a national epicenter of white shame, but this is over the top even for the Hating Whitey industry.

According to the Daily Wire, “Chanhassen Dinner Theatres announced on its website that the production of ‘Cinderella’ was not aligned with its current diversity, equity, and inclusion goals. Instead of recasting the production to include more people of color, the theater opted to nix the production entirely.”

Now, wait a minute. “Hamilton” was just a huge hit on Broadway with a predominantly non-white cast, and the intelligentsia was thrilled. So why not win a few Social Credit points by casting a few “people of color” in key roles in “Cinderella,” rather than filling up the cast with colorless oppressors?

The problem with doing that may have lain with “Cinderella” itself. After all, Chanhassen Dinner Theatres couldn’t very well cast black actresses in the roles of the wicked stepsisters; that would reinforce some racist trope or other. And even Cinderella herself couldn’t be a black actress, for then the Prince would be her “white savior.” Can’t have that. How about making the Prince a “person of color” as well? That would still leave Cinderella as a servant before she is magically raised out of poverty, and if Gone with the Wind is not acceptable today, then that wouldn’t be, either.

What if the Prince were a person of color but Cinderella was white? No, that would be the hand of kindness extended to the oppressor who is rightly and justly humiliated after enriching herself for centuries on the backs of oppressed people of other races. It would also depict an interracial love affair, which, if you haven’t been keeping up, is now racist among the woke crowd, warming the cold hearts of Democrats such as Orval Faubus, Bull Connor, and other segregationists down through American history.

And thus the plug had to be pulled. “After careful consideration and with our ongoing commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Chanhassen Dinner Theatres has made the decision to cancel our upcoming production of Rodgers & Hammerstein’s Cinderella,” the theater said in a statement. “Our hope in beginning the production process again with a new title will allow us to put into practice an intentional process based on the work we have been doing towards equity and inclusivity.”

The theater announced that it was offering a paid position to a person of color who would help them make their productions “anti-racist.” The theater statement added: “We believe this new process will allow us to tell the story in a rich way and allow us to live out our commitment to identity-conscious casting and becoming a more intentionally anti-racist theater.”

However brilliant and talented the new hire may be, that will prove to be impossible. There is no production of “Cinderella” or anything else today that is not vulnerable to cancellation by the woke fascists because their criteria for what is acceptably non-racist are fluid, malleable, shifting, and opportunistic. If they decide to target and destroy you, they will target and destroy you. If they have to misrepresent your intentions and twist your words to do so, they will. If they have to put a negative and indeed sinister spin on actions that were completely innocuous, like the casting of a musical set in Europe with people of European descent, they will.

This is by now a tried and tested tactic on the left. It was first employed in the highly successful effort to stigmatize, demonize, and render toxic anyone who dared to oppose jihad violence and Sharia oppression. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s smearing of these people as “hate group leaders,” and their highly tendentious dossiers on them, made up of statements ripped from their context and willfully misrepresented, established a paradigm for the left that is summed up by the famous Miranda Rights statement: Anything you say can and will be used against you.

The management of Chanhassen Dinner Theatres has shown its awareness of this tactic by preemptively canceling their production before it could be accused of being “racist.” But no matter. Whatever show is being put on in the theater down the road will be branded as “racist” next, if the woke fascists choose it for a target, and however absurd the charge may be, they’ll make it stick.

California Curriculum Leads Chant to Aztec God of Human Sacrifice

ABOVE: Tzompantli (wall of skulls) at Templo Mayor, Mexico City. Photo credit Juan Carlos Fonseca Mata, accessed via Creative Commons 4.0 license.

BY TYLER O'NEIL

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/03/12/california-curriculum-leads-kids-in-chant-to-aztec-god-of-human-sacrifice-n1432005;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Next week, the California Department of Education will vote on a new ethnic studies curriculum that seeks to root out “white supremacy,” “colonization,” and the various evils of American culture. The curriculum aims to reverse Christianity’s alleged “theocide” against Native American gods by leading students in a chant to various indigenous deities, including the Aztec god of human sacrifice. This horrific chant arguably violates the First Amendment, but it also exposes the true ugliness of “woke” supremacy.

The Discovery Institute’s Christopher Rufo exposed the new curriculum in City Journal and published the full documents on his blog.

R. Tolteka Cuauhtin, the original co-chair of the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, developed much of the curriculum’s material on early American history. The curriculum cites Cuauhtin’s book Rethinking Ethnic Studies, in which he argues that the United States was founded on “Eurocentric, white supremacist (racist, anti-Black, anti-Indigenous), capitalist (classist), patriarchal (sexist and misogynistic), heteropatriarchal (homophobic), and anthropocentric paradigm brought from Europe.”

The ethnic studies curriculum claims that whites began “grabbing the land,” “hatching hierarchies,” and “developing for Europe/whiteness,” which created “excess wealth” that “became the basis for the capitalist economy.” This white “hegemony” continues to the present, and it allegedly subjects minorities to “socialization, domestication, and ‘zombification.'”

Largest Child-Sacrifice Graveyard Strikes Huge Blow to Native American Innocence Myth

The curriculum singles out Christianity for particular demonization. Cuauhtin claimed that white Christians committed “theocide” by killing indigenous gods while replacing tribal cults with Christianity. White settlers established a regime of “colonially, dehumanization, and genocide,” characterized by the “explicit erasure and replacement of holistic indigeneity and humanity.”

According to the ethnic studies curriculum, the solution is to “name, speak to, resist, and transform the hegemonic Eurocentric neocolonial condition” through a posture of “transformational resistance.” This Marxist resistance aims to “decolonize” American society and establish a new regime of “counter genocide” and “counterhegemony,” to displace white Christian culture and spark a “regeneration of indigenous epistemic and cultural futurity.”

Beneath all the academic language, this entails an effective return to worship of the pagan gods of pre-Columbian America. The curriculum suggests an “ethic studies community chant” complete with invocations of indigenous American deities.

The curriculum urges teachers to lead students in a series of indigenous songs and chants, including the “In Lak Ech Affirmation,” which appeals directly to the Aztec gods. Students clap and chant to the god Tezkatlipoka—whom the Aztecs worshipped with human sacrifice and cannibalism—asking him for the power to become “warriors” for “social justice.” Then the students chant to the gods Quetzalcoatl, Huitzilopochtli, and Xipe Totek, seeking “healing epistemologies” and a “revolutionary spirit.” Huitzilopochtli was the Aztec god of war who inspired hundreds of thousands of human sacrifices.

The chant ends with a request for “liberation, transformation, decolonization,” after which students shout “Panche beh! Panche beh!” in a quest for “critical consciousness.”

As Rufo noted, the curriculum’s support for chants directly appealing to Aztec gods almost certainly violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. If that clause prevents public schools from leading Christian prayers, it must certainly forbid the exact opposite.

Yet in the eyes of Marxist critical theorists, such a religious subversion of Christianity may not even seem religious at all, but merely a reversal of “oppression.”

The SPLC’s Horrifying Plan for Your Children’s Schools

Yes, Marxist critical theorists are so obsessed with throwing off the “white” Christian “oppression” that they will defend even state-sanctioned prayers to the Aztec god of human sacrifice. Never mind that there is nothing inherently “white” about Christianity — Jesus commanded His disciples to preach to all nations, and representatives of people from across the Roman Empire, including Persia and North Africa, were present at the first Pentecost.

This curriculum uses a pagan power matrix to analyze Christianity, which explicitly rejected the idea that the gods of conquering people proved their superiority through conquest. While pagan tribes and kingdoms set up hierarchies, allowing oppressed people to worship their subservient gods so long as they acknowledged the preeminence of the rulers’ god, Jewish prophets taught that the all-powerful God who created the universe allowed His people to be conquered, but that did not make the pagan gods of the conquerors superior to Him. Jesus taught that His kingdom was not of this world, and Christianity stressed inward conversion of heart, not outward conquest of land.

When I traveled to Peru last year — just before the COVID-19 pandemic shut that country down — I saw the great monuments of the Inca empire, and I felt the keen sense of loss in the fact that the Spanish destroyed much of the Incas’ architecture. Yet the Spanish also brought an end to the horrific practice of human sacrifice — which sometimes involved the ritual killing of children.

European powers did oppress indigenous people and the slaves they purchased from Africa, but before them, the indigenous empires carried out horrific oppressions of their own. The Aztecs conquered native tribes explicitly for the purpose of capturing enemy warriors for human sacrifice. Many tribes in Peru rose up against the Incas when the Spanish arrived — because they opposed Inca oppression.

Over time, Americans threw off the yokes of European powers, freed the slaves, and fought racism. Inspired in large part by Christianity and Judaism, the United States has helped create a global order and economy that has lifted people out of the grinding poverty and oppression that defined centuries of human existence. California’s ethnic studies curriculum would demonize those accomplishments in the name of centuries-old victims who themselves were perpetrators of a different kind of oppression.

This isn’t just dangerous and likely unconstitutional, it’s arguably demonic. California parents should raise a ruckus, and Americans as a whole need to oppose the threat of Marxist critical theory — the same ideology behind the destructive Black Lives Matter riots last summerthe 1619 Project, and even the condemnation of Dr. Seuss. Democrats defend critical race theory as a matter of “sensitivity training,” but this noxious ideology encourages an aimless violent revolution, false smears against American history, and now even worship of pagan gods.

Critical theory does not belong in boardrooms, universities, or the government, and it certainly belongs nowhere near America’s children.

Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.

