West Point cadets being taught Critical Race Theory and anti-whiteness

The Department of Defense did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment
New documents exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital reveal that the U.S. Army is teaching West Point cadets critical race theory (CRT), including addressing "whiteness."

Fox News Digital exclusively obtained the documents from government watchdog group Judicial Watch, which had to sue the military twice under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get the information.

"Our military is under attack – from within," Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in the press release. "These documents show racist, anti-American CRT propaganda is being used to try to radicalize our rising generation of Army leadership at West Point."

Woke indoctrination at West Point?

TUCKER CARLSON & TOM FITTON OF JUDICIAL WATCH:

Army cadets participate in Parade Day at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., May 22, 2019. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan) ** FILE **

BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2022/06/west-point-cadets-being-taught-critical-race-theory-and-anti-whiteness;

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

What could possibly go wrong with any country teaching its army hatred and shame for its own history and heritage? Under the woke blokes of the American Left, that’s exactly what’s happening, with no recognition of the evolution of the country from black slavery to voting in a black president.

What West Point cadets are now being taught is cringeworthy. It is guaranteed that Western enemies including China, Russia, and Iran are teaching national pride, despite the human rights abuse of each regime governing those countries.

America is being slowly destroyed from within as Critical Race Theory, extreme Green lunacy, and gender madness indoctrinate a whole generation, with too few willing to resist.

“US Army teaching Critical Race Theory to West Point cadets: report,” by David Propper, New York Post, June 20, 2022:

The US Army has introduced Critical Race Theory to West Point cadets, new documents show, according to Fox News Digital.

The “woke” lessons ask cadets about whiteness while encouraging them to apply Critical Race Theory to their answers, according to documents obtained by Judicial Watch and given to Fox News.

The more than 600 documents were only handed over to Judicial Watch after the conservative organization sued the Department of Defense….

According to Fox News, a slide that delved into “Whiteness” states: “In order to understand racial inequality and slavery, it is first necessary to address whiteness” and the “Take-for-grantedness of whiteness.”

The slide also claims whiteness “is a location of structural advantage, of race privilege,” is “a standpoint or place from which white people look at themselves and the rest of society” and “refers to a set of cultural practices that are usually unmarked and unnamed.”

Another slide addresses affirmative action and asks “Do you think Affirmative Action creates an environment for ‘reverse discrimination? Use CRT to support your answer.”

A slide also poses the question “how would you apply a tenant [sic] of CRT to this idea,” referring to the difference between desegregation and integration.

In another slide, under Critical Race Theory, it states, “racism is ordinary” and “White Americans have primarily benefited from civil rights legislation.”…

_________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/20/west-point-cadets-schooled-whiteness-queer-theory-/

AND: https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/06/west-point-teaching-cadets-critical-race-theory-queer-theory-and-whiteness-docs-reveal/

JUDICIAL WATCH DOCUMENTS:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-fights-west-point-stonewall-on-racist-propaganda/

https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-dod-west-point-crt-02616-pg-9/

https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-dod-west-point-crt-02616-pg-13/

https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-dod-west-point-crt-02616-pgs-475-487/

EXPOSED; HISTORY ALTERED: “Juneteenth” Was Not the End of Slavery DESPITE WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE

“Juneteenth” Was Not the End of Slavery

BY STEVE BYAS

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/juneteenth-was-not-the-end-of-slavery/;

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

As President Joe Biden was only able to sign into law the observation of “Juneteenth” (June 19) as an official holiday of the United States two days before the date last year, this year was the first year that the holiday was fully observed across the country. While Juneteenth is often celebrated as the end of slavery, slavery did not actually end in the United States until the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution several months later.

Like other federal holidays that fall on Sunday, this holiday is observed today, the following Monday.

In addition to this historical inaccuracy, the new holiday has several other problems, perhaps chief of which is its official name of Juneteenth National Independence Day. Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky was one of only 14 members of the House of Representatives to vote against the new holiday, and he explained his principal objection: “(N)aming this day ‘national independence day’ will create confusion and push Americans to pick one of those two days as their independence day based on their racial identity. Why can’t we name this ‘emancipation day’ and come together as Americans?”

Representative Chip Roy of Texas expressed it similarly. “This name [of national independence day] needlessly divides our nation on a matter that should bring us together by creating a separate Independence Day.”

The Emancipation Proclamation of President Abraham Lincoln is what has caused the confusion as to when slavery came to an end in the United States. It is commonly believed today, contrary to the historical evidence, that the North and South simply lined up and fought a four-year war to settle the issue of slavery, with Union soldiers fighting a grand crusade to end slavery and Confederate soldiers ready to die to keep their slaves.

In reality, the war was fought over the question of whether a state had a legal right to secede and leave the Union. Both Lincoln and Congress explicitly said early in the conflict that the war was not being fought to end slavery, but rather to keep the southern states from leaving the Union. When Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to enforce the tariff in the South, he did not call for an invasion to free any slaves. When Lincoln issued his call for volunteers, which did lead to the Civil War, more states where slavery was legal were still in the Union than were out.

So why do so many people — probably a majority — believe that the War was fought to end slavery?

