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.

Critical Race Theory Costs Staffer at Smith College Her Job

BY RICK MORAN

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/02/20/critical-race-theory-costs-staffer-at-smith-college-her-job-n1427045;

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

A staff member at Smith College, Jody Shaw, resigned her position as a student support coordinator because of the “hostile atmosphere” at the college. It appears that Ms. Shaw ran afoul of critical race theory fanatics who forced her to “participate in racially prejudicial behavior as a condition” of her employment.

Shaw, being a normal, intelligent, woman rebelled. She blew the whistle on the racialists at Smith College in a scathing video she posted to YouTube.

Bari Weiss is also covering this disturbing story.

“I ask that Smith College stop reducing my personhood to a racial category. Stop telling me what I must think and feel about myself,” she said. “Stop presuming to know who I am or what my culture is based upon my skin color. Stop asking me to project stereotypes and assumptions onto others based on their skin color.”

This is the essence of critical race theory. In order to make “progress” in “combatting racism,” everyone is reduced to a stick figure. It’s so much easier to define individuals when you identify them as members of a specific group, with specific beliefs, biases, prejudices,

In her resignation letter to the university president, she didn’t pull any punches.

Every day, I watch my colleagues manage student conflict through the lens of race, projecting rigid assumptions and stereotypes on students, thereby reducing them to the color of their skin. I am asked to do the same, as well as to support a curriculum for students that teaches them to project those same stereotypes and assumptions onto themselves and others. I believe such a curriculum is dehumanizing, prevents authentic connection, and undermines the moral agency of young people who are just beginning to find their way in the world.

Ms. Weiss catalogs the damage this ideology/theology is doing to people in all walks of life, of all colors.

We all know that something morally grotesque is swallowing liberal America. Almost no one wants to risk talking about it out loud.

Every day I get phone calls from anxious Americans complaining about an ideology that wants to pull all of us into the past.

I get calls from parents telling me about the damaging things being taught in schools: so-called antiracist programs that urge children to obsess on the color of their skin.

I get calls from people working in corporate America forced to go to trainings in which they learn that they carry collective, race-based guilt — or benefit from collective, race-based virtue.

I get calls from young people just launching their careers telling me that they feel they have no choice but to profess fealty to this ideology in order to keep their jobs.

Almost no one who calls me is willing to go public. And I understand why. To go public with what’s happening is to risk their jobs and their reputations.

We need more Jodi Shaws in the world. The problem is that it takes otherworldly courage to speak out, to demand change. I daresay Ms. Shaw’s life will never be the same. And given her stand was made on a college campus, any career she was hoping for in higher education is probably ruined. She’s probably lost some friends over her stand. Her life has been changed forever.

It’s important that we realize that this didn’t have to happen. Small-minded, even ignorant people see salvation in controlling the minds and lives of others. Is it a mass delusion that they believe they are actually “fighting racism,” that they’re doing this for white people’s own good? Or are these the same efforts at control that have been around since humans created civilizations?

It’s a contagion that no one seems capable of stopping. Perhaps it’s good enough now that enough of us speak out and fight for what we know in our bones is right.

False ‘Progressive’ Church in Nashville Says Bible Isn’t ‘the Word of God; Inerrant or Infallible’

  • "Nothing more than a social club of individuals bent on usurping the authority of Scripture in order to hold themselves up as the moral authority and arbiters of good and evil, right and wrong," one commenter wrote. "You may get away with this momentarily in this lifetime, but when you stand before God, that will come to a screeching halt. Settle with the King while you have time. Turn to Christ and live."
  • "This is so profoundly sad," another commenter observed.
  • "The Great Apostasy is in full force," another commenter said before adding text from 2 Timothy 4: "For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts."

SEE: https://www.christianpost.com/news/nashville-church-says-bible-isnt-the-word-of-god.html?uid=29a9411a22

AND: https://www.theblaze.com/amp/progressive-church-bible-not-word-of-god-2650625743

"I think we definitely have a tendency to treat the Bible almost as an idol," Scott — who grew up a Southern Baptist — told the Post.

"THE 'ANCIENT' BIBLE DOESN'T INTERPRET ITSELF; THE BIBLE NEVER "SAYS" SOMETHING; NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE"

"BIBLE BELT" SOUTHERN BAPTIST APOSTATE MALIGNS THE BIBLE:

The Bible-What Is Progressive Christianity?

BY MICHAEL MARCAVAGE

SEE: https://christiannews.net/2021/02/19/false-progressive-church-in-nashville-says-bible-isnt-the-word-of-god-inerrant-or-infallible/;

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

A so-called progressive ‘church’ in Nashville has drawn opposition after posting a message on social media stating that the Bible isn’t “the Word of God … inerrant or infallible.”

The organization, calling itself “GracePointe Church,” led by false teacher Josh Scott posted the disturbing message on Facebook on Sunday, February 7. The post related to a message he delivered on YouTube called “What Is Progressive Christianity?” as a part of GracePointe’s online service.

“As Progressive Christians, we’re open to the tensions and inconsistencies in the Bible. We know that it can’t live up to impossible, modern standards. We strive to more clearly articulate what Scripture is and isn’t,” the organization posted before citing what they claim the Bible isn’t and is.

“The Bible isn’t: the Word of God, self-interpreting, a science book, an answer/rule book, inerrant or infallible,” it listed. “The Bible is a product of community, a library of texts, multi-vocal, a human response to God, living and dynamic,” it continued.

The Bible warns in 2 Timothy 4:3-4: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

________________________________________________________________________

 

Bill Gates Bankrolling Educational Organization That Says Math is Racist

MATH IS RACIST?

Pathway group says minorities getting answers wrong is because of "white supremacy."

SEE: https://equitablemath.org/

BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/posts/bill-gates-bankrolling-educational-organization-that-says-math-is-racist/;

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

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is bankrolling an activist educational group that believes math is racist and that arriving at an objective answer is an example of “white supremacy.”

Yes, really.

A conglomerate of 25 educational organizations called A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction asserts that asking students to find the correct answer is an “inherently racist practice.”

The organization’s website lists the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as its only donor.

“In fact, over the past decade, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has awarded over of $140 million to a variety of groups associated with Pathway. Their “antiracist resources” are at the epicenter of a new training course for teachers offered by the Oregon Department of Education throughout the state,” reports National File.

“Three of the most prominent organizations receiving grant money from the Gates’ are The Education Trust, Teach Plus, and WestEd, all non-profit 501c organizations.”

Teachers are instructed to blame non-white students getting answers wrong on “white supremacist practices,” which are truly to blame for the “underachievement” of minorities.

As we have previously highlighted, following on from universities, schools have now become breeding grounds for this kind of intersectional insanity.

Earlier this week, we reported on how the principal of East Side Community School in New York sent white parents a manifesto that calls on them to become “white traitors” and advocate for full “white abolition.”

Last year, we revealed how children at an elementary school in Virginia are being taught that traits such as “objectivity” and “perfectionism” are ‘racist’ characteristics of “white supremacy.”

Meanwhile, school districts across America are eliminating grading standards in order to “combat racism”.

The move was announced in San Diego after it was revealed that just 7% of D or F grades are handed out to white students, while 23% went to Native Americans, 23% of failing grades went to Hispanics and 20% went to black students.

As Allie Beth Stuckley notes, “I don’t know. Maybe the people who don’t want black and brown kids to learn math correctly are the *actual* white supremacists.”

Marxism Advances In America, Race Division & Hypocrisy. Zuckerberg Fears Vaccine. Bans you for it.

In this episode of The Silent War, CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg is caught admitting concerns around the vaccine, yet bans others for the same. Biden's Marxist Government prepares to push anti white racist policies and redistributing wealth from whites to blacks. A Deadly attack on an American Base in Iraq. And Biden: 'who cares if China commits genocide and torture..it's their culture' Even the big ETF's that manipulate the price of Silver and Gold are warning, the game is nearly up - physical is almost out. All of this and much more

Universities Demonize and Disavow Christian Self-Sacrifice and Altruism

AKA, “the Crusades

BY RAYMOND IBRAHIM

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/universities-demonize-and-disavow-christian-self-raymond-ibrahim/;

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

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

The Indiana-based University of Valparaiso is scrapping its Crusader mascot, nickname, and logos—because they convey “hate”  and are not “inclusive” enough.  According to the university’s Feb. 11, 2021 statement:

Interim President Colette Irwin-Knott of Valparaiso University (“Valpo”) announced today that it will retire its existing mascot, the Crusader.…  The Crusader imagery related to the Crusades has been embraced and displayed by hate groups including the Ku Klux Klan.  “The negative connotation and violence associated with the Crusader imagery are not reflective of Valpo’s mission and values, which promote a welcoming and inclusive community,” Irwin-Knott said, … [adding] “Valpo is and always has been a faith-based institution, and we want to make sure our symbolism is in alignment with our beliefs and speaks to the core values of the Lutheran ethos.”

In the coming month, a committee will be established “to engage the campus community in considering and adopting a new mascot.”

The statement further justifies its action by adding a reminder that Valpo is only doing what schools and other institutions all throughout America are doing:

Valpo’s decision is in line with athletic teams across all levels – from interscholastic to professional sports programs – that are replacing offensive mascots with less divisive symbols. With this decision, the university is following the same course as virtually all other universities that carried the Crusader as their mascot or a symbol for their school.

To be sure, this sort of betrayal of the West’s heritage is not without precedent and is hardly limited to college campuses, AKA, hotbeds of political correctness, and Western guilt/self-hatred. In November 2019, the owners of a famous New Zealand rugby team scrapped their longtime logo—a Crusader—to show how “woke” they were vis-à-vis Muslims.

Nor is it just “militant” expressions of Christianity (vis-à-vis Islam) that are being flushed down the memory hole to appease Muslims, but mere expressions of Christianity.  As one memorable example, in 2004, “Spanish football giant Real Madrid … dropped the Christian cross affixed at the top of its official crest after signing a sponsorship deal with the National Bank of Abu Dhabi.”

Meanwhile, Muslim nations, such as the home of Islam itself, Saudi Arabia (AKA “US friend and ally”™), proudly depict scimitars on their national flags, with the words, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger”—words that have gotten countless people, past and present, slaughtered for not reciting.  No non-Muslim seems to be offended or concerned by that, but Westerners are rushing over themselves to change the logos and flags of, not nations, but schools or teams of men who play with balls—lest they appear too militant, too “mean.”