Asian American Group Eviscerates Critical Race Theory: ‘A Hateful, Divisive, Manipulative Fraud’
1619 Project Backlash Is Building in Statehouses Across the Country
The Terrifying Reason Why Dr. Seuss’ Condemnation of Racism Isn’t Considered ‘Anti-Racist’ Enough
School Board Member Compares School Reopening to Slavery, ‘White Supremacist Ideology’

Teaching Transgenderism To 1st Graders in CONSERVATIVE States

Rumble — Dr. Duke Pesta and Alex Newman discuss the escalating insanity permeating government "education," warning that this coming year will be the worst yet when it comes to sexualization, indoctrination, racism, and more. In particular, they discuss the story of a family in Missouri that came to America in search of liberty and Christian values, and now find that their daughter is being taught transgenderism in her public school. Incredibly, the school counselor even asked the parents to help prepare the children to accept the radical indoctrination. Duke and Alex conclude that the only solution is to rescue children from government schools immediately.

📰 Get a Copy of the Special Issue:
thenewamerican.com/rescuing-our-children/

📰 Get a Copy of the Special Issue:
Rescuing Our Children

🇺🇸 The New American:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/

MORGAN ZEGERS: Young Americans Against Socialism

Young Americans Against Socialism is a nonpartisan 501c3 nonprofit dedicated to exposing socialism’s failures to young Americans by creating viral educational videos for social media.

Please consider financially supporting us. All donations are tax deductible: https://www.yaas.org/donate

SEE: https://www.youtube.com/c/YoungAmericansAgainstSocialism/featured

AND: https://www.youtube.com/c/MorganZegers1776/featured

DAN BONGINO: The Equality Act is a Trojan Horse For More Tyranny

OANN: Equality Act with Angela Morabito

After Hours catches up with Angela Morabito – spokesperson for Campus Reform and the former press secretary for the Trump administration's department of education – to discuss the equality act, women’s rights and religious liberty.

In Focus: Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA) on Problems with the So-Called 'Equality Act'

SOUTHERN BAPTIST PRESIDENT JD Greear Says He’d Rather Unite With Those Who Pervert the Gospel Than Those Who Defend It

SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2021/02/23/jd-greear-says-hed-rather-unite-with-those-who-pervert-the-gospel-than-those-who-defend-it/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In case you missed it, JD Greear, president of the Southern Baptist Convention addressed the Southern Baptist Executive Committee last night with a sermon decrying “white supremacy” and all those who oppose Critical Race Theory. If you can stomach it, the sermon can be watched here and begins around the 51-minute mark.

During the sermon, Greear decried his critics who accused him of being liberal and then gave a rundown of his conservative credentials; he said that he believes homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals left a packet on his doorstep of pamphlets of people who have committed suicide because of his anti-homosexuality position. Yet, in 2019, Greear preached a sermon on Romans 1 and concluded that God believes other sins — such as boasting — are more egregious than homosexuality.

Greear then went into a tirade against people who believe that Critical Race Theory, a secular Marxist ideology that is opposed to the gospel, and labeled them as “pharisees” and called them “demonic.”

“We should mourn when closet racists and neo-Confederates feel more at home in our churches than do many of our people of color,” he said. “The reality is that if we in the SBC had shown as much sorrow for the painful legacy that racism and discrimination has left in our country as we have the passion to decry CRT, we probably wouldn’t be in this mess.”

Of course, those “neo-Confederates” he is referring to would be the most vocal anti-Marxist critics in the denomination. Those would include men like Tom Ascol and Tom Buck, even Voddie Baucham. And, of course, it would include the countless journalists out there covering the stories including Reformation Charlotte, Capstone Report, Worldview Conversations, and Protestia, among many others.

If Greear were after unity, he’d denounce the heresy that is swarming the denomination and call for unity around the truth. Instead, Greear labels those who defend biblical doctrine as “pharisees” and calls on the denomination to repudiate them.

“Brothers and sisters, in the 1980s, we repudiated the leaven of the liberals, a leaven that threatened to poison the gospel,” he said. “Are we now going to repudiate the leaven of the Pharisees, which can choke out the gospel just as easily?”

Greear also demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of Jesus’ issue with the pharisees when said that the pharisees in the New Testament had correct doctrine, but that their problem was that they opposed Jesus. The Scriptures, however, do not teach that the pharisees had correct doctrine — Jesus’ problem with them is that they were false teachers, just like those who push Critical Race Theory.

(Higher) Education Is Destroying America-New Discourses

BY ALEXANDER ZUBATOV

SEE: https://newdiscourses.com/2021/01/higher-education-destroying-america/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

“[Y]ou offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they … seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.” – Plato’s Phaedrus

“I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University,” conservative icon William F. Buckley notoriously remarked. I have always thought of his oft-quoted quip as just that: a clever quip. But we have reached the point today where, given the choice Buckley was contemplating, I would vote for the 2,000 Average Joes over the 2,000 professors in a heartbeat. Even in a firmly Democratic-blue city like Boston, where the politics of ordinary citizens might resemble the professors’ political preferences far more than they would resemble mine, I wholeheartedly believe that those 2,000 random names would bring to the task of governance more common sense and more diversity of opinion. They would ultimately create a healthier, more vibrant and more livable society. And I strongly suspect that I am increasingly far from alone in that view.

Consider this apparent paradox: commanding, as they do, behemoth corporate entities, the media, the entertainment industry and the social media and tech hubs of Silicon Valley, the educated today arguably wield more power, influence and ubiquitous social control than they have ever wielded in American history, and yet they are also as scorned and distrusted as they have ever been. The prevalence of loony conspiracy theories on the political right notwithstanding, less educated people have their reasons for feeling conspired against and for distrusting those who are ostensibly their betters. They distrust the educated contingent’s claims to knowledge and expertise because they both consciously and instinctively know that such “experts” can no longer be trusted, that knowledge claims by the educated elites now routinely come packaged with liberal doses of barely concealed political prejudice. Experts are the ones who tell us that Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden will defeat Donald Trump in a blowout and that Democrats are set to pick up significant gains and take control of both houses of Congress in the 2020 election. Experts are the unelected backroom technocrats at Twitter and Google who take it upon themselves, despite having transparent political biases and no obvious qualifications for such roles, to intervene on the side of “Truth” in complex political and factual debates — inevitably citing as backup for their decisions some of their favorite sources, such as CNN or The Washington Post — and then proceed to label, take down, bury and censor competing claims and their conservatives or contrarian sources. Experts are the ones who issue confident pronouncements about Covid-19, only to issue inconsistent but equally confident pronouncements a few weeks or months later, the ones who tell us masks don’t help to protect healthy individuals only to completely reverse that guidance, the ones who command us that frequenting religious services, Trump rallies, restaurants, hair salons or family gatherings poses a mortal risk to our health while turning a blind eye to or even throwing full support behind massive #BLM protests or disregarding their own edicts and going unmasked into chic hair salons or large parties at expensive French restaurants. And, as I’ll have reason to discuss in more detail below, the kind of “expertise” that emanates from the mainstream media or the educational establishment is egregious in its political biases.

The reason for the problem is simple: the “educated” have become a stale, stagnant monoculture, a culture within which groupthink reigns, within which prejudice predominates, bad ideas go unchallenged and the worst ideas get insulated from scrutiny by strictly enforced taboos. In fact, the more “elite” the quality and quantity of the education people receive, the more herd-minded, prejudiced and intolerant of dissent they become. The danger of this predicament is not just one for political conservatives to bear; when a diversity of ideas is choked out by years of ideological indoctrination and enforced conformity when thought police patrol our public and private spaces and factual claims and ideas remain untested in the crucible of free and open debate, the resulting harm is borne by all. As I will explain in what follows, the ultimate issue springs from a tectonic shift in the complexion of our educational institutions. It will not be solved until those institutions are shaken to their very foundations and remade from the ground up.

Driving Polarization

In recent studies, education — the very thing that is supposed to open minds — has repeatedly been found, instead, to create closed-minded filter bubbles. A 2019 study by the polling and analytics firm PredictWise, retained by The Atlantic for the purpose of analyzing partisan prejudice, found that a high level of education was strongly correlated with political intolerance. The Atlantic reported as well on prior research from University of Pennsylvania professor Diana Mutz that had concluded that “white, highly educated people are relatively isolated from political diversity” and that “people who went to graduate school have the least amount of political disagreement in their lives.” Mutz’s explanation was that such people are less likely to talk with those who disagree with them.

A 2019 study by the “More in Common” project that analyzed the accuracy of people’s perceptions about their ideological opposites reached similar conclusions. Among its notable findings was that “the more educated a person is, the worse their Perception Gap” — their distorted view of and tendency to attribute extreme positions to those on the “other side.” But the “one critical exception” to this finding is that it applies only to Democrats, not Republicans:

[W]hile Republicans’ misperceptions of Democrats do not improve with higher levels of education, Democrats’ understanding of Republicans actually gets worse with every additional degree they earn. This effect is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree.

Why does this differentiation exist? The “More in Common” research echoes Diana Mutz’s conclusion: “Highly educated Democrats are the most likely to say that ‘most of [their] friends’ share their political beliefs.” While the political composition of Republicans’ circle of acquaintances does not correlate with education, for Democrats the correlation is very direct: the more education they receive, the less likely they are to associate with anyone who disagrees with them. And there is good reason to believe that the composition of those with whom one pals around play a causal role in creating polarized groupthink: as research by Cass Sunstein, David Schkade and Reid Hastie has demonstrated, when people spend time discussing issues with like-minded others, their views predictably become more extreme.