When the War dragged on for several months, with the Confederates winning more battles than they lost, it began to look as though the Confederate States of America would become an independent nation. By the fall of 1862, Great Britain (and France) were poised to recognize the new nation. In desperation, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to prevent that possibility.

But had he proclaimed the freedom of slaves in states that were still in the Union — Missouri, Maryland, and Kentucky — those states might very well have seceded, as well. So Lincoln “threaded the needle,” so to speak. He ordered slaves freed in states that did not recognize his executive authority (i.e., the Confederacy), while leaving them enslaved in those states that recognize him as their president.

Even if Lincoln’s executive order had been legal — which it was not — it would have freed no one.

But it was enough to keep Britain and France out of the War since they did not want to be seen as supporting slavery.

Despite these historical facts, many today believe that the Civil War was fought to abolish slavery and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation completed that objective. (The absurdity that the War was fought to end slavery should be clearly seen by the Emancipation Proclamation itself. After all, if the war was being waged, from the beginning, to end slavery, why issue the Emancipation Proclamation a year and a half into the war?) This falsehood has slandered the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers who fought in the war, with many of their own descendants damning them for supposedly fighting to keep human beings in bondage. The reality is that only a tiny minority of soldiers had any slaves at all.

If Lincoln had no legal authority to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, and the war was not fought to end slavery, then just what did end it?

The legal end of slavery was a result of the 13th Amendment, ratified on December 6, 1865, months after June 19, 1865 — the date now celebrated in American law as Juneteenth National Independence Day.

So what did happen on June 19, 1865? That was the day that General Gordon Granger led his Union troops into Galveston, Texas, and announced that the Civil War was now over and the slaves were free, basing his decree on the executive order known as the Emancipation Proclamation.

When Granger arrived in Galveston, the slaves there were apparently unaware of Lincoln’s executive order. Slave owners living in the Confederate States of America, in which Lincoln was not recognized as president, had mostly ignored the order until federal troops implemented it by force.

Following Granger’s announcement, some ex-slaves continued working on the farms of their former masters, only now for wages, or for room and board. Many eventually became — along with poor whites in the economically devastated post-war South — “sharecroppers,” in which a portion of their crops was used as a substitute for rent payments (money being exceptionally scarce in the former Confederate States). Most probably fled the farm on which they had been enslaved, taking employment elsewhere — if they could find it.

But at least they were free, and that is no doubt something to celebrate. As former slaves and their descendants spread out across the South, they would spread the story of General Granger’s proclamation on June 19. Combining the two words led to the term Juneteenth. The day was celebrated with church picnics, speeches, and reminiscences.

Certainly, the end of slavery in the United States is something to celebrate. But it should not detract from the great principles of liberty enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, which made the freeing of American slaves even possible and has led to greater freedom for all Americans.

Hopefully, the celebration of Juneteenth will not lead to any de-emphasis on America’s Independence Day on the Fourth of July.

George Soros spent $40 million to elect 75 ‘social justice’ prosecutors in crime-ridden cities

BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

SEE: https://robertspencer.org/2022/06/george-soros-spent-40-million-to-elect-75-social-justice-prosecutors-in-crime-ridden-cities;

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

Under Democrat influence, America is weakening daily, increasingly resembling the lawless and poverty-stricken countries that drove immigrants to its borders in the first place. With open borders, America creeps toward a Marxist globalist vision of an imaginary utopia, as its progressive socialist Biden government cronies appoint and hire those committed to doing its bidding. The forces working toward America’s demise are deep.

George Soros has exercised enormous influence under the radar, in every sector of American society. Two years ago, the Washington Times reported that “George Soros is 89 years old, but by gosh, before he dies, he’s going to see to the internal destruction of America.”

Soros has been pouring money into campaigns to help elect lenient social justice district attorneys for quite some time. It isn’t that Soros or the progressive movement genuinely cares about the welfare of minorities, particularly blacks in the inner cities and those who have been escorted in under open-door immigration policies. His funding has to do with usurping America’s democracy and capitalist system and replacing it with socialism, a system of government that has never worked for the people throughout history. Instead, it led to the creation of abusive regimes that eventually saw multitudes murdered for daring to oppose its tenets.

Even Politico did a piece in 2016 about Soros quietly overhauling the American justice system from within by “zeroing in” on American prosecutors and working toward criminal justice reform. It led to its desired effect: a crime surge, but was sold to the American public as noble social justice to help minorities.

Although progressives have succeeded in transforming the landscape, the adverse consequences are becoming ever more obvious. The globalist project is a stark failure, and people are waking up to the truth about the dark Democratic money machine. For instance:

San Francisco residents voted to recall Chesa Boudin, a progressive district attorney who sought to reform the criminal-justice system but met fierce opposition from critics who painted him as too lenient on crime.

But the political structure is hierarchical, so the battle for the soul of America continues. San Francisco Mayor London Breed is a Democrat, so it’s expected that she will appoint another progressive district attorney. It all depends on how far Left, and on the influences behind the scene. According to John Hamasaki, a former San Francisco police commissioner, “shifting who’s in that office will likely have little impact on the way cases are prosecuted.” But it’s a start. Breed raised eyebrows among her more radical cohorts when she vowed in December to “take steps to be more aggressive with law enforcement” against criminals “and less tolerant of all the bull— that has destroyed our city.”