That, in a nutshell, sums up how the West and Islam see themselves and respond to one another.  While Islam venerates its violent, jihadi past—and, wherever possible, seeks to relive it—the West is constantly disavowing its Crusader heritage.

And what exactly were the Crusades?  They were a militant, no-nonsense response to more than four centuries of jihadi aggression against and conquests of Christian and European territory.  The particular Muslim invasions (between 1071 and1095) that occasioned the First Crusade saw hundreds of thousands of Eastern Christians (Armenians, Syriacs, and Greeks) slaughtered or enslaved by Muslim Turks acting in the name of jihad.  As the contemporary Byzantine princess, Anna Komnenos wrote,  “cities were obliterated, lands were plundered, and the whole of Rhomaioi [Anatolia] was stained with Christian blood.”

Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (r.1081 to 1118), Anna’s father, recounted his people’s travails in a letter addressed to his friend, the “Count of Flanders and to all the princes of the whole kingdom, lovers of the Christian faith.”  In it, he lamented how the Turks “pillaged daily and constantly raided, with Christians being murdered and mocked in various indescribable ways.”  Not only did the Muslim invaders “defile the holy places in innumerable ways, [and] destroy them,” but they would “circumcise Christian boys and youths above Christian baptismal fonts, pour the blood from the circumcision into the fonts in mockery of Christ, force them to urinate on it, and then drag them around the church and force them to blaspheme the name and faith of the Holy Trinity.  Those who refuse are subjected to various punishments and eventually killed.” As for Christian women, the Muslim invaders

took virgins and made them public prostitutes....  Mothers were violated in the presence of their daughters, raped over and over again by different men, while their daughters were compelled, not only to watch but to sing obscene songs and to dance. Then they changed places, and the suffering, which is painful and shameful to speak of, was inflicted upon the daughters, while the filthy activity was adorned by the obscene songs of the unfortunate mothers….  When the female sex was not spared (an action which might be excused since it is at least in accord with nature), they became worse than animals, breaking all human laws by turning on men. Their lust overflowed to the point that the execrable and profoundly intolerable crime of sodomy, which they committed against men of middle or low station, they also committed against a certain bishop, killing him.

It was this—concern for fellow Christians—that prompted the First Crusade when it did; and it is this that is making contemporary Western Christians fall over themselves to disavow anything associated with the Crusades.

After describing some of the aforementioned atrocities at the Council of Clermont in France on November 27, 1095, Pope Urban II cried out, “Who is to revenge all this—who is to repair this damage, if you do not do it?”  The Christians present cried “God wills it!” and the First Crusade was born. 

Soon they would set off to provide succor to their Eastern coreligionists while sacrificing much in the process: rather than gain anything from the First Crusade, most who took the cross lost—and expected to lose—everything, from their estates in Europe to their lives in battle against Muslims.

This is ironic in light of the university’s recent statement. In it, Irwin-Knott declares that “At Valpo, we strive to seek truth, serve generously and cultivate hope. We do not believe having the Crusader as our mascot portrays these values.”

Actually, it was the First Crusaders who lived up to “these values.”  They did “strive to seek the truth” by ascertaining—and accepting and acting on—what Islam was doing to Christians in the East, and they did “serve generously and cultivate hope” for those same Christians: The sources contain numerous accounts of Armenians and other Eastern Christians falling on their knees and tearfully thanking their Western coreligionists for liberating them from the Islamic yoke.

Such are the contradictions that we are regularly expected to swallow nowadays.  For, and contrary to all the glib talk of “Valpo” and its interim president, it is in fact Western universities that do not “strive to seek truth”—especially those truths that stray from the “official” narrative—nor do they “serve generously and cultivate hope” for the billions who suffer from politically incorrect causes around the world, chief among them those many millions who suffer under Islam.

Note: Historical quotes in this article were sourced from and are documented in the author’s book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West

_____________________________________________________________________________

SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST: 

INDIANA: VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY DROPS CRUSADERS NICKNAME & MASCOT TO BOW TO THE MUSLIMS

https://ratherexposethem.org/2021/02/14/indiana-valparaiso-university-drops-crusaders-nickname-mascot-to-bow-to-the-muslims/

 

 

Tubman to Replace Old Hickory. Hard Left Agenda Moves Ahead

Tubman to Replace Old Hickory. Liberal Agenda Moves Ahead

BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/tubman-to-replace-old-hickory-hard-left-agenda-move-ahead/;

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

It was a significant story that went unremarked because of the Biden regime’s assault on everything normal, and the Democrats’ paranoid delusions about former President Trump and the “insurrection” he supposedly led.

In late January, the regime announced plans to adorn the $20 bill with the image of Harriet Tubman, the Underground Railroad leader who did not, as popularly believed, lead hundreds of slaves out of the Deep South to freedom.

Still, the $20 must feature Tubman, not Andrew Jackson, a dusty relic of the old Republic.

Writing at Revolver.com, conservative scribe Scott Greer, formerly of the Daily Caller, helpfully reminded readers on Thursday that Biden’s Treasury workers will proceed with the plan that President Trump is accused of delaying.

“The Treasury Department is taking steps to resume efforts to put Harriet Tubman on the front of the new $20 notes,” Biden mouthpiece Jen Psaki said. “It’s important that our money reflect the history and diversity of our country.”

That isn’t, of course, the main reason Jackson has to go, as Greer explained, noting a screeching one-sentence indictment in the Washington Post:

Jackson was a notorious racist, a slaver who as president was responsible, among other things, for the Trail of Tears, in which thousands of Native Americans died as they were forcibly pushed west. Tubman, on the other hand, is one of the greatest heroes America has produced.

As Greer explained, the Postie who penned the piece didn’t bother telling readers why Tubman “is one of the greatest heroes America has produced.”

Greer directs readers to the real history of Tubman from historian James McPherson, author of Battle Cry of Freedomwho reviewed four books about Tubman for the New York Review of Books in 2004.

McPherson’s conclusion about the main “conductor” on the Underground Railroad — the network of secret meeting places and stash houses that escaping slaves followed from the South to freedom in the North — is this: Because Tubman’s story is largely based off oral histories, it is difficult to know the facts of her life, which has left her story open to embellishment as it was passed down over the years.

Tubman led perhaps five or six dozen slaves to freedom, a notable achievement, but others did more.

Tubman biographer Milton Sernett buried another myth, Greer wrote:

One of the most popular legends about Tubman is that she commanded a black regiment’s raid in South Carolina that destroyed Confederate outposts and freed hundreds of slaves. This would’ve made her the first female to command such an expedition in American history. The problem is that it’s “wishful thinking,” [Sernett says]. Sernett acknowledges she served as a nurse and scout for the Union, but was not a military commander. Sernett also argues that many of the famous quotes attributed to Tubman were not said by her. The retired historian says his thorough research led him to question much of what we claim to know about Tubman.

Not surprisingly, Greer reported, his remark that Tubman should not replace Jackson on the $20 bill invited the usual farrago of leftist hate.

Why Tubman Must Replace Jackson

As for Old Hickory, the Treasury Department didn’t put him on the $20 bill for no reason. He was a founding-generation American who fought in the War for Independence and was captured by the British at age 13. Because of Jackson’s courageous war on the money power that controlled the Second Bank of the United States — which precipitated an unsuccessful assassination attempt — the United States broke the shackles of central banking, at least until 1913 and the establishment of the Federal Reserve System. During these years without a central bank, Americans experienced unprecedented economic growth.

But he was also a white man, a slave-owner, and waged war against the Indians. And so a very real if imperfect American hero and symbol must be attacked and replaced, American history rewritten, to fit the new narrative.

NEW DHS DIRECTOR AND DACA ‘CHIEF ARCHITECT’ ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS ENDORSED BY LA RAZA, OTHER PRO-AMNESTY GROUPS

BY RENEE NAL

SEE: https://rairfoundation.com/new-dhs-director-and-daca-chief-architect-alejandro-mayorkas-endorsed-by-la-raza-other-pro-amnesty-groups-watch/;

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

On Tuesday, Alejandro “Ali” Nicholas Mayorkas was sworn in as Director of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the newly-installed Joe Biden. Mayorkas, who was born in Cuba, has been referred to as the “chief architect” of former President Obama’s amnesty plan known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

This, on the same day Joe Biden signed three new executive orders reversing President Trump’s immigration policies. As reported at RAIR, Joe Biden intends on increasing the number of “refugees” by 700 percent.

Mayorkas has engaged in cronyism for his entire career, protecting those in positions of power. For example, Alejandro Mayorkas was infamously involved in the Clinton-era pardon of the drug-trafficking son of Democrat donor Horacio Vignali. Along that vein, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also criticized the new swamp leader:

“As a high-ranking official in the Obama administration, Mr. Mayorkas did his best to turn US Citizenship and Immigration Services into an unethical favor factory for Democratic Party royalty — governors, the DNC chair, Hollywood executives, a Senate majority leader from Nevada, they all received special treatment to a degree that stunned and disturbed the Obama administration’s own inspector general.”

Mayorkas vowed to “end construction of the Mexico border wall in accordance with Biden’s directive, even though Congress in December approved $1.4 billion in new funds for the project,” as reported at the New York Post. Mayorkas continued to say that he will look into what can be done with the wall that has already been built, signaling that the newly installed lunatics in the federal government would actively remove the border wall.

The White House tweeted about the Mayorkas appointment last month, which featured a list of pro-amnesty endorsers (see video below), including big unions United Farm Workers, SEIU and AFL-CIO, as well as radical groups such as the Soros-Funded UnidosUS (formerly National Council of La Raza), the Coalition for the American Dream, and Community Change.

Watch:

It appears that the swearing in video has a disproportionate amount of “dislikes” on YouTube, which is representative of other official White House videos, as reported at RAIR.

*UPDATE: In the few short hours since this article was published, another 4k “dislikes” were added to the video.

*Funny, at 11:42 PM, the “dislikes” were drastically deflated. Huh.

Source

*11:42 PM.

Source

Watch as Red Diaper Baby Kamala Harris swears In Alejandro Mayorkas as Secretary of Homeland Security. What a slap in the face that this man is swearing on a Bible to defend America against foreign and domestic enemies as he plans to flood the borders with illegal aliens.

Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here: https://rairfoundation.com/donate/

Critical Race Theory is How Democrats Plan to Win Elections

And that’s where a new Republican civil rights movement must rise.