Education’s Left Turn

Has education always cooked up an over-saturated brew bubbling over with an overpowering flavor of left ideological extremism? No. Pew Research Center findings from 2016 show a widening ideological gap between 1994 and 2015 among those who are more versus less educated. One metric examined the extent to which people’s views have become monolithically down-the-line liberal or conservative over the years. In 1994, one percent of those whose educations stopped after their high school graduation or even earlier leaned “consistently liberal,” while that number was four percent for those with “some college,” five percent for college graduates and seven percent for post-grads — a small upward progression but, all in all, not a massive difference. By 2015, however, the educational divide had become a gulf: five percent of those in the high-school-or-less category were consistently liberal in their views, but those numbers were 12% of those with some college, 24% of college graduates and 31% of post-grads. No similar pattern obtained for those who were “consistently conservative.” Both in 1994 and in 2015, the percentage of down-the-line conservatives hovered between six percent and 11 percent across all education categories, with no particular correlation with education to be found. The massive growth in the consistently liberal-minded over the course of these two decades had not come at the expense of conservatives, but rather, largely at the expense of those with less partisan and more “mixed” political views. While 53% of the “high school or less” crowd had held ideologically “mixed” views in 1994 and 48% held mixed views in 2015, among post-grads, that number had declined from 38% in 1994 to 24% in 2015. The conclusion: something has shifted dramatically over the course of the past 20 years to yield a direct correlation between how many years of education we have had and the extent to which we are immersed in an across-the-board liberal monoculture.

What changed is education itself. Beginning in the late 1980s — not long before the political opinions of the “educated” began to veer sharply to the left — education itself went from being a universally touted pathway to personal enlightenment and professional advancement to becoming a one-sided purveyor of political ideology. Belying any notion that university professors are inherently liberal-minded mainly because liberals are simply more curious and open-minded than their conservative brethren, not so very long ago, a fairly even split in political affiliations could still be found: in 1984, 39% of college faculty identified as left/liberal, while 34% identified as right/conservative, as reported in a 2005 paper from Stanley Rothman et al. A massive sea-change materialized over the course of the ensuing decade-and-a-half, according to the same paper: by 1999, 72% of faculty (and 81% among humanities faculty) identified as left/liberal, and 15% identified as conservative. By 2018, the situation had become still more dire, especially at the most elite universities. A comprehensive National Association of Scholars report from April 2018 headed by Mitchell Langbert of Brooklyn College, which tracked the political registrations of 8,688 tenure-track professors at top liberal arts colleges, found that “78.2 percent of the academic departments in [his] sample have either zero Republicans, or so few as to make no difference.” At the leftward end of the spectrum were the newly emerged ideological fields, such as gender studies and Africana studies, in which there was not “a single Republican with an exclusive appointment.” Again, casting serious doubt upon any notion that academics are overwhelmingly liberal simply because liberals are better suited to be eggheads, the political affiliations of university administrators are now similarly skewed far to the left. A 2018 survey of 900 college administrators by Samuel J. Abrams of Sarah Lawrence College revealed that 71% identified as liberal, and only 6% identified as conservative.

I have explored the causes of this seismic shift at length elsewhere, and suffice it to say here that the gradual replacement of a highly literate elite by a techno-financial elite dislodged the academic humanities from their once-vaunted perch in which they had served a pragmatic economic function (not a function that I believe true higher education should serve in any event, as I will make clear later). This change opened the door for a takeover of these departments by 60s radicals entering their 40s and 50s and positions of peak influence in the mid-to-late 1980s and 1990s. These original culture warriors succeeded in repurposing the humanities (dragging other university departments behind them to greater or lesser extents), deflecting them from the tasks of education, enlightenment and career prep and re-orienting them to the mission of social critique. The academic humanities, having been displaced from their prestigious mission of preparing a new generation for elite careers, found a new way of clawing back what they had lost by adopting a less practical but, in their eyes, still more critical mission: preparing a new generation of those who could claim elite status by virtue of their ability to stand in judgment over the rest of us. They spawned a new array of ideological victimology departments within academia and a market for diversity consultants and sensitivity training within corporate America and for hysterical and sensationalized media coverage of alleged oppression and persecution of “marginalized” and “vulnerable” minorities of every sort.

Distorted Academic Priorities

It is the lack of ideological diversity, not liberal bias per se, that presents the bigger challenge. I would not want universities or other institutions to be dominated by conservative groupthink any more than I want the current alternative. Thoroughgoing conservative bias at universities that are supposed to cultivate out-of-the-box thinking and groundbreaking research would, I assume, result in stagnation. But this is not the reality with which we are dealing. What we have is overwhelming liberal bias, not conservative bias. And liberal bias at institutions principally intended to instill a love of learning, an appreciation of a great tradition and the pursuit of lux et veritas creates its own specific problems.

A recent study from SUNY New Paltz’s Glenn Geher et al. — a study, it should be noted, that the authors had trouble publishing because of its politically explosive conclusions — building upon the prior work of prominent NYU psychologist Jonathan Haidt, found that the profound liberal bias in much of academia today is not without consequence. The researchers surveyed 177 academics in a variety of universities about their political orientations and personality characteristics as measured on the “Big Five” model of personality and then asked them to assign weights to five possible priorities: academic rigor, academic freedom, student emotional well-being, social justice and the advancement of knowledge. What they found is not surprising, but it is disturbing: liberal professors were significantly more likely to place a higher value on social justice and student emotional well-being than were their conservative colleagues, who tended to place a higher value on academic rigor and the advancement of knowledge. While many modern-day liberal academics — whether following in the tradition leading back to the prominent mid-20th century liberal Columbia sociologist C. Wright Mills or of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci ­— believe in activist scholarship, few of us would disagree that if academic rigor and the advancement of knowledge are not at the very forefront of university professors’ priorities, the reputation and reliability of scholarship suffers, and mass skepticism of the politicized professoriate starts to seem justified. Still more concerning is that these researchers found that, of the academics surveyed, those who taught in schools of education — the places that teach the teachers to whom our kids are handed over for instruction — were the most likely to hold social justice and student emotional well-being in highest esteem. Indeed, we are seeing pre-college education today becoming both radicalized (with 79% of teachers leaning left, including 87% of high school teachers and 97% of English teachers, and becoming increasingly hostile to religion, so much so that they are one of the primary causes of its decline) and racialized (with school systems throughout the country beginning to teach The New York Times’ discreditedahistorical and hate-filled “1619 Project” as actual history).

Finally, the study found the Big-Five personality trait of “agreeableness” to be positively correlated with a preference for social justice and student emotional well-being and negatively correlated with academic rigor and advancement of knowledge. While the researchers’ proffered explanation for that result is that agreeable people are more likely to be “inclined to help students with issues that are not strictly academic,” my interpretation of their data would be different: agreeableness is known to be correlated with “conformity to social norms and expectations,” while disagreeable people are less concerned with what others think. Because liberal pro-social justice dogma is unquestionably an ascendant orthodoxy at universities, while dissent requires real intestinal fortitude, it makes total sense that those who are most agreeable are most likely to follow the herd. From this standpoint, therefore, the disturbing aspect of the role of agreeableness in these research results is that it signals that many academics are not so much joining a dominant consensus due to their own independently reasoned conclusions as they are, for fear of bucking the tide, reflexively hopping aboard a bandwagon — and, in the end, adding dead weight to what is fast becoming a sinking ship.

Sowing Ignorance and Stifling Debate

As I have already begun to suggest above, the impact of this comparatively rapid transformation in the core complexion of university staff upon the rest of society has been monumental and remains one of the great under-reported stories of the past few decades. Today, nearly three-quarters of students enrolled in U.S. News & World Report’s top ten colleges identify as liberal, while only 15% identify as conservative. Far from cultivating any spirit of open-minded inquiry of the sort one might expect to be the outcome of a university education, however — but consistent with the findings of the Glenn Geher et al. research profiled above — those top universities are leading the anti-intellectual crackdown against “disfavored” viewpoints. Here, according to FIRE’s survey of 20,000 students from a variety of American universities from earlier this year, are some of their attitudes concerning measures they think may appropriately be taken with respect to speakers with whom they disagree:

Students from Universities Ranked 50 or Below Students from Top 10-Ranked Universities
Okay to tear down speaker flyers/announcements 60% 73%
Okay to block entrances to speaker events 37% 50%
Okay to use violence to stop speakers 17% 21%

These numbers, as a whole, will be disturbing to anyone who values open-minded intellectual inquiry, but the numbers from top-ranked universities are especially alarming, showing a pronounced inability on the part of our purportedly “best and brightest” to abide opposing views.

More evidence concerning the unrepresentative and muddle-headed beliefs of the highly educated comes from the large 2018 “Hidden Tribes” demographic survey of political attitudes. The survey found that the left-most grouping — those who could be described as “Progressive Activists” — are the wealthiest and most educated subgroup in America, with 59% of this overwhelmingly white subgroup having completed college, as contrasted with a 29% average in the general population. Such people are far more likely to be politically engaged (73% as compared to a general-population average of 35%) and, for that reason, “have an outsized role in political debates.” Such people are also obsessed with what they perceive to be racism, sexism and other identity-based discrimination, and a whopping 69% of them (as compared to 24% of all Americans) are “ashamed to be American.”

Zach Goldberg’s 2019 discussion of data pertaining to such white liberals documents the fact that their leftward shift in beliefs is of relatively recent vintage but largely predates Trump’s Presidency and is, thus, not attributable to him or his policies. Among the highlights:

  • The percentage of these liberals who thought anti-black discrimination to be a “very serious” problem did not change much between 1996 (27%) and 2010 (25%), yet it shot up to 47% in 2015 and to 58% in 2016.
  • In 1995, 2000 and 2007, white liberals were evenly split among those who thought the criminal justice system fair to blacks and those who thought it biased against them. But by 2014, there was a 70%/20% gap in favor of those who thought the system biased.
  • 29% of white liberals perceived there to be “a great deal” of discrimination against immigrants in 2000; in 2013, that number had risen to 57%. The percentage of liberals feeling “very sympathetic” to illegal immigrants rose from 22% to 42% between 2006 and 2014.