In the meantime, the Soros puppetmaster continues to shower the Democrat machine with unlimited funds.

“Soros spent $40 million to elect 75 ‘social justice’ prosecutors: Report,” by Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner, June 6, 2022:

Sky-high campaign donations from liberal anti-police billionaire George Soros and his groups have helped to elect 75 “social justice” prosecutors in whose cities jailings have plummeted and crime has surged, according to a new report provided to Secrets.

In a 17-page report compiled by the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, a decade of spending has put Soros prosecutors in enough big cities that they represent 1 in 5 people, or about 72 million. That includes about half of America’s 50 most populous cities and counties where 40% of U.S. homicides occur.

Soros is a well-known proponent of social justice prosecution, which calls for lighter sentences, especially of minorities. The movement, however, has led to higher crime in some cities and has been decried by pro-law-and-order conservatives.

Police have led the charge against liberal prosecutors who have been refusing to file charges that lead to long prison sentences.

In a statement to Secrets, LELDF President Jason Johnson hit the Soros funding.

“Soros is using that campaign money and the hundreds of millions more for supporting organizations to quietly transform the criminal justice system for the worse, promoting dangerous policies and anti-police narratives to advance his radical agenda,” said Johnson.

He added, “Over the past decade, George Soros has spent $40 million to elect 75 of his chosen prosecutors. In campaigns from Houston and Los Angeles to Philadelphia and Orlando, Soros was the campaign’s biggest spender by far — as much as 90% of the dollars spent in some races. Soros isn’t done yet — he’s already spent another million so far this year on his hand-picked district attorneys.”

Soros is well known in liberal donor circles as a supporter of the most liberal causes, including for groups advocating gun bans and defunding the police. That has made him a prime target of law enforcement groups.

The report found that many new district attorneys had little experience but the support of liberal donors such as Soros. What’s more, it said that as the social justice movement has grown, so has funding of district attorney political campaigns.

“Traditionally, elections for district attorney have been quiet affairs. Candidates spent very little on their campaigns, instead jockeying for local endorsements and burnishing their legal qualifications for the top job. That changed recently as millions of campaign dollars have flowed into these down ballot contests. The bulk of that lavish spending on advertising and consultants has been done by (or on behalf of) ‘social justice’ candidates,” said the report.

“In most of these free spending contests, progressive forces proved victorious by either defeating incumbent Democrats or crushing a field of primary contenders. Strikingly, most of these prosecutors were political neophytes and had zero prosecutorial experience — previously an assumed prerequisite for office. Many have no previous criminal case experience,” it added.

The report listed many of the groups that have used Soros’s funding to elect prosecutors. And it lists the biggest winners of that money, including Chicago’s Kim Foxx, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and Loudoun County, Virginia, Commonwealth Attorney Buta Biberaj………

Exposing the Counterfeit Theology of Progressive Christianity

WARNING:

THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE HAS FAILED TO THOROUGHLY RESEARCH THE GREAT & CONTINUOUS APOSTASY OF BOTH THE GRAHAMS AND  NADIA BOLZ-WEBER

SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS FOR PROOF:

https://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/billyandfranklingraham.jpg?w=551

https://ratherexposethem.org/?s=FRANKLIN+GRAHAM

https://ratherexposethem.org/?s=NADIA+BOLZ-WEBER

BY BOB ADELMANN

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/exposing-the-counterfeit-theology-of-progressive-christianity/;

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

Franklin Graham, President, and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and of Samaritan’s Purse took on the deceptive progressive theology posing as Christianity in an article published on Wednesday at Decision magazine. He called it “the Eternal Peril,” accurately portraying it as Satan’s lie dating from the serpent’s confrontation with Eve in the Garden of Eden.

The lie, he wrote, “has cropped up in the halls of seminaries, infiltrated the pulpits of thousands of churches, and been propagated by a godless liberal media. It is bent on casting doubt and undermining the foundational principles of God’s Word.”

The counterfeit theology attacks the basic foundational structure of Biblical Christianity at every point, seeking to destroy it and then replace it with a man-centered worldview. On gender identity, Graham writes:

Although Scripture clearly says that marriage is between one man and one woman, proponents of progressive Christianity twist and distort the truth of God’s Word on sexuality, focusing on such nonsensical trends as gender identity.

They deny God’s distinction of the sexes, and instead invent their own misguided standards, unguided by the Word of God.

Progressive Christianity rejects God’s plan and replaces it by affirming same-sex marriage. It accepts the use of pornography, one-night stands, and same-sex encounters — virtually any sexual activity as long as it reflects a “concern for each other’s flourishing,” according to promoter Nadia Bolz-Weber.

It accepts Satan’s assurance to Adam and Even in the garden:

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” — Genesis 3:4-5

The fruit was enticing, the promise was enthralling, and the invitation to assert her own independence from God was overwhelming. Her sin was not in itself eating the fruit of the tree; it was her decision to deny God, His warning, and especially His sovereignty.