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/critical-race-theory-how-democrats-plan-win-daniel-greenfield/;

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

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Liberal critics of critical race theory often act as if it’s a mysterious cult that emerged out of nowhere, while its conservative critics tie it to a history of academic Marxism. That’s true, but doesn’t explain why it has suddenly become so pervasively established in our culture.

Politics can be downstream of culture, but political culture is downstream of politics.

The resurrection of black nationalism and critical race theory are two faces of the same electoral strategy by a political movement now inextricably tied to black voters and white elites.

When Obama beat Hillary, he didn’t just transform America, he shed the last vestiges of the Democrat working-class white vote and recreated the party as a coalition of urban elites, immigrants, and minority voters on the model of Tony Blair’s Labour Party in the UK. This “neo-liberalism”, as lefties like to call it, found its own Corbyn in the form of Bernie Sanders who put on a show of attacking the white urban elites who dominate a former working-class party.

Democrats use critical race theory to deter leftist insurgencies and police the middle class.

The Obama strategy traded the working-class white vote for increased black and minority turnout. Since Hispanic voters are much less politically reliable than white voters, the Democrat electoral strategy narrowed down to maximizing black voter turnout. When black voter turnout faltered, as it did in 2016, the Democrats took a beating. But in 2020, black voters made Biden the nominee over Bernie even though he was backed by a majority of white and Hispanic Dems.

Then they handed Democrats control of the Senate.

Obama had initially portrayed his candidacy in MLK terms as ushering in a new post-racial era of national harmony. Then, once in office, he pivoted to the old black nationalism of his mentor, Jeremiah Wright, using his office as a platform for falsely accusing America of racism.

The rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, under the guiding hand of the Obama administration, touched off race riots around election years to generate black voter turnout. Midterm elections usually bring out more white than black voters. The race riots were meant to change that by compensating for Tea Party populism with a new black nationalist movement.

The race riots manufactured a national racial crisis to boost voter turnout by making black people feel threatened and to silence the middle class and white lefties threatened by the steady flow of jobs out of the country, and the concentration of power in a leftist oligarchy.

Working-class concerns about open borders and immigration had been dropped by the Democrats even before they officially dropped the working-class vote. Bill Clinton, Blair’s political peer, bluntly told working-class Democrats that the jobs were not coming back, and that they needed to send their children to college, change their culture, and join the new elite.

But college was no longer a reliable ladder into a shrinking middle class. A generation had been told that they needed “computer literacy” to function in a new economy, but by the time “learn to code” became a taunt, the tech industry was offshoring and importing cheap immigrant labor.

By the end of Obama’s time in office, the American software engineer was on the same pathway as the American factory worker, tasked with training his foreign replacement before being fired.

The new economy was heavily administrative. It would cheerfully offshore manufacturing and engineering jobs, but not the diversity specialists and managers serving as political commissars. White male jobs that depended on skill and reliability became endangered, while jobs in which fitting in at an office was more important than traditional work skills became more reliable bets.

Critical race theory became the damoclean sword hanging over the heads of the suburban middle class. Like Orwell’s 1984, the members of this ‘middle party’ were bludgeoned with a campaign of political terror so that they wouldn’t have time to think about the system they were administering. The political enunciation of the administrative middle class had the same function in Orwell’s fictional dystopia and in the entirely real dystopias across the country.

The new elites are unconcerned with the proles laboring over the actual product, but deeply worried about the political reliability of the administrative class that is their means of control. They don’t care what the workers believe because they earn too little and there’s little leverage over them, but they are obsessed with maintaining their power through the administrative class.

Critical race theory had its moment at the perfect time to offer sinecures to its own organizer class who were being embedded into every workplace in the country. But it also warned the suburban middle class to avoid being seduced by President Trump’s economic populism. The political interrogations of the struggle sessions suppressed any questions about the country.

It also shut down the leftist insurgency. When Bernie Sanders first ran against Hillary, he rejected identity politics and open borders. After a campaign of harassment by black nationalist activists with puppet strings going back to the Democrat establishment, Sanders became an even bigger enthusiast of racial tribalism and illegal migration than Hillary had ever been.

That cut him off from the working-class white vote and cost him any shot at the White House.

The future of his movement was outsourced to the identity politics populism of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and the Squad for whom racial tribalism comes ahead of economic populism.

Intersectionality prioritizes racial Marxism over economic Marxism. Elements of the Left have rebelled against the political correctness and cancel culture of racial Marxism, but in a political culture where AOC is the face of the populist Left and Bernie gets to appear in memes, the audience for the non-racial Marxism of the alumni of The Intercept is limited to conservatives.

Meanwhile, critical race theory is doing what it’s supposed to do by polarizing America along tribal racial lines and along class lines among white people. White suburban moms attend book clubs discussing White Fragility and other critical race theory texts as a form of networking. Having the right politics is crucial to your career in a variety of fields. Not all of the signs asserting that in this house the inhabitants believe in science, love, and black nationalism, are voluntary statements of belief. They’re people flying the new post-American tribal flag to fit in.

Black turnout has been crucial in some races, but it hasn’t made up for Democrat losses. It’s why Democrats took such a beating in local races once again in 2020. Mark Zuckerberg and the Democrat donor class can throw a fortune at only some races. And without the massive infusions of cash, the Democrats are more likely to lose locally in much of the country.

Democrats weaponized critical race theory to play on the insecurities of a shaky suburban middle class. While manufacturing workers may fear that their jobs are about to be sent to China, suburban middle class office workers have come to fear being stigmatized for violating the confusing and incomprehensible dogma of the new antiracism.

The 2020 election pitted economic fears based on globalism against economic fears based on political correctness among the white middle class. And while President Trump won the white middle class, enough of those suburban moms reading White Fragility voted their new creed.

The secret of brainwashing is that the best way to feign belief in something is to believe it.

Republicans had won over working-class whites by taking on China’s economic warfare, open borders migration, and offshoring jobs. But the critiques of political indoctrination and cancel culture were largely limited to rhetoric. President Trump’s executive order trying to root out critical race theory from federal workplaces and federal contractors was mostly ignored.

An Obama judge blocked it and Biden reversed it, while calling for “unity and healing”.

Republicans have failed to reckon with critical race theory, not just as a set of ideas to rail against, but as an electoral reality. The Obama administration had understood that there would be a price to pay for jettisoning the white working class and replaced it with a new coalition. That new coalition depended on capturing the Republican suburban white base through political indoctrination and repression crowdsourced not just through social media, but workplaces.

The last two elections showed off the emergence of a new coalition between white elites and minorities which uses critical race theory as a ladder offering admission to the middle class.

Affirmative action and cancel culture are the twin doors governing access to the middle class.

Republican populism championed farmers, engineers and workers threatened by globalism, but it’s also going to have to take on the cause of a suburban middle class threatened by forces much closer to home, not with mere rhetoric, but with real policies and real consequences.

This is the new civil rights movement.

When black people were discriminated against, Republicans and some Democrats built a massive legal machine that brought almost every establishment in the country under the shadow of federal law. Much of the country is now being discriminated against, repressed, and threatened by a political system more national and even more overwhelming than segregation.

If Republicans rise to that fight, because it’s the right thing to do, they will also strike at the electoral axis of the new Democrat coalition with a new civil rights movement.

The Democrats haven’t built this weapon of political terror because they just felt like it. Nor did they decide to do all this because of something an academic once wrote in a book. It’s not a random ideology, but a sophisticated strategy for winning elections and controlling the country.

When President Trump took on immigration, he connected with millions of people who felt cut off and fueled a new Republican wave. But he didn’t do it just with talk, but with action. He promised to build a wall, to ban terror travel, and to implement specific policies and and results.

That’s what a new civil rights movement needs to connect with millions more who feel cut off.

Republicans took on open borders. That battle isn’t over. But if they don’t take on critical race theory, the Democrats will use their new coalition to turn America into Europe: a nation of sullen former workers in the Rust Belt, and frightened middle class urban workers, just trying to fit in, while remaining subservient to an expert class fighting ideological crises as the nation is destroyed.

______________________________________________________________________________

Our Incoherent and Dangerous 'Diversity' Talk

At the expense of true diversity of opinion, thought and critical examination.

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/our-incoherent-and-dangerous-diversity-talk-bruce-thornton/

_____________________________________________________________________________

Greenfield Video: Incitement, Insurrection, and the Fascist Crackdown on Conservatives

Dems and media launch an unprecedented campaign to stifle dissent.

A Deep Dive Into “Critical Social Justice” & How It Took Over the Humanities-New Discourses

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

Why Schools Are Teaching Our Kids “Social Justice”

BY JAMES LINDSAY

SEE: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/10/schools-teaching-kids-social-justice/;

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

The Woke have a very specific conception of the world and a very specific mission that has everything to do with that conception. Most of us, going about our daily lives and getting hit with Critical Social Justice — the ideology that leads one to become “woke” — don’t understand this. We mistake what is, in fact, an entire worldview for a set of fringe ideas dealing with socially important issues like racism, sexism, and transgender rights. Most of us see “Wokeness,” in other words, as something that’s probably mostly good or, at worst, well-intentioned and benign.

When it comes to our children’s schools, then, many of us will conclude that it’s necessary and important in our modern, progressive world for our children to learn about these sorts of issues, and we trust our educators to communicate important truths about them so our kids can keep doing the good work of building a better society.

This kindly liberal view, borne from a combination of good intentions and being too busy to learn otherwise, misunderstands the Critical Social Justice ideology at the most fundamental level, however. It therefore completely misses the specific mission woke people—and woke educators—have for our society and our children. The crux of that mission is hiding in plain sight in the word “woke” itself, and it has everything to do with why we should be opposed to seeing these ideas featured in our educational system.

The mission of Critical Social Justice, to use its right name, is to “awaken” people to the so-called “realities” of systemic oppression in society, as it defines it—thus, “woke.” People who are woke are people who have been trained to see systemic oppression in a particular way, which has been outlined in an otherwise obscure branch of philosophy known as Critical Theory. Speaking formally, the Woke are people who have developed a “critical consciousness” about the identity-based systems of power that are alleged to permeate and define all of society, creating profound and almost intractable injustices that must be “disrupted and dismantled” to achieve “liberation.” The goal of “anti-racist,” “culturally aware,” and “social justice” approaches to education is to awaken a critical consciousness in our children so that they will grow up not to think critically but to think in terms of Critical Theories.