Notably, in each of these cases ­— and especially in the cases of racial issues, with our first black President having still been in office through the end of 2016 — there was no obvious, relevant real-world change for the worse that would have spurred the very significant attitudinal change reflected in these numbers. It is the skewed content of their education, not rational considerations spurred by real-world changes, that is getting these highly educated liberals to alter their views.

At least four more of Goldberg’s conclusions with respect to these white liberals merit attention:

  • The attitudes of these liberals on race issues and immigration issues are significantly to the left of the attitudes of the very minorities they claim to represent.
  • These white liberals have recently developed a significant pro-outgroup bias, meaning that, by a significant margin, they prefer other racial groups to their own. Goldberg calls such an unusual bias “unprecedented,” and of course, no other group — blacks, Hispanics, Asians or non-liberal whites — exhibits such a bias.
  • Their “lack of awareness of how fast and far their attitudes have shifted fosters an illusion of conservative extremism,” whereas the data indicates that “[i]n reality, the conservatives of today are not all that different from the conservatives of years past.”
  • Consistent with the conclusion of the “Hidden Tribes” survey, Goldberg observes that while “[w]hite liberals make up 20-24% of the general population, … [they] exert an outsize political and cultural influence. They are more likely to consider themselves activists, are more active on social media, and, significantly, they are one of the most affluent groups in the country.”

That last point, in particular, merits further reflection. Rich, university-educated white liberals are precisely the kinds of people who rise to prominent and influential positions in what used to be called “media” but what, at this point (for much the same reasons professional wrestling is now commonly known as “sports entertainment”) should rightfully be called the “infotainment industry” — combining, as it does, the likes of formerly white-shoe, traditional media publications that have long since buttoned down and given themselves over to unvarnished advocacy, shameless scandal-sheet propagandists, social media “influencers,” Silicon Valley tech authoritarians, moralizing musicians, woke jocks and other species of shrill B-list celebrities.

“Educated” Infotainers

As The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf has written, “The New York Times, New York, The Intercept, Vox, Slate, The New Republic, and other outlets are today less ideologically diverse in their staff and less tolerant of contentious challenges to the dominant viewpoint of college-educated progressives than they have been in the recent past.” Predictably, the role of the infotainment industry in broadcasting out to the masses the messages our politicized educators have taught them cannot be understated. The “Perception Gap” research of the “More in Common” project that I discussed above reaches this conclusion about the depressing role of the media in driving distorted perceptions of reality:

You might think that people who regularly read the news are more informed about their political opponents. In fact, the opposite is the case. We found that the more news people consumed, the larger their Perception Gap. People who said they read the news “most of the time” were nearly three times more distorted in their perceptions than those who said they read the news “only now and then.”

Zach Goldberg reaches similar conclusions in an August 2020 article fittingly entitled “How the Media Led the Great Racial Awakening,” in which he presents a treasure trove of data convincingly demonstrating that, in a word, the media was in the cockpit of our careening craft. In a few short years, beginning roughly around 2010 (thus, again, well before Trump appeared on the national stage as anything other than a vulgar television personality), the media — with The New York Times leading the charge — began to racialize America, vastly expanding its coverage of race and racism, immeasurably expanding its definition of what counted as “racism” or “white supremacy” to encompass anything and everything that, regardless of the reason, did not produce total and utter demographically proportionate equality and, in the end, getting us all to believe, regressively, that “‘color’ is the defining attribute of other human beings.” The opinions of these infotainment industry thought leaders were quickly adopted by their liberal readers, viewers, listeners and followers, leading, finally, in the summer of 2020, to nationwide protesting, looting and rioting due to the mass adoption of a wildly delusional belief that black people are dying every day at the hands of racist white killer cops — the truth, as FBI data and numerous studies have shown, being that cops do not kill unarmed blacks at higher rates than the crime data would predict and, more importantly, that in all of 2019 (the last year for which there is full data on record), 14 unarmed black people, as well as 25 unarmed white people, were killed by police, as compared, for the sake of maintaining perspective, to 20 (presumably unarmed) people killed by a lightning strike in the same year. As Goldberg documents, the black victims of police shootings generated huge waves of sensationalized media coverage, while the white victims were largely met with the chirping of crickets. What the infotainment industry is doing to our perceptions of race and racism, in other words, might best be characterized as a never-ending, omnipresent Willie Horton ad driving us into irrational paroxysms of racialized mass hysteria.

What emerges from the data I have advanced thus far is a picture in which a massive leftward lurch in the composition of university faculty and administrators beginning in the late 1980s and continuing on through the ’90s and ’00s created, some years down the road, a massive leftward lurch among infotainment industry elites, leading together, in turn, to a massive leftward lurch among the “educated” public as a whole and resulting, finally, in the formation of a fissure between the educated and their less-educated peers. This is why the main axis along which pro-Trump versus pro-Biden voters were divided in 2020 is not the media’s favorite bugaboo of race, but rather, education. Trump’s many obvious faults aside, we should not mistake the joyful tears of the talking heads on our screens and the delighted yelps of urban bobos, yuppies and hipsters in the streets on that Saturday when the media called the election for Joe Biden for anything other than what it was: the relieved cry of the educated elites that the most organized mass propaganda campaign this side of Stalin had succeeded in toppling the crude, unhinged, nationalist-populist championed by the deplorable underclass and installing the easily puppeted, doddering career politician favored by the wealthy, the powerful and the educated. For this reason, as well, the Biden administration is expected to be chock-full of college faculty, a straightforward case of dancing with the ones that bring you to the dance.

Credential Inflation

So education today, and especially elite higher education, is systematically polarizing us, driving misperceptions of the “other” side, fomenting an escalating race war and skewing the composition of the electorate, all while replacing the pursuit of knowledge with politicized groupthink. But is it at least doing a good job of discharging its practical function? Are nominally great universities at least giving us our money’s worth in educating a highly qualified workforce? Not exactly. A recent study demonstrated that when 28,339 graduates from 294 universities — representing universities around the world ranging from the top 50 to 10,000 spots down — were evaluated on various facets of their job performance, for every 1,000 spots lower on the university rankings, the graduates exhibited a performance decline of a measly 1.9%. The starting salaries these students commanded, however, exhibited a far wider gap: while graduates of universities at the top of the rankings had average starting salaries in the high $80,000s or low $90,000 bestowed upon them, graduates 1,000 spots down got average starting salaries in the high $40,000s or low $50,000s, a difference of about 45%. The moral of the story for employers: save your money, and hire the kid from the university a thousand spots down on the list, the one who’ll do almost as good a job but without the political headache and petulant demands the top-tier grad is likely to bring to the job. The moral of the story for the rest of us: highly ranked universities might be paying off financially for some of their graduates (assuming they monetize their credentials rather than pursuing their passions), but they’re not paying off for society as a whole.

What such universities may be producing, in lieu of better qualifications, is what is known as “credential inflation” (a type of phenomenon likely to be especially prevalent during a pandemic-driven recession), in which jobs that never used to — and still technically don’t — require a college education go to college graduates, while jobs that require no more than a college degree go to graduates of the more elite colleges. What happens when we are all reflexively told to go to college is mass underemployment, with, as of September 2020, over half of college graduates and just under half of recent college graduates underemployed, holding down jobs that do not require a college degree. In fact, as a recent Hechinger Report article concludes, college grads could often have gotten similar or higher salaries (without incurring the national average of $28,950 in four-year college loan debt) had they pursued lucrative professional or associate’s degrees in fields such as nursing, construction management or dental hygiene.

Social Instability

What universities may also be producing today is social unrest, not only by miseducating and radicalizing the public, as I have described at length above, but also by contributing to what the U. Conn. scientist and cultural evolution researcher Peter Turchin has dubbed “elite overproduction,” the phenomenon that occurs when a society manufactures many individuals who would appear to have some claim to elite status — such as by virtue of their educational credentials — without there being enough actual elite job slots to go around to satisfy their inflated self-conceptions. In such circumstances, Turchin argues, history repeatedly shows that these individuals become troublemaking malcontents. They begin to comprise a “counter-elite” that lays the groundwork for revolution by fulminating against their own society, its ruling class and the legitimacy of its governing principles, e.g., against the very notion of American meritocracy. Revolutions, in this empirically driven conception, are not made by Marx’s romanticized immiserated proletarians having reached their breaking point, but rather, by aspiring status-seekers and would-be intellectuals stymied by structural roadblocks that prevent their advancement through acceptable, conventional routes. Consistent with Turchin’s thesis, terrorism — the ultimate outlet for malcontents — is also normally not driven by ignorance or poverty, but rather, by a “lack of adequate employment opportunities for educated individuals.”

That social instability is generally summoned up by alienated elements within the “thinking classes” is something prophetic writers like Dostoevsky understood some time ago: his “commoners” tend to be preternaturally virtuous or preternaturally vicious, but it is various disaffected thinkers — students and the like — who tend to become possessed by dangerous ideas. As Adam Garfinkle has written in an article on the decline of deep literacy published in National Affairs earlier this year, superficial education not vivified by a habit of lifelong learning and deep reading, largely serves to make people ideal victims of and disseminators of propaganda. Such “scantily educated” individuals, emboldened by the official sanction of university credentials and enabled by social media, “contribute scantily supported opinions about things they don’t really understand, validating the old saw that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing” and bringing into being the kind of “distributed mob … the ancient Greeks warned against.” I would add to Garfinkle’s diagnosis just one more proviso: with education configured as it currently is, more does not equal better. In fact, more education will only make the problem worse, adding more dug-in groupthink, more unwarranted self-assurance and more specialized steeping masking deep ignorance.