When she ate and didn’t immediately die, Adam fell for the lie as well, thus fatally infecting their progeny right up to the present day.

From there, Progressive Christianity goes downhill. The Bible isn’t the infallible Word of God, but merely an ancient travelogue, a wonderful work of literature that reflects only what people believed about Him when the words were written thousands of years ago.

It denies Genesis 1:1 (“In the beginning, God”) and replaces it with the lie of evolution. As progressive authors, David Felten and Jeff Procter-Murphy wrote:

Far from being fallen creatures trying to return to a mythical Eden, human beings are emerging as a species from more primal and baser instincts to become more responsible and mature beings.

It denies the deity of Christ as the only son of God, and instead considers Him as just a good example to follow, more of a “big brother” than the Creator of the universe “Who made us, and not we ourselves.” (Psalm 100:3).

It denies the crucifixion’s purpose as the only possible redemption for sinners and instead declares that it reveals God as a monster inflicting unspeakable abuse on His own Son. It asks, as did one proponent: “Who originated the Cross? If God did, then we worship a cosmic abuser, who in Divine Wisdom created a means to torture human beings in the most painful and abhorrent manner.”

It reinterprets the resurrection (which it cannot deny) as an example “to show us,” writes believer Alisa Childers, “how to forgive our enemies by allowing Himself to be crucified by an angry mob.”

It denies the total depravity of man, ignoring Biblical revelations such as these:

  • Man’s heart is “deceitful and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9);
  • Man is “dead in transgressions” (Ephesians 2:5);
  • Man loves sin (John 3:19; John 8:34);
  • And therefore, he will not seek God (Romans 3:10-11);
  • Because he loves the darkness (John 3:19);
  • The depraved lifestyle embraced by Progressive Christianity reflects the gospel of Christ as foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18);
  • Because it is unable to accept it (Romans 8:7).

The deception of Progressive Christianity is fueled by its attractiveness, seeming to many as an option to the true faith — more acceptable, more likable, more palatable in an increasingly sinful and declining world. Progressive Christianity, as Will Vining noted in The Christian Post, is “most deceiving when it looks and feels like the Truth.”

Graham ended his post with this reminder from the apostle Paul’s letter to his protégé, Timothy (2 Timothy 4:2-5):

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

If You’re the Right Race, Your Doctor Will See You Now

Critical race theory in medicine can kill you.

Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality | Prioritizing Equity

REPORT FROM THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION:

Dr. Siegel blasts American Medical Association for pushing critical race theory

James Lindsay: Post Modernism, Critical Race Theory & Medicine

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://robertspencer.org/2022/05/if-youre-the-right-race-your-doctor-will-see-you-now;

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.

50 years after the end of the Tuskegee Experiments, the Biden administration brought back racism into medicine with a rule providing financial incentives to doctors embedding the horrifying racist ideas of Ibram X. Kendi into their practices.

The form of racism misleadingly described as “anti-racism” believes that all white people are evil and that any medical problems are the result of identity politics, not individual choices.

The racist Biden Medicare rule falsely claims that “systemic racism is the root cause for differences in health outcomes between socially defined racial groups” while demanding that “practice guidelines ” be “aligned with a commitment to anti-racism”.

Do No Harm, an organization formed to oppose the injection of critical race theory in medicine, filed a suit to oppose, what Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, calls a  “discriminatory and illegal policy advocated by the likes of Ibram X. Kendi being imposed on our health care system.”’

This move is the latest effort by conservatives and traditional liberals to push back against the destructive incursion of critical race theory into medicine which harms patients, imposes political tests on medical professionals, and raises costs while lowering the quality of care.

And kills patients.

The Biden Medicare critical race theory rule unleashes more costs and a further expansion of the massive health care bureaucracy by demanding that “a certified health IT product must be able to express both detailed races and ethnicities using any of the 900 plus concepts in the ‘Race & Ethnicity—CDC code system.’”

900 plus concepts.

Medical professionals and staff will have to take time away from patient care to delve into anti-racism plans and apart from coping with the already insane morass of insurance categories, will also contend with the “900 plus concepts in the ‘Race & Ethnicity—CDC code system.”

Beyond the Biden administration, however, critical race theory is being embedded into medicine through the AMA and leading medical schools. Last year the AMA demanded that hospitals and medical practices indoctrinate and impose political tests on “systemic racism” and “implicit bias” on employees. The latter assumes that all white people are racist and in denial about it.

new report from CriticalRace.org, a project of William A. Jacobson’s Legal Insurrection Foundation, found that of the 50 top medical schools as rated by US News and World Report, “39 institutions have some form of mandatory student training or coursework” and “28 institutions have some form of mandatory faculty/staff training” involving racialist indoctrination.

Harvard Medical School is developing “classes for master’s and Ph.D. students to acknowledge the ways in which racism is embedded in science and scientific culture” while USC’s Keck School of Medicine has an Anti-Racism Task Force that “will monitor all lecture and group content to ‘ensure that any discussion of race is framed in contemporary anti-racist thought.’”