To understand why this isn’t just a problem but an incredibly alarming one requires understanding how the Critical Theories in Critical Social Justice see the world. That is, you have to understand what your kids will be “woke up” to in their classrooms.

To take the issue of race, Critical Race Theory begins with the assumption that racism is ordinary in our societies and present in all interactions and social and cultural phenomena, and it is up to the Critical Race Theorist—using a Woke critical consciousness—to “make it visible” and “call it out.” In Critical Race Theory, the question is not “did racism take place?” but rather, “how did racism manifest in that situation?”

Rather than learning how to do mathematics, then, your children will be taught to ask questions like how mathematics is used to maintain racial oppression—for it must, according to Critical Race Theory. This is precisely the sort of curriculum that we already see in the Ethnic Studies program in the state of Washington and its “ethnomathematics” project. Rather than focusing on the mechanics of mathematics, students will be taught to focus on the ways they can explore topics like racism and oppression through mathematics, or leaning on math as a foil that facilitates discussions on important topics—like “who it benefits” to focus on getting right answers in mathematics.

Other subjects will be similar, if not worse. A Critical Theory approach to studying American history will be dedicated to making students woke to all of the ways the United States, from its founding, has been an unjust, oppressive nation that systemically oppresses certain identity groups. This shouldn’t be understood to be part of a balanced program that reckons honestly with the darker aspects of our national past as framed against the liberal promises that eventually—and painfully—have won great freedom and equality to our diverse citizenry. It will be a sustained program of teaching our children how America is a horrible nation that has never been able to or even wanted to live up to its promise of all men having been created equally, as individuals. “Whiteness is property,” they will instruct, and that property is theft—slogans we have heard repeated as justifications for race-based riots throughout this ugly summer.

Indeed, many such programs will claim that the United States was founded intentionally on genocide, slavery, and a principle of white supremacy and anti-Blackness that has never been repaired. Its legacy is white privilege and white comfort that must be challenged at every opportunity if we are ever to achieve racial equity. Already, at least in the state of California, a proposed – although rejected – curriculum would teach these lessons not as history but as “hxrstory,” where “his” has been replaced by an explicitly “non-binary” formulation of “her,” so that maleness and cisheteronormativity won’t accidentally be centered in the term. (By the way, “his-story” isn’t even the genuine etymology of the word history, but Critical Theory looks for oppression hidden in unlikely symbols, even when it doesn’t make sense.)

Bringing Critical Social Justice into our educational systems is therefore not beneficent or benign. It is a deliberate attempt to try to program our children to think in an explicitly cynical, pessimistic, and falsely sociological way about all matters relevant to identity in every possible subject, including our history and even science and mathematics. The goal is to make our children woke, to give them a critical consciousness with which they will, unlike their parents, know that the point of understanding society is to change it in a very narrow and increasingly divisive way.

Editor’s Note: This article has been revised to clarify that a proposal to rename “history” “hxrstory” in California was rejected.

This article was originally published at Roca News.

_______________________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: https://newdiscourses.com/2021/01/what-is-critical-race-theory/

AND: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/11/why-your-organization-should-not-do-diversity-training/

_______________________________________________________________________

COURSES IN SELF-PITY & "GRIEVANCE STUDIES" AT YOUR COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY

James Lindsay sits down with American Thought Leaders host Jan Jekielek to discuss Critical Social Justice, the Grievance Studies project, and neo-Marxism in education and culture at large.

From American Thought Leaders:

To “expose the political corruption that’s taken hold of the university,” James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose made headlines in 2018 with a series of hoax papers that were accepted in peer-reviewed journals. Since then, Lindsay has made it his life’s mission to understand the ideas and theories underpinning what they dubbed “grievance studies.” Just how are these identity-oriented academic fields rooted in deeply flawed methodologies? And how has neo-Marxism and what Lindsay recently named “critical social justice” permeated the education system in America? Lindsay documents his work on his website “New Discourses”, where a constantly updated “Social Justice Encyclopedia” can also be found.

Peter Boghossian: How Social Justice Silences - New Discourses

In October of 2019, we held a conference in the heart of London with the simple mission of starting to “Speak Truth to Social Justice,” a conversation that we can all plainly see now was, even by then, long overdue. Among the eight talks given that day to address the subject, Peter Boghossian addressed the important issue of the ways that the Social Justice ideology stifles free speech. In this passionate talk, he outlines many of the speech-stifling actions that have been made against himself and others when they have dared to speak up about something they believe in when it goes against the “prevailing moral orthodoxy.” For Boghossian, and now many of us, that moral orthodoxy is the ideology calling itself Critical Social Justice.

Boghossian outlines seven different ways that the Critical Social Justice ideology stifles free speech and discusses each with poignant examples. Its advocates call names. They brand unwanted speech as violence. They assert policies of “inclusion” that are meant only to allow viewpoints they agree with. When people who hold ideas that challenge their growing hegemony are invited to speak about those views, its advocates see to it that they’re disinvited. Speech is stifled further in institutional settings that take up “Bias Response Teams.” They also, quite famously now, engage in a bullying tactic reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution of China that goes by the name “cancel culture.” Lastly, they justify all of this through “idea laundering,” a process by which they provide false legitimacy to these ideas and the other tenets of their ideology by getting them published in their own corners of the academic literature and mainstream journalism. These seven methods combine to stifle speech and even free thought in an incredible fashion.

Join Dr. Boghossian as he walks you through these points, speaking truth to “Social Justice” and fighting back for freedom of speech and cognitive liberty.


Watch Peter Boghossian’s subsequent presentation from this conference here. The audio version of this presentation is available on SoundcloudApple PodcastsGoogle PlaySpotifyStitcher, and RSS.

___________________________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO FROM LIGHTHOUSE TRAILS RESEARCH: 

NEW BOOKLET: S is for Social Justice The Language of Today’s Cultural “Revolution”

https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=32824

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

https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=32684

(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.

 

Biden’s Disastrous Pick to Head DOJ Civil Rights Division

Senate must reject Kristen Clarke’s nomination.

BY JOSEPH KLEIN

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/bidens-disastrous-pick-head-doj-civil-rights-joseph-klein/;

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

Kristen Clarke, President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee for Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, is a disastrous choice. Clarke has a long record of making racially charged-comments, going back to her time in college and continuing to this day. She also has spoken out in favor of anti-Semites. Back in college, Clarke led a student group that provided an anti-Semitic professor a platform to spew his vile remarks. Much more recently, Clarke supported an advocate of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. If Clarke’s name is not withdrawn from consideration, the Senate must reject her nomination.

Back in the day when Clarke served as the president of the Black Students Association (BSA) at Harvard, she co-authored a letter to the Harvard Crimson asserting that blacks are born with “superior physical and mental abilities.” It’s all due to the chemical melanin, Clarke claimed, which “endows [b]lacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities -- something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards." The Harvard Crimson editors at the time called for Clarke to resign her position at the BSA unless she was “prepared to retract her statements, and apologize publicly for making them.” The furthest that Clarke was willing to go at that time was stating that "The information [contained in the letter] is not necessarily something we believe.” [Emphasis added] There was no public retraction back then.

Clarke also invited the late Wellesley Professor of Africana Studies Anthony Martin to speak at a 1994 Black Students Association-sponsored event. Clarke’s guest used his time to slander Jews with the accusation that Jews had a “tradition” of persecuting blacks. "There was a Jewish monopoly over Blacks being cursed," Martin said during his address.

Clarke defended the choice of Martin to speak after receiving criticism from the Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel. "Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed Black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact," Clarke said. The real indisputable fact is that Jews have put their lives on the line in the cause of the black civil rights movement. For example, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman served in 1964 as voting-registration volunteers in Meridian, Mississippi and were murdered by Klansmen.

Now that Clarke is craving for the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights position in the Biden administration, she wants a do-over. In a recent interview, Clarke said that she realizes it was a mistake to invite Martin to speak at Harvard. “Giving someone like him a platform, it’s not something I would do again,” Clarke said, adding that “I unequivocally denounce antisemitism.”

Clarke’s recantation comes way too late. If Democrats had an ounce of intellectual honesty, which they do not, Clarke’s invitation to an anti-Semitic professor to speak at Harvard when she was a student would be reason enough for them to “cancel” Clarke now. After all, Democrats in the Senate were willing to throw Trump nominees’ alleged behavior in college and high school back at them when their nominations were being considered. The worst case involved the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. But there were others as well who were targeted by the cancel culture crowd.

In any case, we don’t even have to look back at Clarke’s college days to find proof of her support for radicals who espouse anti-Semitic views. In 2018, for example, Israel denied Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, entry to the country because of his organization’s support for the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. Clarke tweeted, “Incredibly disturbed to hear that @VinceWarren was detained and denied entry into Israel on a trip that was carefully and thoughtfully planned out over the course of several months. #CivilRights Lawyers should not be penalized for their work to promote justice.”

As for the letter to the Harvard Crimson Clarke co-authored, claiming that blacks have “superior physical and mental abilities,” Clarke is now saying that it was all a misunderstanding. She claims that the letter was intended as a satirical response to the book The Bell Curve, which posited genetic differences between whites and blacks. Clarke wants us to believe that her letter’s references to melanin as the cause of black superiority “was meant to express an equally absurd point of view — fighting one ridiculous absurd racist theory with another ridiculous absurd theory.” That’s disinformation. At the time when the letter was written, Clarke said that she was uncertain whether the melanin theory of black superiority was true or not. There wasn’t a hint of sarcasm in the letter.

Putting aside her comments about melanin back in college, Clarke certainly shows no uncertainty today in embracing critical race theory, which posits that America is inherently racist. In her capacity as president and executive director of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Clarke condemned the Trump administration’s decision to remove critical race theory from federal government training programs. "Our nation stands at an inflection point as communities are grappling with the ongoing threat of racism, white supremacy and police violence," Clarke said in a statement. "President Trump's latest federal directive is an attempt to discredit, condemn and silence important conversations happening in communities and workplaces about anti-racism and about our nation's history of white supremacy. By banning government support for these discussions, he sends a dangerous message to the country that racism is a fallacy."