For all these reasons, fewer people going to college — and especially to high-price-tag, uber-politicized elite colleges — today is a win-win-win, a win for employers who can pay significantly lower salaries without a comparable drop-off in performance quality, a win, paradoxically, for employees, provided they make strategic choices to go into in-demand fields that pay almost as much as or even more than they would have made without incurring crushing debt in the process and a win for society as a whole, which will be saved much of the polarization, systematically skewed politics and social instability associated with contemporary education.

A Higher Calling

But what of education for its own sake? After all, don’t we want people to aspire to the enlightenment that knowledge itself confers? Yes, absolutely. I am far from being one of those philistine conservatives who value only that which can be monetized. I believe firmly that all of us who are truly willing and able to study “the best which has been thought and said” should have that opportunity … but that is certainly not what universities are teaching today. Contemporary universities are little more than social clubs and credentialing degree mills where kids get to stave off the responsibilities of adulthood for four years while insulating themselves (unless they happen to be conservative) from true challenges and discomforts and learning, repeatedly, the pat PBS children’s moral that everyone (except, perhaps, white male heterosexuals) is great exactly as they already are.

There is, moreover, no reason for those intent not on the pursuit of knowledge but on lucrative careers as doctors, lawyers, financiers and techies to waste four unproductive, costly years suffering through classes in elite universities in which they will get little more than some inadequately considered radical politics and an admission ticket into the intolerant American intelligentsia. Just like nurses, auto mechanics or electricians, such careerists should go straight from high school into their professional training schools and not be invited to delude themselves into believing that they are informed aristocrats merely by virtue of their elite credentials and resulting compensation packages. It is only when we take the ruse of career prep out of higher education and reserve such education for those few who want to be working their way, line by line, through the glories of Shakespeare or musing about the wildest implications of quantum mechanics that we will have any chance of purging the universities of the unintellectual students not up to the task and the anti-intellectual academics who thrive by giving those very students the sour-grapes license they need to reject our finest traditions.

To say this another way, the bottom-line problem is that when we made the mistake of trying to open higher education to everyone, we opened the campus gates to people who neither had any interest in learning “the best which has been thought and said,” nor the ability to breathe that rarefied air. We then found ourselves in the position of facing and acceding to strident calls of elitism, racism and other -isms and began to dumb our education down to meet people where they were. A wise observation from T.S. Eliot’s mid-20th-century compendium of essays published as Notes Toward the Definition of Culture puts this point better than I could:

[W]hether education can foster and improve culture or not, it can surely adulterate and degrade it. For there is no doubt that in our headlong rush to educate everybody, we are lowering our standards, and more and more abandoning the study of those subjects by which the essentials of our culture — of that part of it which is transmissible by education — are transmitted; destroying our ancient edifices to make ready the ground upon which the barbarian nomads of the future will encamp in their mechanised caravans.

Eliot’s essay also contains this absolutely critical observation: “A high average of general education is perhaps less necessary for a civil society than is a respect for learning.” While I will leave it to those more qualified for that task to debate whether or not a trickle-down approach works in the realm of economics, in the realm of culture and education, such an approach is exactly what we need. A society in which higher education is reserved for the few who actually crave the precious gifts it confers is one in which higher learning remains an appropriately lofty and difficult arcana unadulterated by the need to condescend to a mass audience. In such a society, elite educated mandarins and, more importantly, the knowledge they command are held in high esteem because they serve as its protectors, keeping it sacrosanct. Then knowledge retains its luminescence, a polestar towards which would-be-initiates will aspire and a guiding light towards which even their less capable brethren among the masses will incline. Lit up by the glow at the top, an entire society is haloed over.

When, instead, the seal is broken, when higher education is instrumentalized in the service of financial rewards or bastardized to avoid bruising the fragile egos of second-rate students, then sacred syllables and profound mysteries are de-solemnized and set adrift in a generalized sea of indifference in which every crown jewel will be lost and every drop of holy water will be diluted. The more open to the barbarian hordes are the gates of our ivory towers, the more closed will remain the minds of those who scramble in their unimpeded headlong rush to the top. When the unreconstructed barbarian resurfaces at the tower’s very apogee and peers down from his newfound perch upon those he now thinks are his inferiors, he may be shocked to find that, far from inspiring the kind of reverence he had imagined came with the role, he will see gazing up from below slightly more ungroomed and unpolished — though also less haughty and more grounded — versions of himself, a sea of expressions betraying skepticism of his claims to expertise and mirroring his own scorn. And when he flings boulders down in disgust to crush dissent, he will find them hurled unceremoniously right back at him.

 

FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA: SCHOOL District to Change NameS of SchoolS Named for Jefferson & MASON, Ignoring Community Opposition

District to Change Name of School Named for Jefferson, Ignoring Community Opposition

FALLS CHURCH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD

BY LUIS MIGUEL

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/district-to-change-name-of-school-named-for-jefferson-ignoring-community-opposition/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A Virginia school board voted this week to change the names of two schools because their namesakes were slave owners — even though one of them was America’s third president and the other was another Founding Father.

Falls Church City Public Schools will rename Thomas Jefferson Elementary School and George Mason High School following a unanimous vote to approve the measure Wednesday.

“The Board took seriously the viewpoints and concerns raised by many students, parents, staff, and community members,” said School Board Chair Greg Anderson.  

Prior to the vote, the school board conducted a survey to gauge the public’s interest in changing the 
names of the schools. Only 26 percent of the nearly 3,500 parents, students, and staff members surveyed 
supported renaming the George Mason school, and only 23 percent supported renaming the Thomas Jefferson 
Elementary. By contrast, 56 percent opposed renaming both of them.

Despite this fact, Anderson said the change was “in the best interest” of students and “a necessary part of our equity work.”

“Our schools must be places where all students, staff, and community members feel safe, supported, and inspired,” the board chairman said.

Jefferson has been a constant target of the historical revisionists, especially over the last year as vandals associated with the Black Lives Matter movement have toppled monuments and statues dedicated to historical figures they deem “racist.”

For leftists, Jefferson is problematic because he owned slaves. Added to that is the charge that he carried on an affair with 16-year-old slave Sally Hemings, and went on to father six of her children.

But as TNA writer R. Cort Kirkwood notes, the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society published The Jefferson-Hemings ControversyReport of the Scholars Commission, which showed the Jefferson-Hemings tale to be false. DNA tests did not, as widely believed, connect Jefferson to Hemings, and other historical research showed the claims of so-called offspring and descendants of the two were also untrue. 

What Jefferson did do was author the Declaration of Independence, which justified secession from Great Britain and explicitly stated that God, not the state, gives us with inalienable rights that can’t be taken away by the government.

Kirkwood explains about other aspects of Jefferson’s legacy: 

He also wrote the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, which Virginia’s General Assembly adopted in 1786 and which anticipated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever,” it says, “nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.”

… With the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, he doubled the size of the United States by acquiring 827,000 square miles of territory from Napoleon for the meager sum of $15 million. The transaction included all of Iowa, Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, almost all of the Dakotas, Minnesota west of the Mississippi River, parts of Texas and New Mexico, and Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado east of the Rocky Mountains.… Yet because he was a man of his time and one aspect of his life does not meet 21st-century sensibilities, the stunning memorial on the Tidal Basin must be demolished.

George Mason, meanwhile, is famous for refusing to sign the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention. One of his reasons? Because he wanted an immediate end to the slave trade.

Mason also led the fight for a bill of rights in the Constitution, and it’s heavily thanks to him that James Madison introduced, in the First Congress, the first 10 Amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

But again, none if means much to the Left, who ignore history and see nothing more than “racist old white men” upon looking at any historical statue. Unfamiliarity with history is why even statues of Abraham Lincoln and black abolitionist Frederick Douglass have been targeted by the “woke mob.”

Such ridiculous acts are not only a sign of ignorance on the part of the vandals, but show that the overarching agenda of the current “social justice” movement is to make war on all of Western history in order to replace it with an alternative Marxist history. It’s the same agenda that fueled the toppling of statues in the Soviet Union and during Communist China’s Cultural Revolution.

If the cultural pillagers aren’t stopped in their tracks, they’ll keep going until they’ve burned all America’s heritage to the ground.

____________________________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: https://pjmedia.com/culture/robert-spencer/2020/12/09/falls-church-virginia-school-board-cancels-thomas-jefferson-n1200003;

BY ROBERT SPENCER

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In a unanimous vote Tuesday, the Falls Church, Virginia School Board voted to rename Thomas Jefferson Elementary School, as well as George Mason High School, replacing the names of these Founding Fathers with those of people who are more woke and acceptable to the vanguard of today’s Cultural Revolution.

School Board Chair Greg Anderson, tongue no doubt planted firmly in cheek, intoned the usual pieties: “The Board took seriously the viewpoints and concerns raised by many students, parents, staff, and community members.” Except it didn’t, since according to WTOP, “a survey of the Falls Church community taken in October…revealed that 56% of the community overall asked that the names stay on the schools, including 61% of the parents of Thomas Jefferson Elementary students and 57% of George Mason High parents.” But their viewpoints didn’t count. As is always the case, the only viewpoints that mattered were those of the woke mob.