Johns Hopkins warns that“all faculty, students, trainees, postdocs and fellows will be required to complete a virtual training session in unconscious bias” and Emory University’s School of Medicine expects all faculty and students to “actively promote an antiracist environment of authentic engagement, advocacy, and leadership both within the School of Medicine”.

The consequences of embedding racist doctrines within medical schools go even beyond the impact on faculty, future doctors, competence, and general quality of care.

By redefining health as a social ill created by racism, rather than genetics and individual decisions, critical race theory within medicine robs minorities of the agency. Much as the social services state got people hooked on dependency and learned helplessness, critical race theory within medicine tells unhealthy people who happen to be minorities that they’re the victims.

And that there’s nothing that they can personally do to change their lives except vote Democrat.

The AMA is rolling out “new diversity, equity, and inclusion standards aimed at teaching doctors, among other things, about respectful treatment of people diagnosed as overweight or obese.”

Anti-racism falsely blames “systemic racism in medicine” for higher death rates among minorities.

As Dr. Goldfarb noted in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, “At the heart of this is the claim that healthcare is systemically racist—that most physicians are biased and deliver worse care to minorities.”

The false accusations of racism are being used to terrorize medical professionals into adopting racist concepts and ideas.

“Physicians are being pushed to discriminate,” Dr. Goldfarb of Do No Harm charged. “To fight their supposed bias, physicians are being bribed into discriminating by race.”

“Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston (Harvard’s teaching hospital) is moving toward ‘preferential care based on race’ across the board,” he points out.

Many Americans were introduced to the concept of “preferential care based on race” when the CDC, NIH, and some states focused on providing vaccines based on race, but it’s a reality far beyond the emergency scenarios where it’s increasingly becoming automatic.

Nearly every major medical organization is pursuing some sort of equity agenda.

For example, the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force. Anecdotally, new doctors are being taught to triage patients by race.

An ER doctor described hearing about situations where woke medical professionals say, “I’m not going to go treat that white guy, I’m going to treat the person of color instead because whatever happened to the white guy, he probably deserves it.”

Critical race theory has already killed people during the Black Lives Matter riots, but embedding critical race theory systemic racism into medicine has the potential to take far more lives.

Last year, the Boston Review published a proposal for an “antiracist agenda for medicine” in which doctors looking through the “field of critical race theory” called for reparations by, among other things, “preferentially admitting patients” based on identity politics.

That meant “a preferential admission option for Black and Latinx heart failure patients to our specialty cardiology service” since they allege that health care systems “already unfairly preference people who are white”.

Killing white people becomes “reparations” for the big lie of “systemic racism”.

This is what woke medicine looks like. It’s what critical race theory and anti-racism’s brutal hateful logic applied to deciding who lives or dies becomes. Anti-racist doctors want you dead and they will use whatever algorithms and biased studies to justify the necessity for your death.

 

pfizer-to-ask-fda-to-authorize-three-doses-of-covid-vax-for-tots~In their quest to live forever, evil elitists admit through “science” that children and babies are being harvested for their life essence~DC public school asks four-year-olds to out “racist” family members

If You’re Reading This, Karine Jean-Pierre Probably Hates You. Here’s Why.

Apparently calling people racist is a ‘good career path’: Gutfeld

Biden’s New Press Sec: Pro-Israel Conference “Severely Racist”

Biden's next White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, supported the boycott of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Jean-Pierre has criticized AIPAC for not being progressive and stated the group was "severely racist." Jay, Jordan, and the rest of the Sekulow team discuss the new press secretary and some of the inflammatory viewpoints she espouses. This and more today on Sekulow.

"I AM EVERYTHING TRUMP HATES"

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2022/05/14/if-youre-reading-this-karine-jean-pierre-probably-hates-you-heres-why-n1597929;

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

Old Joe Biden’s new check-the-woke-boxes press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, is a Democrat, and so it comes as no great surprise that she sees racism absolutely everywhere, and I do mean everywhere: the New York Post reported Saturday that it “looked at Jean-Pierre’s tweets between 2015 and 2020 and found a staggering 57 instances where she accused people, policies, ideas, or words of being ‘racist.’ Also, Jean-Pierre accused people and ideas she was opposed to as ‘racist’ at least 43 times in TV appearances too.” That makes an even 100 accusations of racism or twenty per year; among Democrats today, that makes Jean-Pierre a moderate.

Jean-Pierre’s chief target, of course, was Donald Trump. Jean-Pierre tweeted in February 2019: “Yes, Donald Trump has been a racist his entire adult life. And, people still voted for him.” The new press secretary no doubt believes that people still voted for the allegedly racist Trump because of “systemic racism” in the United States, for she is also an enthusiastic proponent of critical race theory.

As far as Jean-Pierre is concerned, Trump’s racism is an active menace. “Donald Trump’s racist rhetoric is dangerous,” Jean-Pierre tweeted in July 2019 in response to a tweet from Obama aide Valerie Jarrett that said: “Not only is @IlhanMN a duly elected member of Congress, and an American citizen, but she is also a mom. What kind of person would put her and her family in harms [sic] way?” Jarrett was contending that Trump had put Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Mogadishu) in harm’s way by criticizing her, in a manifestation of the increasingly common Leftist tendency to equate any speech criticizing Leftists with violence (as a prelude to and justification for silencing such criticism altogether).