Last year, Clarke denounced what she claims is “systemic racism that pervades every aspect of our lives, especially when it comes to policing and the operation of the criminal justice system of our country.” She supports defunding of the police. “I advocate for defunding policing operations that have made African Americans more vulnerable to police violence and contributed to mass incarceration while investing more in programs and policies that address critical community needs,” she wrote last June for Newsweek. She called the concerns regarding the violence that broke out last year in the wake of the George Floyd killing a “distraction.”

Clearly, if Clarke were to become Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and have her way, she would push to put the police on trial all over the country. She would also force-feed critical race theory to all federal employees and beyond. She would support the BDS movement as a civil right.

The Senate must reject Kristen Clarke’s nomination.

 

CRIMINAL BLM RIOTER WHO INFILTRATED CAPITOL PRAISED BY NEWS AS ‘CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST’ (VIDEO)

BY RENEE NAL

SEE: https://rairfoundation.com/criminal-blm-rioter-who-infiltrated-capitol-praised-by-news-as-civil-rights-activist-video/;

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

Black Lives Matter rioter John Sullivan, who flew to D.C. from his home state of Utah to participate in the “Stop the Steal” rally, has enjoyed glowing media coverage from a local news outlet as a “civil rights activist.” This, despite his calls to “burn this sh*t down” and his declaration earlier this year to “rip Trump out of that office..” as revealed first by RAIR Foundation USA’s Amy Mek.

John Sullivan was given legitimacy by numerous mainstream outlets despite his militant and violent history. During the summer, the BLM activist was charged with “rioting, a third-degree felony; and criminal mischief, a class B misdemeanor,” as reported at Deseret News.

The mainstream media has zero problems with domestic terrorists, as Sullivan was featured on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” alongside photographer Jade Sacker discussing the events that took place at the Capitol building leading to the tragic death of Ashli Babbitt, who was killed by Capitol Police.

ABC News also glowingly interviewed the pair, who they described only as “documenting the riot”. The local news report from Utah acknowledged that Sullivan got into the Capitol building by climbing “in through a broken window.”

Still, the local news gave the anti-capitalist activist plenty of airtime and legitimacy, despite his radical and violent history.

An affidavit filed against Sullivan in July last year alleged that he “blocked vehicles from freely moving lawfully” during an unpermited protest organized by his group “Insurgence USA.”

According to their website, Insurgence USA was founded in the wake of the death of George Floyd in part “to build local powers to enable the community to intervene in violence enacted by the state and government vigilantes.” The affidavit continued to claim that “[D]uring the course of the protest, two handguns were brandished and two shots fired toward a motorist traveling to Home Depot. Vehicles were damaged by protestors as well as by John Sullivan.”

The BLM activist also “was also captured on video threatening to beat a woman in an SUV, according to the affidavit, and then kicking her door, leaving a dent.” Further, Sullivan evidently “was seen with Jesse Taggart”, who has been charged with attempted murder from events that took place at the “protest.”

UCSO Courtesy Jesse Keller Taggart
Jesse Taggart
John Earle Sullivan, who was inside the Capitol building during the siege on Wednesday, previously gave a speech in BLM Plaza in DC in August 2020 where he identifies as being part of an insurgency group & calls for a violent left-wing revolution.

John Sullivan was seen with fellow rioter Jesse Taggart “throughout the protest.” Taggart was “charged with attempted murder” after allegedly shooting a man who was trying to escape the mob, according to a report at Deseret News.

“As a protest organizer, John Sullivan is heard talking about seeing the shooting, looking at the gun and seeing smoke coming from it,” the article claimed. “John did not condemn the attempted murder nor attempt to stop it nor aide in its investigation by police,” the report continued.

It appears that John Sullivan may have also been detained by police on Thursday evening, in a developing story posted on Twitter.

Watch John Sullivans speech in July, followed by a local news report that gives legitimacy to the BLM activist:

ABOVE: John Earle Sullivan, who was inside the Capitol building during the siege on Wednesday, previously gave a speech in BLM Plaza in DC in August 2020 where he identifies as being part of an insurgency group & calls for a violent left-wing revolution.

Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here: https://rairfoundation.com/donate/

 

BBC: ‘Seeing Jesus as a darker skinned Palestinian is both historically accurate and theologically important’

THE POLITICALLY CORRECT "PALESTINIAN" BLACK JESUS?: 

BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/12/bbc-seeing-jesus-as-a-darker-skinned-palestinian-is-both-historically-accurate-and-theologically-important;

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

Presenting Jesus as a “Palestinian” has become a political weapon. This is why it is actually important that Jesus be presented as a “Palestinian,” particularly a “black Palestinian.” In this presentation, both Black Lives Matter (Marxist) and the Palestinian jihad are promoted as woke and therefore good. Beckford says this is particularly important “in this year of protest and change.”

The “Palestinian resistance,” presented to the world as peaceful, which it is not, should be recognized for what it is: an active jihadist war against Israel to obliterate it “from the River to the Sea.” There is no reason whatsoever that it should be associated with Jesus.

Jesus was of Middle-Eastern Jewish heritage. He was from the house of David and arrived in Bethlehem long before the 1995 Oslo Accords, when Bethlehem was assigned to the Palestinian Authority. This should be obvious. The Palestinians are historically Ottoman South Syrians, with no historical claim to the Holy Land.

In exploring some of the roots of how and where it became popularized to claim Jesus as a Palestinian, the Israeli monitoring agency Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) focused upon a Palestinian Authority TV interview in 2010, in which author Samih Ghanadreh from Nazareth was asked about his new book Christianity and its Connection to Islam. Ghanadeh states that he personally heard Yasser Arafat several times affirm that Jesus was the first Palestinian martyr, whereupon the host replies: “Jesus was a Palestinian, no one denies that.” PMW cited the regularity of this declaration by prominent Palestinians, including the Governor of Ramallah Leila Ghannam (“We all have the right to be proud that Jesus is a Palestinian”), Senior PA leader Jibril Rajoub (“The greatest Palestinian in history since Jesus is Yasser Arafat“), and an editorial in the PA official daily — Al-Hayat Al-Jadida — referred to the “holy Trinity” as being Arafat, Abbas and Jesus.

Abbas did his PhD in Holocaust denial, and Rahman Abdul Rauf al-Qudwa al-Husseini (a.k.a. Yasser Arafat) learned under the tutelage of his revered uncle, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, who worked with Hitler and Adolf Eichmann to slaughter six million Jews.

Palestinian propaganda has become rooted in the modern-day Church via many outreach programs, which has unfortunately lead to a new antisemitism, tailored especially for evangelicals. Bible researcher and author Jim Fletcher wrote:

Even LifeWay bookstores, the chain owned and operated by the Southern Baptist Convention, stock Sunday school maps depicting “Palestine in the Time of Jesus.” Never mind that neither Jesus nor the apostles knew anything of “Palestine,” but the regional name has compelled too many evangelicals (like Philip Yancey) to label Jesus a “Palestinian rabbi,” or the “Palestinian Jesus.” This false historical label was popularized by none other than Yasser Arafat, yet evangelical leaders are good with it.

Ed Stetzer, president of research at LifeWay — the resource arm of the Southern Baptist Convention — referred to Jesus as a “Palestinian Jew” in his article published in Christianity Today entitled“Monday is for Missiology: Some Thoughts on Contextualization.”

Robert O. Smith, program director for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America/Middle East and North Africa and co-moderator of the Palestine-Israel Ecumenical Forum of the World Council of Churches, blames the Israeli “occupation” on the dwindling number of Christians in the Bethlehem regions. Smith’s agenda is anti-Zionism, and thus he helps to advance the false narratives about Israel and about the Palestinians which some evangelical leaders have fallen into, in sync with the late Arafat and the PLO.

Jesus is presented not only as a Palestinian, but an oppressed Palestinian. In an obscene Easter message presented by Bethlehem Anglican Canon Rev. Naim Ateek, president of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, Ateek stated:

In this season of Lent, it seems to many of us that Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him. It only takes people of insight to see the hundreds of thousands of crosses throughout the land, Palestinian men, women, and children being crucified. Palestine has become one huge golgotha. The Israeli government crucifixion system is operating daily. Palestine has become the place of the skull.

Read more about this type of propaganda HERE.

“BBC WS radio promotes the claim that Jesus was ‘Palestinian,’” by Hadar Sela, CAMERA UK, December 23, 2020:

On December 18th the BBC World Service radio programme ‘Heart and Soul’ aired a 27-minute programme (since repeated several times) titled ‘Black Jesus’.

“The identity and colour of Jesus – and why it matters – has taken on a new significance in this year of protest and change. Seeing Jesus as a darker skinned Palestinian rather than blonde European is both historically accurate and theologically important, but it’s not a new idea.” [emphasis added]

The notion of Jesus as ‘Palestinian’ is repeated during the programme itself by its presenter Robert Beckford.

01:16: “Despite the fact it’s more realistic as a first-century Palestinian Jew that Jesus was dark skinned, somehow the white Jesus has become the most popular and accepted image.”

25:37: “The colour of Jesus matters, both literally and symbolically. A first-century Palestinian Jew had colour…”

Beckford is of course by no means the first to promote the notion of Jesus as a Palestinian, be that for political ends or as a result of lack of knowledge.

As CAMERA observed in 2008 when the New York Times claimed that Jesus ‘spoke in Palestine’:

“Bernard Lewis has noted that the word “Palestine” was sometimes used by Greek and Latin authors prior to 135 CE, though that appears to have normally been used as an adjective in apposition to “Syria” (Palaistine Syria or Syria Palestina) and in reference to the coastal area formerly inhabited by the Philistines but not “Judaea,” a region that “in Roman times was still officially and commonly known by that name,” as Lewis explained, or the region around Nazareth (“Palestine: On the History and Geography of a Name,” The International History Review, January 1, 1980).”

Earlier this year when the same paper referred to “first-century Palestine” CAMERA noted that:

“…during the time of Jesus, Bethlehem and Jerusalem were in what was commonly called Judea and Nazareth was in what was commonly called the Galilee. The land where Jesus lived did not take on the name Palestine until the second century, well after his death. Thus, the notion of “first-century Palestine,” […] is totally fictional…

In 132 (Common Era or AD), approximately 100 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, the Jews fought against Roman rule for a second time in what is known as the Bar Kochba Revolt. After the Romans defeated the rebellious Jews in 135, they renamed the land of the Jews Palestina to punish the Jews and to make an example of them to other peoples considering rebellion. The Romans took away the Jewish name, Judea, and replaced it with the name of an ancient enemy the Jews despised. The Philistines were an extinct Aegean people whom the Jews had historically loathed as uncultured and barbaric.”