Not grasping the old adage that it is better to be silent and be thought an idiot than to open one’s mouth and prove it, Anderson rambled on: “We thank everyone who shared their perspectives with us and will be mindful of your comments as we now begin selecting names that reflect the diversity of opinions in our community” – except, that is, the opinions of the majorities who thought Thomas Jefferson and George Mason were fine names and need not be changed. “Our schools must be places where all students, staff, and community members feel safe, supported, and inspired.” Except, that is, those who respect and revere the Founding Fathers.

And so the foes of American history and America itself, for to repudiate the one is to repudiate the other, score another victory. If His Fraudulency Joe Biden succeeds in gaining the presidency by massive voter fraud, it will hardly matter anyway, but America can only have a future as a free society if its people recover a deep appreciation for its heroes and a pride in its achievements. In fact, that’s why the Left embarked upon its statue-destroying frenzy, tearing down statues not just of Confederates but of Lincoln, Grant, and even Frederick Douglass. They want to make you ashamed of American history so that you won’t see in America anything worth defending as the country continues to be assaulted from within and from outside, with useful idiots such as Greg Anderson helping on the destroyers.

Ahistorical myopia and ignorance of history as displayed by Anderson is a significant cause of the current outpouring of hatred for America. The war on Jefferson and Mason, both slaveowners, is just one small part of the Left’s relentless defamation of our country as a bastion of racial hatred and injustice. Leftist rioters and destroyers are enraged at Americans who are memorialized despite being slaveowners. They’re oblivious to the fact that slavery was not universally considered a moral evil at the time these men lived, and that this is relevant because there are very likely to be people in future ages who look at our times and scratch their heads and ask each other How could they not have known that was wrong?

Even more importantly, the Leftists are heedless of the fact that the movement to abolish slavery arose in Britain and America because of Christian principles that they despise, while slavery persisted long into the twentieth century in several Muslim countries because of Islamic principles that Leftists would rather be caught at a Trump rally than criticize. Saudi Arabia, a country based strictly upon Islamic law, only abolished slavery in 1962, and North African states including Mauritania and Niger only did so in the early twenty-first century, because of Islamic laws that the Leftist rioters would no doubt say it was “Islamophobic” to denounce.

In contrast, it was Greg Anderson’s bête noire Thomas Jefferson who wrote the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It was those words that led many Americans, long before the Civil War, to believe that slavery was not only evil in itself, but incompatible with the principles of the American republic. Slavery was ultimately eradicated in the United States by people who believed that Thomas Jefferson had enunciated the principles that made it necessary to wipe it out.

It will be interesting to see who Thomas Jefferson Elementary and George Mason High are named for now. Malcolm X? Angela Davis? Che Guevara? Mao Zedong? Whoever it will be, it is almost certain that the honored figures will be just as imperfect, and maybe even worse violators of human rights than Jefferson or Mason. But the Left is indifferent to the imperfections of its own heroes; its objective is not to find perfect or sinless people to venerate, but to turn Americans against their own heritage. In Falls Church, Virginia, it’s working.

 
 

Letter to the Editor: To All Parents of Students Considering Attending Gordon College

PRESIDENT D. MICHAEL LINDSAY

SOCIOLOGY MAJOR

President Lindsay

https://www.gordon.edu/president/bio

CURRICULUM VITAE:

https://gordonedu.sharepoint.com/WebLinks/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2FWebLinks%2FShared%20Documents%2FLindsay%20CV%20September%202020%2Epdf&parent=%2FWebLinks%2FShared%20Documents&p=true&originalPath=aHR0cHM6Ly9nb3Jkb25lZHUuc2hhcmVwb2ludC5jb20vOmI6L2cvV2ViTGlua3MvRWUxY05zTDF4TmxIbUdJNzFiYlloczBCelVnTW4tdFV2M3NFaHpYTEZfeS1TQT9ydGltZT0xWjY3cFVtVjJFZw

Gordon College, 255 Grapevine Road, Wenham, MA 01984
978 927 2300   |   [email protected]   |   [email protected]

https://www.gordon.edu/about

Gordon College is a nondenominational Christian liberal arts college in Wenham, Massachusetts.

Unleashing Opportunity: Why Escaping Poverty Requires a Shared Vision of Justice

Michael Gerson, Visiting Fellow at the Center for Public Justice and syndicated columnist with the Washington Post - Gordon College Convocation - Friday November 20, 2015

SEE: https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletters/2020/newsletter20201130.htm;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

LTRP Note: Since the inception of Lighthouse Trails in 2002, we have been researching and warning about what is happening in today’s Christian colleges, seminaries, and universities. The letter below from Manny Silva (co-founder of Concerned Nazarenes) (posted with his permission) illustrates the great dilemma in which many Christian parents find themselves today, and it is utterly heartbreaking. Over the years, so many parents and grandparents have told us how their child’s or grandchild’s faith was turned upside down after attending a Christian college for even just a short time.

We wrote the booklet Epidemic of Apostasy in 2013 (from a report we released in 2011) showing how the Christian schools were incorporating Spiritual Formation (i.e., contemplative spirituality) into their students’ lives. We warned that doing this was going to turn these young people emergent. If anyone reading the following letter thinks for a minute that the huge emphasis on contemplative spirituality in the church these last two decades has not produced “social-justice warriors” in our young people who are joining (or at least sympathizing with) the Marxist, Black Lives Matter, pro-hate, anti-biblical movements currently happening, then he or she has not done due diligence in understanding what we’ve been warning about for nearly 19 years. We have always stated and will continue to warn as the Lord allows that the Spiritual Formation movement (now in the majority of Christian colleges) is a disguised effort by our Adversary to lead followers away from the Cross and into deep deception! Want to have a socialist, anti-moral, angry, and disillusioned child or grandchild? Just send him or her to a school that promotes Spiritual Formation.

And do not think that today’s Christian leaders are not much to blame for what is happening with our young people and the colleges—just read Roger Oakland’s book Faith Undone and Ray Yungen’s A Time of Departing* to understand the roles Christian leaders have played and the links involved in bringing about an emergent “social-justice” Bible-rejecting revolutionary movement within the church.

To All Parents of Students Considering Attending Gordon College by Manny Silva:

Manny Silva

My son is a freshman at Gordon College. We enrolled him because we believed the school is a solid Christian college. But now, we have serious issues with what is going on campus this semester. We and many other parents of Gordon students are extremely concerned with the direction things are going. So if you are considering sending your student to Gordon College next year, please contact me at my e-mail address.

The biggest symptom of what we see is a falling away from the biblical principles that the school stands for, is the division being caused on campus by the Black Lives Matter movement. Student BLM activists have been exhibiting less than Christ-like behavior, such as racially divisive signs on campus. And one of the most serious concerns is that students who oppose BLM, or oppose social justice/Critical Race Theory are being vilified, intimidated, harassed, and even coerced into participating in activities which they do not agree with! These are all symptoms of a bigger problem, in which social-justice ideology is supplanting a biblical worldview on a college campus which we were certain would provide a solid basis for my son’s learning and spiritual growth. That is all in doubt now!

I have attended or listened to chapel messages where Scripture was twisted (by college professors!) into a social-justice theme. My son has not learned much about God’s Word in many of these chapel services. Racial issues seem to be overly-discussed in many classes, and activities and events are almost all themed on racial issues—but again, always slanted towards those who support BLM and social-justice causes. If you disagree, you are disapproved of, or you are forced to stay silent.

This in unacceptable on a Christian campus. Therefore, this is a clear warning to all parents considering Gordon College. We have not given up. We have started a group for concerned parents, and we are working hard to see if we can help rescue Gordon College from going over the precipice, where it will become undiscernible as a Christian school, and it will turn into just another secular, godless school in practice.

If you are a prospective parent, or know if a prospective parent of a student, please let me know, and I will give you further information, including joining the Concerned Gordon Parents group.


Related Material:

Lighthouse Trails List of Christian Colleges Promoting Spiritual Formation

An Epidemic of Apostasy – How Christian Seminaries Must Incorporate “Spiritual Formation” to Become Accredited

Critical Race Theory, Southern Baptist Convention, and a Marxist “Solution” That Will Not Work

Various research articles by Lighthouse Trails on Nazarene schools

Emergent Manifesto of Hope Despair Revisited—How It Has Affected Today’s Church

(photo of college scene from bigstockphoto.com; used with permission)

*If you have never read these books and cannot afford to buy one or both, e-mail us at [email protected], and we will send one to you.

____________________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: JOB POSITION IN SOCIAL JUSTICE, ETC.

https://www.gordon.edu/download/galleries/Intercultural%20Student%20Service%20Coordinator-job%20position.pdf

https://www.gordon.edu/genderstudies

https://www.gordon.edu/socialimpactministries

https://www.gordon.edu/socialwelfare

https://www.gordon.edu/politicalscience

Social Sciences
ECB 101 - Principles of Microeconomics - Credits: 4 
ECB 349 - Leadership in and of Organizations - Credits: 4
HIS 244 - World History: Globalisation and Modernity, 1500-Present - Credits: 4
HIS 344 - Classical Islam and the Middle East - Credits: 4     
POL 104 - American National Politics - Credits: 4 
POL 312 - Justice - Credits: 4 
POL 322 - American Political Thought - Credits: 4 
PSY 180 - Person in Psychological Context - Credits: 4
SOC 101 - Introduction to Sociology - Credits: 4 
SOC 102 - Why We Want: A Sociology of Desire and Consumption - Credits: 4  
SOC 103 - Social Movements - Credits: 4
SWK 201 - Introduction to Social Work and Social Welfare - Credits: 4 

When Leftists Call For ‘Unity,’ They Mean ‘Submission’ – and They’re Not Getting It From Me

BIDEN'S TOTALITARIAN DECLARATION THAT HE WON THE ELECTION & CALL FOR "BIBLICAL" UNITY

After years of calling conservatives "racists," "Nazis" and "white supremacists," Democrats now say they want "unity" - while making lists of Trump supporters to be "held accountable."