Trump also never mentioned Omar’s race in anything he said about her, but for Jean-Pierre, his criticism was nonetheless “racist,” because essentially any criticism of a “person of color” is taken on the Left as “racism” except for criticism of non-Leftists such as Clarence Thomas and Candace Owens; criticism of black conservatives is neither racist nor incitement but a necessary expression of the prophetic voice of the marginalized. Are you getting the rules down now?

Jean-Pierre even claimed on MSNBC’s “AM Joy” in 2018, without bothering to produce a shred of evidence, that Trump was open about his racism and proud of it: “If it walks like a racist, talks like a racist, acts like a racist, it is a racist and we have a racist president in the White House who really pushes his racism like a peacock.” In January 2020, she repeated this, tweeting: “Donald Trump is the most outwardly racist President that we have seen in generations and African Americans voters aren’t blind to that. He uses his megaphone to divide people, spew racism, and give cover to white supremacists.” In 2016, Trump won six percent of the black vote; in 2020, this increased to eight percent.

Related: Here’s What Biden Doesn’t Want You to Know About His New Press Secretary

Trump was by no means the only target of Jean-Pierre’s indiscriminate and counterfactual racism charges. Other “racists” she claimed to have identified included Steve Bannon, Sebastian Gorka, and Jeff Sessions, to whom she was especially vicious: in June 2018, she tweeted: “Let’s, be clear here- the ‘zero tolerance’ policy of ripping apart immigrant families is who Sessions is….this has been one of his life goals. Sessions views brown and black people as less than, not even human. Sessions is a bigot & a racist.” Also racist in Jean-Pierre’s view are Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Fox News, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and many others.

To someone who has only a hammer, the old adage goes, every problem is a nail. To a contemporary Leftist steeped in the Left’s current prejudices, hatreds, and mythologies, everyone who opposes the Leftist agenda is a racist. Leftists have frequently demonstrated that for them, Leftism is essentially a religion: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Grey Goose) in April 2021 gave thanks to her god for laying down his life in a salvific sacrifice: “Thank you, George Floyd, for sacrificing your life for justice.” Catholic University displayed a painting of George Floyd as Jesus. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) last October published a new hymn entitled “The Climate is Changing.” In September 2019, climate idolaters at Union Theological Seminary began worshipping potted plants as a “liturgical response to our climate crisis.”

Jean-Pierre’s reflexive charges of “racism” are also a manifestation of Leftism as a religion. The particular sect to which Jean-Pierre belongs is harshly dualistic, with the good – the people of color and their allies – on one side and the evil – the “racists” – on the other. There are no shades of gray. If you oppose the Left, you must ipso facto belong in the evil camp, and hence you are a racist. It’s a simple and all-encompassing worldview, admitting of no compromise, no concessions to the coterie of evil people: they must simply be destroyed, destroyed utterly. That the president’s handlers would choose someone with such an outlook to be press secretary sends a chill down the spine of every free American.

Texas Library Association Hosts Drag Performers, Workshops on Social Justice and LGBT Community ⋆ Elizabeth Johnston

Texas Library Assn. Hosts Drag Queen Storytime, But TFP Protests

Click on the following link to protest Drag Queens reading to children -- https://tfpstudentaction.org/petition...

SEE: https://elizabethjohnston.org/texas-library-association-hosts-drag-performers-workshops-on-social-justice-and-lgbt-community/;

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

Late last month, school librarians from across Texas gathered for the four-day “Recover, Rebalance, Reconnect” lineup which featured drag queens, a talk from prominent racial justice scholar Ibram X. Kendi, and workshops on social justice and building community around LGBT identities.

Texas Library Association (TLA) hosted drag performers Justin Johnson and Joseph Hoselton, respectively known and dressed as their alter-egos “Alyssa Edwards” and “Jenny Skyy,” as The Christian Post reported.

Johnson was featured as the conference’s “After Hours Keynote” speaker while Hoselton led a “Drag Queen Storytime” for the sake of promoting “literacy and community collaboration through dynamic storytelling and music.”

Drag queen storytime events have gained popularity across the country over the last five years, gaining praise from the LGBT community and controversy among conservatives and Christians in equal measure.

This is something we have often covered here at Elizabeth Johnston ministries, particularly in instances when drag performers featured at the events, often geared towards particularly young children, have been exposed as having an unvetted history of sexual crimes against children — or even, in one horrifying case, seen to have exposed themselves to the children.

The TLA’s conference also featured a talk from Kendi, the author of “How to Be Anti-Racist” and one of the most high-profile promulgators of so-called “racial justice” or what has been come to be known as critical race theory and which many have raised concerns about its presence in American public school classrooms.

There was also reportedly a workshop called “Building Community Relationships for LGBTQIA+ Patrons” as well as one on “diversifying” library collections to introduce more material on “identity, culture, diversity, bias, and social justice.”