One must assume that it is not a lack of knowledge which prompted “one of the UK’s prominent black theologians” – as Beckford is described in the programme’s synopsis – to repeatedly promote the anachronistic notion that Jesus was “a first-century Palestinian Jew”. In fact, Beckford’s political/theological agenda is abundantly clear throughout the programme, which begins by describing Jesus as “a leading figure in the fight against racism and discrimination” and goes on (apparently missing out the word ‘to’) to claim that:

“…in reality Jesus was a refugee whose family had to flee North Africa due to persecution. He was one of the oppressed by the colonisers of his day.”…

 

‘White Privilege’ Means No Vaccine for Grandma

Now that a Wuhan coronavirus vaccine is here, the leftists of our media and university systems want to make sure that Caucasians cannot receive it, especially the elderly, who are the most vulnerable. Life is apparently a privilege, and whites already have too much privilege. Thus, things are being "leveled" for fairness. Get reliable notification options and further information at Sarah's home site: https://SarahCorriher.com/

The CDC’s Affirmative Action Eugenics for the Coronavirus Vaccine

When the government decides who gets to live or die based on race.

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/cdcs-affirmative-action-eugenics-coronavirus-daniel-greenfield/;

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

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Before the coronavirus pandemic, the CDC was too busy fighting racism to do its job. As the vaccine rolls out, the CDC decided to build the vaccine waiting list around affirmative action.

Who gets to live or die? Much like in Nazi Germany, it helps to be a member of the right race.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has announced that the priorities for distributing vaccines are to prevent death, preserve society, and help those facing "disparities", and then maybe, "increase the chance for everyone to enjoy health and well-being."

Vaccine distribution is to be guided by four principles, one of which is to fight "health inequities" and another is to "promote justice". It's not the CDC's job to fight for social justice, but to fight viruses. Having failed miserably at its one job, which it chose not to do, it's instead pursuing racial equity eugenics by tackling "health inequities" for "racial and ethnic minority groups".

The CDC and NIH had turned to the National Academies to produce A Framework for Equitable Allocation of Vaccine for the Novel Coronavirus which falsely claimed that "COVID-19 illnesses and deaths are strongly associated with race" due to "systemic racism" and that a "vaccine allocation framework" had to reduce these "health inequities" with affirmative action.

The report noted that the "committee anticipates that the criteria will, in practice, tend to give higher priority to lower-income individuals... and Black, Hispanic or Latin, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities."

A government agency had paid for and was making use of a report which would decide who was to live or die based on race and income. And no one was willing to say a word about it.

Tennessee's Department of Health had already announced that it would be using the National Academies report and intended to dedicate 10% of the vaccines to SVI "vulnerable" areas.

The eugenics strategy of public health had been baked in long before the pandemic with the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index. SVI was supposed to help rush aid during a natural disaster to those who might need it the most, but SVI added race as a "vulnerability" to create affirmative action disaster relief. During a hurricane, your odds of getting help increased if you were in a minority area. And it decreased if you ranked higher on the SVI because you had more income.

This was bad enough. But now vaccine distribution will be driven by the SVI’s numbers.

At least 26 states are going to be using SVI for the vaccine rollout.  Not all of them are planning to use it to decide who gets the vaccine based on their race. Some intend to use it, as originally intended, to spread awareness, but other states are going all in on racial equity eugenics.

Ohio’s vaccination plan indicates that state health authorities will focus on "equity" and will use federal guidance to "ensure equity in distribution" and address "racial and ethnic disparities".

In Tennessee, "priority will be given to areas in the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index".

Minnesota's vaccine distribution guidelines put promoting justice in second place and warned that vaccine doses will be allowed based on the needs of health care personnel, nursing home residents, and SVI areas. The Minnesota guidelines define “other attributes to be considered in prioritization” as including, “people from certain racial and ethnic minority groups who are

disproportionately affected by COVID-19”: treating minority status as a medical vulnerability.

That’s how ‘health equity’ medicalizes minority status and turns it into a medical disability.

States that don’t use the SVI may actually be using even more outrageously racist guidelines. California’s Community Vaccine Advisory Committee began with proposals to have groups that were the victims of "historical injustices" be first in line for the vaccine. The committee consists of medical groups, as well as radical leftist groups like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, several unions, and assorted minority activist groups. CVAC put “equity” second on its priority list.

Vaccine equity eugenics hit the public eye when a New York Times article quoted Harald Schmidt, a German academic who had worked for Germany’s Ministry of Health and the European Parliament, and acts as an adviser to UNESCO and the  World Bank's Population and Reproductive Health Unit, suggesting that minorities should go ahead of older people.

“Older populations are whiter, ” Dr. Schmidt was quoted as saying. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”.

"Dr. Schmidt" has an MA in Philosophy from the University of Munster, the academic home of one of the most notorious Nazi eugenicists who worked under Mengele, and also boasts a PhD in Health Policy from the London School of Economics.

Like Jill Biden, he’s not a doctor, but that didn’t stop the Journal of the American Medical Association from publishing a paper co-authored by Schmidt titled, “Is It Lawful and Ethical to Prioritize Racial Minorities for COVID-19 Vaccines?” which gamed potential affirmative action eugenic court cases by focusing on factors like "geography, socioeconomic status, and housing density that would favor racial minorities de facto, but not explicitly include race."

While Schmidt has gotten the bulk of the attention, the paper was also authored by Michelle A. Williams, the dean of Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Larry Gostin who heads the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. Schmidt, as well as his co-authors, took part in the Vaccine Allocation and Social Justice event, along with Philadelphia's Deputy Health Commissioner, a strategic adviser to the Davos-based Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Initiatives, along with top state health officers from Tennessee, California, and Illinois.

And Nancy McClung: a former nurse who serves on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Ethical Principles for Allocating Initial Supplies of COVID-19 Vaccine.

The research materials included a paper co-authored by Ezekiel Emanuel, an Obamacare architect and a prominent proponent of triage, who had already co-authored another paper,  which had warned that while directly prioritizing race "would likely be ruled unconstitutional", the better approach would be "considering vulnerabilities that, while possible for people of all races, are commonly produced by racism".

Finally, Emanuel noted that "disparities could be further reduced by avoiding prioritization strategies, such as age-based preference, that risk widening racial and socioeconomic disparities."

The paper co-authored by the man who wrote Why I Hope to Die at 75 was saying the same thing Schmidt had said but coded in the ambiguous language of public policy. The elderly should not get access to the vaccine earlier because they are on average more likely to be white and wealthy and saving their lives first would widen “racial and socioeconomic disparities”.

A decade after Obamacare opponents were ridiculed for warning about death panels, national and local governments are following triage measures that decide who lives or dies by race.

The CDC evolved and deployed this policy while Republicans were at the helm, and did nothing.

It’s not too late to stop it.

President Trump can clean house at the CDC and take as many of the decisions about vaccine policy out of its hands as possible. Republican governors and legislatures should stop letting the same experts who have botched the pandemic every step of the way use SVI for the vaccine.

Whatever happens this time around, using tools like SVI creates a horrifying legal and medical precedent in which medical treatment gets allocated based on minority status. As socialized medicine digs deeper into medical decision making, this will become the norm.

Beyond the pandemic, waiting for a kidney transplant, hip replacement surgery, or a scarce medication will be determined by medicalizing privilege and treating minority status as an illness in greater need of care and ‘whiteness’ as a sign of health privilege that requires less care.

Affirmative action is merging with death panels to transform equity into triage. If we don’t stop it, it will kill us. Reverting to the worst abuses of segregation will kill our souls and then our bodies.

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.

 
 

Racial Equity Used to Prioritize Coronavirus Vaccinations

Social justice activists care about the most vulnerable, right?

BY JOSEPH KLEIN

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/racial-equity-used-prioritize-coronavirus-joseph-klein/;

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

Social justice warriors are infecting decision-making regarding who should receive COVID-19 vaccination priority. Saving the lives of the most vulnerable is less important, they believe, than making up for past racial and socioeconomic inequities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) convened an emergency meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) late last month in which most of the members advised that “equity” considerations should take precedence. For this reason, they believe that after vaccinating front-line health care workers and long term care facility residents, the vast group of so-called non-health service “essential workers” should be vaccinated before adults with high risk medical conditions or those most vulnerable who are over the age of 65. “Racial and ethnic minority groups are disproportionally represented in many essential industries and live in communities that are disproportionally affected; offers an opportunity to really impact equity,” the ACIP said in the summary of its minutes.

There are approximately 90 million essential workers nationwide, according to the New York Times, which referenced the definition used by a division of the Department of Homeland Security. The list is very long and, in some states, can reach as high as 75 percent of their overall worker population. In too many cases, the list includes workers whose occupations do not place them face to face with the public as potential super spreaders. Yet the ACIP thinks it is less important to save the people most likely to die from the coronavirus than so-called “essential” workers who are “disproportionally” members of racial and ethnic minority groups.

Senior Trump administration officials, including Dr. Robert Redfield, who currently leads the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, believe that the people most likely to die from the coronavirus should receive priority for vaccinations. That would include adults 65 years old and older. But even if Redfield decides not to accept the ACIP’s recommendation on the order of priority, it won’t make any difference. He is on his way out, to be replaced by Joe Biden's candidate for the job, Dr. Rochelle Walensky. Biden’s choice has somehow managed to bring Black Lives Matter into her discussion of the coronavirus pandemic.

Speaking about the lessons she learned from the pandemic, Walensky declared: “If…anything good comes out of this, and there have been some silver linings, I do think it's the protection of our vulnerable populations, and I mean that sort of based on comorbidities, but really, more importantly, this intersection of Black Lives Matter, attention to the racial injustice, and this pandemic.”

Biden chose California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to serve as his administration’s Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary. The current HHS Secretary, Alex Azar, has spent his career working in senior healthcare leadership roles in both the public and private sectors. Becerra has no relevant healthcare experience. His claim to fame has been his resistance to President Trump, including signing on to more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration.

Becerra has a "health equity" model to use in his new position, which was devised in his home state of California. It focuses on the disparities COVID-19 is having on communities of color. “We want to make sure that our focus on COVID has a look at every community, regardless of skin color or wealth, and that we are concerned about equity," Dr. Mark Ghaly, California's health secretary, said in describing the model. We can expect Becerra to be consulting frequently with his California counterpart to ensure racial and socioeconomic equity in prioritizing the order of vaccine recipients.