THE "UNITY" SPEECH THAT WAS & IS A LIE:

Donald Trump’s Lawyer Rebukes Southeastern Seminary Professor For Being a Liberal

SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/11/02/donald-trumps-lawyer-rebukes-southeastern-seminary-professor-for-being-a-liberal/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (SEBTS), increasingly one of the most liberal seminaries in the Evangelical Church, recently hired a liberal English professor — who supports ministries that promote woman-to-woman and man-to-man intimate relationships — from Liberty University. Karen Swallow Prior, who served many years on the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) as a research fellow, has been outspoken in her support of “gay Christianity” over the years.

Prior makes no qualms about her unbiblical positions as many have been warning about her for years. It wasn’t until recently, however, that Swallow Prior has completely unveiled herself as a totally “woke” leftist without a conservative bone in her body and people are finally starting to notice.

Recently, Donald Trump’s lawyer, who also represented John MacArthur’s church in a battle against Los Angeles over religious freedom, called out Swallow Prior for defending far-left radical Vice-Presidential candidate, Kamala Harris. While conservative Malachi O’Brien tweeted favorably that Kamala Harris had been “canceled” because of a lack of support in Texas, Swallow Prior jumped in to defend Harris.

Swallow Prior’s defense when Trump’s and MacArthur’s attorney, Jenna Ellis jumped in:

Here is where Ellis’ response was gold.

Karen Swallow Prior is a liberal activist and sadly, she represents a large majority of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Evangelical Church. Increasingly, the divide between the liberals and the conservatives is growing, and thankfully so. Christians cannot in any way support the Democrat party — to do so is to support the things that God hates.

_______________________________________________________________________

SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS ABOUT MS. PRIOR:

https://ratherexposethem.org/?s=KAREN+SWALLOW+PRIOR

 

SOUTHERN BAPTIST PRESIDENT JD Greear Says: Christians are Cursed Since They Don’t Fight for “Gender Justice”

JUDGES 5:23-"Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the LORD, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the LORD, to the help of the LORD against the mighty.

SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/10/29/jd-greear-says-christians-are-cursed-since-they-dont-fight-for-gender-justice/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

JD Greear, president of the Southern Baptist Convention — who denounced Southern Baptists as racists and white supremacists, called on Christians to stand up for LGBTQ rights, and has a pro-choice woman leading bible studies at his church and also says that people who are followers of Jesus will think about the “rights of immigrants” while at the ballot box — has denounced the Church as “cursed” like Meroz for not fighting for “racial justice” and “gender justice.”

Greear, recently complained in a sermon that Christians today, like Christians during the time of American slavery, have a “malaise” about matters of justice because, he says, it doesn’t “directly affect them.”

“Whether we’re talking about racial justice or gender justice or what have you,” he says, “tragically…there’s often been a malaise in the church…because the injustice did not directly affect those of us sitting in places of privilege. Like Meroz, it didn’t affect our tribe.”

Of course, he doesn’t exactly explain what “gender justice” is, however, the website, Gender Justice U.S. defines it as “a world where everyone can thrive regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.” And since Greear has called on Christians to stand up for gay rights and says that using “preferred pronouns” for transgender people is “pronoun hospitality” and that he believes he should do it, one can draw their own conclusion as to what Greear means by the term.

Greear argued that Christians are “cursed,” like Meroz, for sitting back and “doing nothing” while oppressed people are bearing the burdens of the privileged.

TRENDING:  SBC President Says Stop Being a Pharisee, Pride, Materialism, Greater Sins Than Homosexuality

Besides the obvious fact that this is just stupid, it is biblically ignorant and does not represent what the Scriptures actually teach about justice. This is a Reconstructionist revision of the theology of justice and deserves nothing less than outright rejection by all Christians.

 

The Black Lives Matter assault in the nation’s schools is bigger and more intrusive than people realize. Along with that is a new wave of radical LGBT indoctrination.

SEE: https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/20d/BLM-and-lgbt-school-assault/index.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Well-funded BLM working closely with LGBT movement already in the schools.

Activist teachers say: Parents should have no say in this!

See our multi-part series exposing it in detail!

October 23, 2020
ALT TEXT Most parents are completely unaware that this is being taught to schoolchildren across America - even in academic subjects such as English and math.

Right now, many people are focused on national politics, the elections, the banning of conservative thought, and the fear of more violence and destruction to come from Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa. But anyone who cares about the nation’s longer-term future needs to pay attention to the horrible transformation going on in the nation’s schools. It is on a scale that we have never seen before.

A flood of Black Lives Matter curriculum material – specifically tailored for various grade levels – is now showing up in public (and some private) schools across the US. Children are hit with insidious Marxist messages including:

  • America is a very bad place.
  • Police are racist and violent.
  • White people are naturally bigoted and have unfair privilege.
  • All black people are morally superior.
  • The traditional family structure is archaic.

The obvious purpose is to divide people, not bring them together.

But that’s not all. Two of the three founders of BLM are “out” lesbians, and “from the start Black Lives Matter has been about LGBTQ lives.” So along with the Marxist ideology – often mixed together – comes a new radical wave of LGBT indoctrination in the schools. From what we’ve seen, it is even more psychologically aggressive than before.

ALT TEXT A Black Lives Matter poster being used in the New York City school system mingles issues of race, 'queer' and transgender identities, diversity, and globalism.

A relatively sudden surge into the schools

As our readers know, for many years MassResistance has been successfully helping parents fight back against the LGBT agenda targeting their children in their schools.

Earlier this year, MassResisance activists around the country began confronting local BLM groups that were targeting their communities with their aggressive Marxist, anti-police, and racist demands. Much of this was centered around de-funding the police and pushing Marxist policies into city government.

When the new school year began back in August classes were conducted via Zoom because of COVID-19. Parents at home began noticing extremely offensive BLM lessons being pushed on students in supposedly academic settings such as English and math classes. It was frightening and very upsetting. MassResistance has helped some parents confront the school officials and get it stopped.

This has all been shockingly sudden. Last year there was almost no BLM material being taught that we could identify. But now we’re seeing that it’s a much larger problem than we could ever imagine. The sheer amount of material and the methodical way it’s being presented to children makes it obvious that the preparation for this has been going on for some time.

Where is this coming from?

This assault on children is being funded by Corporate America. The amount of money is staggering. Two years ago the National Football League announced a $90 million donation to Black Lives Matter and its “social justice” front groups, which was later upped to $250 million. This has been joined by Apple, Amazon, Walmart, and Google, Bank of America and many others. (See sample lists of funders here and here.)  The total by now has easily reached a billion dollars.

A substantial amount of this money goes to “educating” the nation’s schoolchildren. They have been able to create their extensive course materials and the methodologies for pushing it most effectively on children.

ALT TEXT Part of the "white privilege" propaganda in Middle Schools.

It’s moving so fast because the Black Lives Matter organization is working closely with the LGBT movement which infiltrated the schools over the past several decades – as well as the political entities that run them and universities that influence them. As a result, most of this new material is coming from the state or city level – and being pushed into the individual schools.

Teachers have also been put through indoctrination “teacher training,” much like the LGBT training that HRC and its “Welcoming Schools” have given them in years past (which is also pushed from the government entities).

ALT TEXT This Black Lives Matter teacher presentation in Buffalo, NY describes the various indoctrination sessions that the city's teachers - and even some parents - will be going through.

BLM is also working with other left-wing extremist groups already in the schools, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and its so-called “Teaching Tolerance” curriculum.

Disturbing focus on Elementary and Middle School students

From what we are seeing, they are focusing particularly intensely on the Elementary and Middle School grades. They have a definite – and quite frightening - obsession in molding children’s minds as early as possible.

ALT TEXT From a Black Lives Matter coloring book for elementary school children.

This, unfortunately, is not a new concept among totalitarian movements. It’s something that we need to pay attention to.

ALT TEXT

Militant attitude of teachers

One very disturbing thing that we’ve found in both writings and even video clips that we’ve come across is the extreme militant attitude of teachers.

In one video of a training session, teachers explain that parents don’t have a right to decide what their children learn – because the teachers are the ones who know best. And children need to be protected from parents’ bigotry.

A popular slogan is “Freedom to read.” They unabashedly say that young children have the “freedom” to read pornography, or children’s books promoting homosexuality or witchcraft, or any subject the teacher may choose.

Keeping parents in the dark is a goal. And in fact, most people have no idea what’s happening. But sometimes parents find out. So there are training sessions on dealing with pushback from parents - particularly “bigoted conservative religious” parents. They teach the teachers how to give such parents misinformation and confuse them to a point where they don’t oppose the material.

Can this be stopped?

Yes, we believe it can be stopped – school by school. None of this can be defended by the schools – if parents are educated and equipped to properly confront it. Because it is virtually all based on lies and discredited Marxist ideology, it is surprisingly easy to tear down.

The education establishment is used to intimidating and steamrolling parents and community members who are frightened and unsophisticated. But our experience has been that they cannot effectively deal with people who are aggressive and well equipped with the facts.

There are numerous strategies at our disposal – including demands that the ringleaders pushing this on children be fired – which we’ve successfully used.