The Post notes that the TLA is a charitable nonprofit made up of workers at taxpayer-funded libraries in the state.

MIKE POMPEO ON DR. OZ: No, It’s Not Xenophobic to Question a Senate Candidate’s Dual Citizenship in an Enemy Islamist Nation

2020: Oz says Trump was wrong to withdraw from China-controlled WHO, praises Biden for rejoining it

Trump Supporters Couldn’t Stop Booing Dr. Oz at Pennsylvania Rally

An endorsement from former President Donald Trump wasn’t enough to prevent MAGA devotees from repeatedly booing Republican Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz at a campaign rally in Greensburg, Pennsylvania Friday evening.

Although the event was designed to promote Oz’s run for the state’s Senate seat, the majority of the crowd — many of whom waited for hours in the pouring rain — was clearly gathered to see Trump. Reaction to Oz was icy at best, with the audience letting out an audible groan when the former president began stumping for the fellow reality TV charlatan, referring to Oz as his “friend.” The boos were even more apparent after Trump implored Pennsylvania Republicans to “secure a massive victory” for Oz.

The apathetic response to Oz was a running theme throughout the evening. The Daily Beast reports that the crowd jeered when pro-MAGA Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Penn.) explained his reasons for backing Oz in the May 17 primary, while Huffington Post reporter Daniel Marans shared a video on Twitter of Trump supporters booing Oz campaign ads that played before the rally.

Even so, between his usual rants against “liberal Democrats” and self-avowed enemies like Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.), Trump attempted to sell his supporters on Oz in a variety of ways, ranging from the banal to the bizarre — even going so far as to remind the audience that Oz was “in the bedrooms” of women across America as if that was a good, totally un-creepy asset for a would-be politician. (This isn’t the first time Trump has praised Oz’s popularity with female voters; after initially endorsing Oz last month, the ex-president boasted that women “are drawn to Dr. Oz for his advice and counsel.”)

“Dr. Oz is running against the liberal Wall Street Republican named David McCormick,” Trump said of Oz’s opponent, adding that the former Under Secretary of the U.S. Treasury for International Affairs “may be a nice guy, but he’s not MAGA.”

Losing out on Trump’s coveted endorsement appears to have Camp McCormick concerned about their prospects in Pennsylvania — and, given the recent success of Trump-backed author-turned-venture capitalist J.D. Vance in Ohio, it’s a fear that’s not entirely unfounded. According to Bloomberg, the candidate outspent Oz by over $6 million last month. In recent days, McCormick has zeroed in on Oz’s dual Turkish citizenship, suggesting the TV doctor’s ties to the country make him a potential threat to American democracy.

“These are pathetic and xenophobic attacks on Dr. Oz by David McCormick, who should be ashamed of himself,” Oz campaign spokesperson Brittany Yanick told The Philadelphia Inquirer. “Now that he lost President Trump’s endorsement, he’s resorted to sad and desperate attacks that are no different than the tropes used against Catholics and Jews.”

Kathy Barnette CALLS OUT Oz and McCormick for World Economic Forum ties

Dr. Oz is in conflict with Trump's America First agenda | Dave McCormick

Dr. Oz called out by McCormick for not matching up with Pennsylvania values and policies

MIKE POMPEO CORRECTS DONALD TRUMP'S ENDORSEMENT OF DR. MEHMET OZ WITH THE FACTS (NOT MISINFORMATION)

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://robertspencer.org/2022/05/no-its-not-xenophobic-to-question-a-senate-candidates-dual-citizenship-in-an-enemy-islamist-nation;

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

Mehmet ‘Mohammed’ Oz’s bizarre Senate campaign responded to criticism about his ties to the Islamist regime in Turkey by playing the “X” card.

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday alleged that Republican US Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz may be a security threat if he is elected to office.

Pompeo, a former CIA director and ex-Kansas congressman, said that Oz, who holds dual citizenship, must explain his relationship with Turkey’s government, citing Oz’s decision to vote in Turkish elections as recently as 2018 and his work with Turkish Airlines.

“I was involved in the process which adjudicated efforts to receive national security information — the clearance process inside the United States. And precisely the things that we have seen reported are the kinds of things that those who are making those judgments about whether to provide that sensitive American information — to government officials or to private citizens, to contractors are working on behalf of the American government — these are precisely the kinds of questions they would ask in making such a determination and they get answers. They often get answers under polygraph.”

Oz’s statement that he’ll renounce his Turkish citizenship if elected is already nothing short of bizarre. 

And his campaign responded by crying, xenophobia.

The Oz campaign dismissed Pompeo’s criticism.

“These are pathetic and xenophobic attacks on Dr. Oz by David McCormick, who should be ashamed of himself,” said Oz spokeswoman Brittany Yanick. 

“Now that he lost President Trump’s endorsement, he’s resorted to sad and desperate attacks that are no different than the tropes used against Catholics and Jews.”

Yanick said, “Dr. Oz has already said when elected to the Senate he would renounce his citizenship. There is no security issue whatsoever, and David McCormick knows that Dr. Oz has maintained his dual citizenship to make it easier to help care for his mother who has Alzheimer’s and lives there.”