Biden has also appointed members of his coronavirus advisory board who prioritize equity over age-related vulnerability to the coronavirus in determining priority for vaccination. Dr. Zeke Emanuel is probably the most well-known member of the advisory board. Emanuel, among other things, was a key architect of Obamacare. Aside from writing that he himself does not want to live beyond the age of 75 because of the infirmities of old age, Emanuel co-authored an article last September warning against “prioritization strategies, such as age-based preference, that risk widening racial and socioeconomic disparities.” The article recommended that vaccines be allocated to reduce COVID-19 disparities “commonly produced by racism.”

Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith, co-chair of Biden’s advisory board, claimed recently that “We’ve had a collective witnessing as a country here in 2020 around the pervasive, deep-seated challenge of racial injustice and COVID-19 exploited that reality.” According to Nunez-Smith’s twisted way of thinking, “privileged” whites must atone for the coronavirus because it somehow "exploited" racial "injustice."

“We cannot get this pandemic under control if we do not address head-on the issues of inequity in our country,” Nunez-Smith declared. “There is no other way.”

The only sensible way to curb the pandemic’s most deadly effects is to use health-based criteria for vaccine prioritization to save the most lives, not social justice agendas.

Each state will be making the ultimate decisions in distributing the vaccines it receives to its residents. If Oregon is any indication, racial equity will be the determining factor rather than medical need.  Oregon’s COVID vaccination plan to allocate and distribute COVID-19 vaccine states that it “is grounded in a commitment to health equity, which requires an examination of how power and resources are distributed.”

Using the language of the radical left, which seems to rule Oregon these days, the plan declares that “One legacy of racism and longstanding oppression is that people of color, tribal communities and people living with intellectual, developmental and other disabilities, due to historical and current injustices, structural racism, the colonization of relationships and processes experience overall worse health outcomes.” The way to rectify these “historical and current injustices,” according to the Oregon plan, is to impose “equitable distribution or redistribution of resources and power.”

Harald Schmidt, an Assistant Professor at the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania and a member of UNESCO's Ethics Task Force, minced no words in explaining the inhumane philosophy behind sacrificing the lives of the most vulnerable to achieve the progressive social engineer’s notion of the greater good.  “Older populations are whiter, ” Schmidt said. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

This is the roadmap for how the progressive left intends to cast the horrible devastation wrought by a deadly pandemic that originated in China as another manifestation of so-called “structural racism” in the United States. The reparation for the alleged “victims” of such “structural racism,” no matter how old or healthy they may be, is to receive prioritization for vaccinations over more vulnerable elderly whites. Joe Biden is assembling a team that is supportive of this perverted radical agenda.

 

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 

BLM activist Cori Bush becomes Missouri’s first black congresswoman

Cori Bush

BY KENNETH GARGER

SEE: https://nypost.com/2020/11/03/blm-activist-cori-bush-becomes-missouris-first-black-congresswoman/;

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

A Black Lives Matter activist in Missouri breezed to an election night victory to become the state’s first black congresswoman.

Cori Bush, who may become the fifth member of “The Squad,” garnered a whopping 84 percent of vote in the state’s 1st Congressional District.

“This is definitely a night to remember,” Bush, who is also a nurse, told her supporters during her acceptance speech.

“This has been a historic day from the beginning to the end.”

Bush had the backing of the Justice Democrats — who helped propel Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to her first upset victory over 10-term incumbent Joe Crowley.

In her August Democratic primary, Bush had her own upset victory, defeating longtime incumbent, Missouri Rep. William Lacy Clay.

Bush got involved with the Black Lives Matter movement in 2014, when Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, was shot and killed by a white police officer in Ferguson.

She joined the protests that erupted in the wake of the shooting and soon began leading the protests in her Missouri district.

Bush has remained engaged in protest work ever since, getting heavily involved in the recent protests surrounding the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.

 

Deep State Highjacks Election into full-blown ‘Color Revolution’

Dr. Duke Pesta interviews Alex Newman, Senior Editor of The New American, to discuss Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's apparently last-minute vote gains in Wisconsin and Michigan edging him closer to the White House. Newman discusses numerous irregularities in the vote tabulation and how the election has the earmarks of the "Color Revolutions" that the Deep State globalists have engineered to steal elections overseas. Dr. Pesta and Newman both warn how Fox News undermines the integrity of both the elections and our constitutional republic, by serving as the Establishment's gatekeeper for so-called conservative news while constantly taking the wrong position when it matters most. 🇺🇸 The New American: http://www.thenewamerican.com/

Trump Signs Executive Order Establishing 1776 Commission

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-establishing-presidents-advisory-1776-commission/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-protecting-americas-founding-ideals-promoting-patriotic-education/

BY WARREN MASS

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/trump-signs-executive-order-establishing-1776-commission/;

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

A notice posted on the White House website on November 2 stated that President Trump had just signed an order to establish what he calls the 1776 Commission — an idea he first proposed in September.

Trump began his executive order by summarizing some of the principles cherished by Americans since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He explained that the purpose of the 1776 Commission is “to better enable a rising generation to understand the history and principles of the founding of the United States in 1776 and to strive to form a more perfect Union.” (The phrase “to form a more perfect Union” comes from the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.)

In outlining the purpose of the 1776 Commission, Trump included the following points:

• The American founding envisioned a political order in harmony with the design of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” seeing the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as embodied in and sanctioned by natural law and its traditions.

• The formation of a republic around these principles marked a clear departure from previous forms of government, securing rights through a form of government that derives its legitimate power from the consent of the governed. 

• Throughout its national life, our Republic’s exploration of the full meaning of these principles has led it through the ratification of a Constitution, civil war, the abolition of slavery, Reconstruction, and a series of domestic crises and world conflicts.  

However, Trump lamented, despite these proud accomplishments, our heritage is being maligned:

Against this history, in recent years, a series of polemics grounded in poor scholarship has vilified our Founders and our founding. Despite the virtues and accomplishments of this Nation, many students are now taught in school to hate their own country, and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes, but rather villains. This radicalized view of American history lacks perspective, obscures virtues, twists motives, ignores or distorts facts, and magnifies flaws, resulting in the truth being concealed and history disfigured.

While the absence of quality education that upholds our nation’s historic values has existed for decades, the timing of Trumps’ proposal was made more urgent by the publication in a September 2019 issue of the New York Times Magazine of an article by Nikole Hannah-Jones launching the 1619 Project, which asserted that “anti-black racism,” slavery, systemic oppression, and other evils are embedded “in the very DNA” of America.

Support for the article was not even unanimous among the Times’ writers. Times opinion columnist Bret Stephens wrote an opinion piece October 9 calling the 1619 Project a “failed” enterprise that was built on the faulty premise that slavery, not the Declaration of Independence, was the driving force that forged the nation.

Related article:

The Hate-America “1619 Project” Fed to Kids

 

Video: White Shaming-Bullying based on prejudice, virtue-signaling, and ignorance

BY JAMIE GLAZOV

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/video-white-shaming-frontpagemagcom/;

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

[To get the whole story on the roots of the Left’s malice and what lies behind its war of destruction on free societies, read Jamie Glazov’s United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror: CLICK HERE.]

Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Instagram: @JamieGlazov, Parler: @JamieGlazov and Twitter: @JamieGlazov.

This new Glazov Gang episode features Prof. Charles Negy, an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Central Florida and the author of the new book, White Shaming: Bullying Based on Prejudice, Virtue-Signaling, and Ignorance.

Prof. Negy discusses White Shaming, exposing a leftist world of bullying that is based on prejudice, virtue-signaling, and ignorance.

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch features Abraham Hamilton discuss The BLM-Witchcraft-Satanism Connection, where he unveils how a Marxist movement is summoning spirits of the dead to fuel and protect its totalitarian revolution.

Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Instagram: @JamieGlazov, Parler: @JamieGlazov and Twitter: @JamieGlazov.

 

DAVID CLOUD’S “WAY OF LIFE” RECENT ARTICLES

SEE: https://www.wayoflife.org/friday_church_news/21-42.php
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

CAMPUS CRUSADE’S APOSTASY 

(Friday Church News Notes, October 16, 2020, www.wayoflife.org, [email protected], 866-295-4143) - Campus Crusade for Christ is an “evangelical” interdenominational ministry with 25,000 workers in nearly 200 countries. (The name was changed to “Cru” in 2011.) Never really sound theologically, the organization has moved ever farther from God’s Word. Founded by Bill Bright, Campus Crusade was radically ecumenical from its inception. In 1969, Bright said, “We do not attack the Roman Church. We believe God is doing a mighty work in it and will no doubt use millions of Roman Catholics to help evangelize the world” (The Post & Times Star, Cincinnati, Ohio, Aug. 30, 1969). By the 1970s Campus Crusade had several Catholics on staff (James Hefley, A Prejudiced Protestant Takes a New Look at the Catholic Church, 1971, p. 122). In an interview with Wittenburg Door, June-July 1978, Richard Quebedeaux said, “In Ireland, Campus Crusade is registered as a religious order. … And they work entirely within the Catholic church there with Catholics...” Now Campus Crusade is promoting the philosophy that Christians can be homosexual in dress and desire, as long as they don’t engage in homosexual activity. For example, in July 2019, Cru student leader Grant Hartley of California, who uses the hashtag #LGBTQinChrist, tweeted the following quote from Rachel Gilson, “There is no command in scripture to be straight; there is a command to be faithfully single or faithfully married, and you can do either of those without being straight.” Gilson is a Cru staff director in Boston (“Campus Crusade Teaching Kids That It’s Okay to be Gay,” Reformation Charlotte, July 30, 2019). God’s Word plainly condemns homosexuality in every aspect, including its “vile affections” and “burning lust” (Ro. 1:26-27).