(The only thing limiting us right now is the funding to manage a larger-scale operation. Conservative donors are historically reticent to be confrontational. But we’re working on that.)

Coming up: A series of exposés!

Over the last few months we have gathered a large amount of the new Black Lives Matter and LGBT material being pushed in the nation’s schools. Most of this has come from teachers (and even principals) who have been outraged – and reached out to us. It even includes some videos of secret teacher training sessions.

It’s far too much to post in just one article. So over the next several weeks we will be publishing a series of detailed reports. Our goal is for people to know what’s really happening in their schools – and hopefully get prepared to take action!

_____________________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO:

https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/20d/BLM-Marxist-school-lessons/index.html

 

Protecting Your Children From YOU!~Behind the Deep State

In this episode of Behind The Deep State, host Alex Newman explains that the Deep State is coming for your children under the guise of "protecting" them from you. Every tyrant of the last century understood that brainwashing kids was the route to power. Now they are coming for yours. The United Nations has the Convention on the Rights of the Child that turns the government, not the parents, into the primary decision makers. In Scotland, this UN deal resulted in having a government bureaucrat oversee each child. The federal government and some states are seeking similar schemes. They hope to destroy the family because it is part of God's design, and it's a powerful bulwark against the tyranny sought by the Deep State. ▶️ More Videos: Trump is the Target of "Color Revolution" Coup https://youtu.be/MQlPX2okv00 Biden Adopts UN "Build Back Better" Push for New World Order https://youtu.be/bQZG7xWPZQ4 Demonic Spirits Behind Black Lives Matter https://youtu.be/lKmnyY0vQmU Articles: Feds Seek Home Visits, Calling Parents “Equal Partners” https://thenewamerican.com/feds-seek-... Public School Helps Child Get Sex Change Without Parental Approval https://thenewamerican.com/public-sch... 🇺🇸 The New American: http://www.thenewamerican.com/ 📲 Let's Connect! http://www.facebook.com/TheNewAmerican https://parler.com/profile/TheNewAmer... https://twitter.com/NewAmericanMag https://www.instagram.com/newamerican... #BehindTheDeepState #AlexNewman

CHINESE IMMIGRANT AUSTIN TONG SUES JESUIT CATHOLIC FORDHAM UNIVERSITY FOR SANCTIONING TIANANMEN POSTS ON INSTAGRAM

Fordham University

BY CHRISSY CLARK

SEE: https://freebeacon.com/campus/chinese-immigrant-sues-university-for-sanctioning-tiananmen-post/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A Fordham University student kicked off campus for posing with his legally owned firearm filed a lawsuit on July 23 alleging the school violated its commitment to free expression.

Rising senior Austin Tong, a Chinese immigrant who posted the picture in honor of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, filed a lawsuit against Fordham, the school's president, and the dean of students. The suit alleges the university violated its free expression covenant with students by disciplining Tong for "lawful, constitutionally protected, and non-threatening social media posts on Instagram."

"Fordham's policies and rules, as well as basic First Amendment jurisprudence, make it abundantly clear that uncomfortable or unpleasant impact on a speaker's audience is not a proper ground to restrain the speech in question," the lawsuit reads.

The suit calls on the school to annul all disciplinary sanctions, admit that Tong's social media posts are a permitted exercise of free speech under Fordham's speech code, and award relief for the breach of contract between Fordham and Tong.

In its mission statement, Fordham guarantees the freedom of inquiry among other freedoms, but the explicit promise of free speech can be found in the school's demonstration policy.

"Each member of the University has a right to freely express his or her positions and to work for their acceptance whether they assent to or dissent from existing situations in the University or society," the policy reads.

Tong was told in a disciplinary letter from the university that he cannot return to campus and must complete his degree online while his peers return to campus. Tong cannot hold a leadership position on campus, must write an apology note to the school, and must complete a bias training or face suspension or possible expulsion.

The lawsuit alleges the sanctions against Tong are "damaging and humiliating" for the student as well as "draconian." The disciplinary actions force Tong to choose between his beliefs and a degree from his university of choice.

"These sanctions have placed Tong in an untenable position," the lawsuit reads. "He must either (1) abandon his principled beliefs, forfeit his right to lawful expression, and submit to Fordham's unconscionable discipline, or (2) face suspension or expulsion from Fordham, which would severely damage his future academic and employment prospects."

Tong told the Washington Free Beacon he believed he had a good relationship with dean of students Keith Eldredge before posting his Instagram photos. "Not even a Chinese university would do this to their students," he said.

The university did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

"The end result is that Tong and other students who do not adhere to the political orthodoxy of Fordham's administrators are turned into outcasts," the lawsuit reads. "Other individuals who wish to speak out with potentially unpopular but good faith viewpoints are discouraged from exercising their right of free expression."

Tong's lawyer Brett Joshpe said he could not comment on the pending litigation, but said there will be additional claims for "the massive damages caused."

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fordham University Punishes Pro 2A Student

BY JOE SILVERSTEIN

SEE: https://www.thecornellreview.org/fordham-university-punishes-pro-2a-student/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
On June 4th, Austin Tong shared a picture of himself holding a legal firearm to commemorate the anniversary of the Tienanmen Square protests.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CBB08GDlFNX/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Austin Tong, a rising senior studying business at Fordham University, was recently banned from campus after posting an image of himself holding a legally purchased rifle. In a previous post, Mr. Tong also shared a picture of David Dorn, with the caption, “Y’all a bunch of hypocrites.” Dorn was a retired police officer who was murdered while protecting a local store during a riot in June. Many have criticized Black Lives Matter for failing to protest the death of David Dorn, who was African American. These two posts were made on June 3rd and June 4th.

In a letter composed on July 14th, Keith Eldredge, the Dean of Students at Fordham University, notified Mr. Tong that a student conduct hearing had found the posts to be in violation of the university’s policies regarding “bias and/or hate crimes [and] threats/intimidation.” As a result of his alleged transgressions, Mr. Tong was barred from serving as an officer in any student groups, banned from campus, and instructed to complete the remainder of his degree online. Additionally, Austin was ordered to complete mandatory implicit bias training and write a letter of apology. He has refused to do so. 

 In an interview on The Joe Silverstein Podcast, Brett Joshpe Esquire, who is representing Mr. Tong stated, “He’s not going to be forced into issuing an apology when he did absolutely nothing wrong.” Mr. Joshpe went on to emphasize the importance of protecting freedom of speech in academia. “[College campuses] are supposed to be places where vigorous debate can happen… It is precisely the controversial topics that need to be protected vigorously and college campuses are exactly where those debates should be taking place.”

The case of Austin Tong is not an isolated incident. Increasingly, we have seen conservative students, faculty, and organizations systematically targeted in higher education. At Cornell University, Professor William Jacobson became the target of a smear campaign after criticizing Black Lives Matter.  In an unprecedented move, Eduardo M. Peñalver, Dean of Cornell Law School, harshly criticized Jacobson for his extramural political speech. Petitions, student boycotts, and allegations of racism quickly followed. Similarly, at Binghamton University, the College Republicans were suspended after tabling to promote a forthcoming event featuring Dr. Arthur Laffer. The university claimed the College Republicans were in violation of university and Student Assembly policies and publicly rebuked the group in a statement. However, the administration failed to take punitive action against violent agitators who assaulted and threatened the conservative students. 

Since Fordham is a private university, they do not have the same first amendment obligations as their public counterparts. However, they do have a responsibility to adhere to their own published policies regarding freedom of speech. Consequently, Joshpe Mooney Paltzik LLP filed an Article 78 Petition alleging that Fordham acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of its own policies. “We are prepared to fight for people like Austin Tong, who are prepared to fight for themselves.” 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

TONG VS. FORDHAM LAWSUIT:

SEE: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=avKDhKs0whNNB2DJEulcUA==&system=prod

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOSHPE, MOONEY, PALTZIK LLP LAW FIRM IN NEW YORK CITY:

SEE: https://www.jmpllp.com/#contact

________________________________________________________________________________________________

FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN EDUCATION LETTERS & ARTICLES:

SEE: 

https://www.thefire.org/fire-letter-to-fordham-university-july-17-2020/

https://www.thefire.org/advice-to-fordham-ignoring-fire-will-only-get-you-scorched/

https://www.thefire.org/fordham-student-on-campus-probation-for-instagram-photo-holding-a-gun-memorializing-tiananmen-square-massacre/

https://www.thefire.org/fordham-university-named-one-of-americas-10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-after-banning-students-for-justice-in-palestine/

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FORDHAM OBSERVER NEWS, LINCOLN CENTER CAMPUS, MANHATTAN, NEW YORK CITY:

SEE:

https://fordhamobserver.com/49644/opinions/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-austin-tong/

https://fordhamobserver.com/48725/news/student-pledges-lawsuit-against-university-disputing-disciplinary-actions/

EXCERPTS FROM SECOND ARTICLE ABOVE WHICH ARE SUPPORTIVE & NOT SUPPORTIVE:

"Numerous users expressed support for Tong, commenting that the university infringed on his right to free speech without reasonable cause. Conservative news outlets Campus ReformThe Epoch Times and The Glenn Beck Program have also reported on Tong’s case, which Tong praised on July 16 on Instagram."

"An equally large number of users opposed Tong, commenting that the posts provoked fear and were insensitive amid the Black Lives Matter movement, which has led and amplified a widespread outcry against violence."

"“Austin, I am extremely disappointed that you are actively utilizing your platform to invalidate the BLM movement rather than using your time to facilitate conversations about the issues at hand/trying to raise awareness,” Carrie Kinui, Fordham College at Lincoln Center ’21, commented on Tong’s post of Dorn."