MARXISM, THE NEW LEFTISM, CRITICAL THEORY, ETC., IS SIMPLY A WAR AGAINST GOD AND HIS HOLY LAWS 

(Friday Church News Notes, October 16, 2020, www.wayoflife.org, [email protected], 866-295-4143) - Karl Marx wrote, “Communism abolishes eternal truth, it abolishes all religion, and all morality” (The Communist Manifesto). Herbert Marcuse, father of the New Left, called for a “cultural revolution in the sense that the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including the morality of the existing society” (“Reflections on the French Revolution,” cited from Michael Walsh, The Devil’s Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West, 2015). Antonio Gramsci, founder of the Italian Communist Party and one of the founders of cultural Marxism, said, “One must speak for a struggle for a new culture, that is, for a new moral life that cannot but be intimately connected to a new intuition of life, until it becomes a new way of feeling and seeing reality,” and, “Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity” (Gramsci’s Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process, 1981). Saul Alinsky, communist-leaning community organizer who influenced Barack Obama, honored Lucifer in Rules for Radicals. In the front of the book he said, “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical ... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.” Alinsky’s book has been called “the bible of the far left.” Kate Millett influential feminist, said, “A sexual revolution would require perhaps first of all an end of traditional sexual inhibitions and taboos, particularly those that most threaten patriarchal monogamous marriage: homosexuality, ‘illegitimacy,’ adolescent pre- and extra-marital sexuality” (Sexual Politics, 1979). Following is a chant led by Kate Millett in a consciousness-raising group in New York City in 1969: “And how do we make Cultural Revolution? By destroying the American family. How do we destroy the family? By destroying the American Patriarch. And how do we destroy the American Patriarch? By taking away his power. How do we do that? By destroying monogamy. How can we destroy monogamy? By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality” (cited by Kate Millett’s sister Mallory Millett who attended the meeting, “Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives,” Frontpage magazine, Sep. 1, 2014).

THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL, CULTURAL MARXISM, CRITICAL THEORY 

(Friday Church News Notes, October 16, 2020, www.wayoflife.org, [email protected], 866-295-4143) - The following is excerpted from Christopher Haun, The Eight Spectres of Karl Marx in the 21st Century: “In the 1930s, a group of professors at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt in Germany (‘the Frankfurt School’ for short) developed their own unique strains of Western Marxism. While they preferred to call their theory ‘the critical theory of society’ their work has become more commonly known as ‘Cultural Marxism.’ They were keenly aware of the fact that the German workers did not revolt as Marx had predicted. But the fact that Marxism had failed its first and biggest test wasn’t enough to make them abandon Marx. They remained Marxist at the core and sought to salvage Marx’s vision for the dissolution of the evil ‘capitalist’ systems that dominated Europe and the United States and plagued the world. Max Horkheimer defined their critical theory of society as (1) ‘a theory dominated at every turn by a concern for reasonable conditions of life,’ (2) a theory which condemns existing social institutions and practices as ‘inhuman,’ and (3) a theory which contemplates the need for ‘alteration of society as a whole.’ In harmony with Marx, the Frankfurt School theorists taught that everything in Western society is so evil that every facet of it needs to be ruthlessly criticized, weakened, and destroyed. The rise of the Nazi movement in Germany forced these professors to flee their German homeland. The National Socialists were competing with Marxist Socialists and the Frankfurt theorists were definitely recognizable as Marxists. They were also all Jewish. So in 1935 they fled Germany and made Columbia University of New York their base of operations. ... Although sympathetic to Marx’s war on inequality among socio-economic classes, these ‘cultural Marxists’ instead focused on other cultural areas where people groups encounter inequality. They saw power inequalities in the clash of cultures ... races ... religions ... family ... gender ... and sexual orientation. ... The chief weapon in their ideological arsenal was criticism. The Frankfurt School made it academically fashionable to subject every old truth claim to ‘new criticism’ or ‘critical theory.’ Quite in harmony with Marx, every established authority and every established belief must be questioned, challenged, critiqued, doubted, ridiculed, marginalized, weakened, subverted, destroyed, and replaced. Beginning with criticism, Marx’s spectre can proceed to liberate all the peoples of the world from the oppression of Classical civilization and Judeo-Christian culture. Herbert Marcuse was one of the most influential and best known theorists of the Frankfurt School. He taught his brand of cultural Marxism into the 1970s at Columbia University, Harvard, Brandeis, and the University of California, San Diego. He is now widely regarded as the father of the New Left movement, the most influential ‘radical philosopher’ of the 1960s, and a major inspiration for the Hippie Movement, the student movement, and the civil rights movement.”

THE SPIRIT OF ADOPTION 

(Friday Church News Notes, October 16, 2020, www.wayoflife.org, [email protected], 866-295-4143) - The following is excerpted from the Way of Life Commentary Series on Romans: “The sons of God have ‘the Spirit of adoption (Ro. 8:15). The “spirit of bondage again to fear” is the spirit of living under the law and being condemned by the law for every infraction in thought and deed. It is to live under the darkness and fire of Mt. Sinai, as described in Hebrews 12:18-21. It is to live under the curse of God, ‘for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them’ (Gal. 3:10). What a bondage! But the believer has ‘the spirit of adoption.’ Our curse fell upon Christ, and in Christ we are adopted children. We are sons in God’s family. We know God as ‘Abba,’ which is an intimate, tender term like ‘Papa.’ What an amazing and wonderful thing it is for a sinner to be able to call the thrice holy Creator God ‘Abba’! Jesus called the Father Abba (Mr. 14:36), and God’s redeemed children call Him Abba. This was God’s plan and purpose in redemption. His Father heart accomplished redemption for the purpose of enlarging His family. Note that it is by the Spirit “whereby we cry, Abba.” Compare Galatians 4:6, ‘And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.’ It is the Spirit of Jesus crying out to the Father through His redeemed people. Note that we ‘cry, Abba.’ This is the Greek krazo, which is a strong, passionate crying out. It is the blind men crying out to Jesus for healing (Mt. 9:27), the disciples crying out for fear when they saw Jesus walking on the water (Mt. 14:26), Peter crying out to Jesus to save him when he was sinking in the storm (Mt. 14:30), the Canaanite woman crying out for healing for her demon possessed daughter (Mt. 15:22-23), the people crying out to Pilate, ‘Let him be crucified’ (Mt. 27:23), the angels crying out with loud voices in the day of the Lord (Re. 7:210:314:1518:219:17). To cry ‘Abba, Father,’ by the Spirit is no half-hearted, lukewarm thing. Salvation is a very, very big thing, and those who are saved are dramatically changed and they have a new and passionate relationship with God. The world is passionate for the lusts of the flesh, and the lusts of the eyes, and the pride of life; it cries out for pleasure pastimes such as rock concerts, gambling, sports, and video games. But God’s people are passionate about God. Their chief enthusiasm is God, which is the purpose for which they were created. We observe, too, that ‘cry’ is present tense, which indicates that calling on God as Abba Father is their way of life, not something they do sometimes when they are in trouble.”

Southern Baptist Seminary Implements Program to Pay Reparations to Black Students

SEE: https://news.sbts.edu/2020/10/12/sbts-trustees-retain-building-names-address-history-establish-5-million-scholarship-for-african-american-students/

SEE: https://sbts-wordpress-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/news/uploads/2020/10/The-Burden-of-History-and-the-Blessing-of-Heritage.pdf

SEE: https://www.sbts.edu/southern-project/

__________________________________________________________________________________

SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/10/13/southern-baptist-seminary-implements-program-to-pay-reparations-to-black-students/;

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

The woke movement in the Evangelical Church has taken a nosedive directly into the muck and mire of leftist and progressive thought. Evangelicalism no longer stands apart from the world, but is now neck-deep into the same progressive garbage the world is part of. Partiality — a sin which God hates — is now par for the course in Southern Baptist institutions, and, somehow, the people who practice it have come to the conclusion that it’s a good idea.

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile — hoping it will eat him last.” — Winston Churchill

The Southern Baptist Convention’s flagship seminary, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS), under the leadership of Al Mohler, has now implemented a reparations program for blacks. The program will pay $5 million to black students over the course of fifteen years. Mohler proudly announced that SBTS would be practicing partiality on Twitter.

In a press release from SBTS, the plan is laid out:

Beginning with the 2022-2023 academic year, SBTS will set aside $1 million of endowed and restricted funds as an endowment to assist qualified black students at SBTS through the Garland Offutt Scholars Program, honoring the legacy of the seminary’s first African-American full graduate. Additionally, the seminary will set aside $1 million for this fund every three years until a goal of $5 million is reached. “We hope to assist in the development of African American pastors and theologians and scholars and leaders by means of this historic new initiative,” Mohler said. These funds will be in addition to the current scholarship and student aid programs of the Seminary.

White students are disqualified from this scholarship based on their skin color — or lack of. That Mohler and the leadership of this seminary think this is a good idea speaks volumes of his qualifications as a leader.

But what makes this really interesting is that while the seminary has decided to pay reparations to blacks out of a “special debt to African American Christians,” as Mohler puts it, is that the same leadership decided against changing the names of buildings on the campus that were named after slave-owners despite the repeated requests of Marxist Southern Baptists like Dwight McKissic.

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary unanimously voted not to remove the names of the school’s founders from several campus buildings, but embraced steps to lament the institution’s racial history and provide up to $5 million in scholarships for African American students over the next few years.

“We’re not going to erase our history in any respect or leave our history unaddressed,” [Mohler] said. “We’re trying to do what is right for a Christian institution. I’m incredibly thankful to this board of trustees for its careful deliberation of these issues and its unanimity in supporting Southern Seminary in dealing honestly with the burden of history and dealing respectfully with the blessing of a heritage.

“We stand in conviction on the great truths of the Christian faith and in confessional agreement with our founders. Their theological orthodoxy and Baptist confessionalism are an invaluable inheritance, and we stand with them in thhttps://news.sbts.edu/2020/10/12/sbts-trustees-retain-building-names-address-history-establish-5-million-scholarship-for-african-american-students/eological conviction, period. But we deal honestly with their sin and complicity in slavery and racism. We are seeking to respond to the moral and theological burden of history by being a far more faithful institution in the present and in the future than we’ve been in the past and in this central respect we acknowledge a special debt to African American Christians.”

Clearly, this type of partiality is treated as sin by the Scriptures.

“My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory … Have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?” — James 2:1,4

“For God shows no partiality.” — Romans 2:11

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” — Galatians 3:28

This is not biblical. This is not right. That skin color is the qualification for scholarship is nothing more than appeasing the woke crowd and walking in the ways of the world. It would be one thing if the scholarship were offered to anyone needing financial assistance irrespective of race or ethnicity. But to disqualify one ethnicity while qualifying another is punishing one ethnicity's sins they did not commit while rewarding another ethnicity for plight they did not experience. This is partiality and there is no excuse for it.

 
1 2 3 4