You renounce foreign citizenship before you run for public office, not on a conditional basis.

Oz voted in Turkey’s elections so the story about his sick mother is more nonsense. 

The big issue though is Turkey itself.

The country is currently run by a brutal Islamist dictator from the local equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood who supports Islamic terrorists. Turkey is an enemy of the United States specifically and the West in general. 

Raising questions about Mehmet ‘Mohammed’ Oz’s ties to Turkey isn’t “xenophobia”. He’s not being attacked for being of Turkish origin, but for maintaining political ties to a country run by allies of Islamic terrorists.

Oz is doubling down by proposing to serve in the Senate without abandoning his Turkish citizenship but avoiding classified materials.

U.S. Senate candidate Mehmet Oz said today that he would forego certain security clearances that are provided to all U.S. Senators to keep his dual citizenship with Turkey…

When asked about his dual citizenship with the United States and Turkey, Oz explained that he keeps his Turkish citizenship to care for his mother, who suffers from Alzheimer’s Disease. When queried what he would do if this would disqualify him from security clearances, Oz agreed that he would forego them in this situation, noting “I can love my country and love my mom.”

Should we even ask which “country” is under discussion here?

___________________________________________________________________

Violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)

SEE: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/05/mehmet-oz-allegedly-violated-foreign-agent-law-for-with-work-for-turkish-airlines/

AND: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/04/mehmet-oz-under-fire-for-vote-in-2018-turkish-election/

AND: https://www.conservativenewsdaily.net/breaking-news/mehmet-oz-s-china-ties-deepen-financial-disclosures/

AND: https://freebeacon.com/elections/oz-voted-in-turkish-election-days-after-skipping-vote-in-america/

EXCERPTS:

"Celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz allegedly violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) over his failure to register for his work with Turkish Airlines, according to an advocacy group.

Since its enactment into law in 1938, FARA mandates certain requisites for foreign agents:

FARA requires certain agents of foreign principals who are engaged in political activities or other activities specified under the statute to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities. Disclosure of the required information facilitates evaluation by the government and the American people of the activities of such persons in light of their function as foreign agents."

WOKE TEACHER FIRED IN FLORIDA!!!

"PANSEXUAL" TEACHER 

Casey Scott was on probation and not a member of the teachers' union at Trafalgar Middle School (Image via Facebook/Make Education Great Again)

SEE: https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/news-who-casey-scott-pansexual-teacher-cape-coral-claims-fired-discussing-orientation-students

DR. STEVE TURLEY: A woke teacher is fired in Florida and she’s blaming the Parental Rights Law signed by Ron DeSantis! We’re going to look at the firing and the circumstances that led to it, we’re going to see how the legacy media is trying to blame DeSantis, and we’re going to find that’s all too little too late, the woke ship has sailed and parents across the nation want nothing more to do with it! You are NOT going to want to miss this!

Florida Trafalgar Middle School Teacher Casey Scott FIRED After Discussing THIS In Class, 5 May, 2022

Diversity, Free Speech, and the ‘Woke’ Assault on America We are living in Orwellian times.

BY BRUCE THORNTON

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/diversity-free-speech-and-woke-assault-america-bruce-thornton/;

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

Tech plutocrat Elon Musk announces he is buying Twitter to liberate this “virtual town square” from one-sided political censorship - and he is met with hysterical charges that he is attacking free speech. A woman who reposts TikTok videos of “woke” teachers bragging about their sexualizing of children in their classrooms, is attacked by a Washington Post reporter who harasses the woman’s family in order to silence an enemy of “free speech” and purveyor of “hate” - just days after the reporter appeared in a video and bursts into tears over getting the same treatment she later inflicts on the anonymous creator of Libs on TikTok.

We are clearly living in Orwellian times when the ambitions of tyrannical power are camouflaged by debased language, incoherent thought, and patent double standards. Like the Newspeak of 1984, our progressive media abuses words like “diversity” and “free speech” to make them mean their opposites: a uniform orthodoxy protected and enforced by censorship. As long ago as Thucydides, this abuse of language and thought was recognized as the enemy of freedom and the precursor of a tyranny that reduces the diversity of opinion and ideas into one monolithic, oppressive dogma.

Since its creation in the ancient Athenian democracy, free speech has been the sine qua non of a political order that includes a wide diversity of citizens, not just the rich and educated elites who monopolized power in oligarchic or autocratic regimes. Since political discussion and deliberation were conducted through public speeches, citizens had to be protected from reprisals for, or limitations on their diverse opinions and their particular ways of expressing them.

True diversity - the diversity of thought and opinion - is intimately connected to free speech, itself one of the most critical foundations of political freedom, and the most important bulwarks against tyranny.

This freedom of speech given to social and economic inferiors was one of the major criticisms of democracy in arguments against politically enfranchising non-elites. Antidemocratic critics like Plato, an aristocrat, and philosopher who favored rule by a technocratic elite, mocked the average Athenian who presumed to address his betters in the Assembly and the Council. Plato’s like-minded mentor Socrates mocked and slandered the masses as “dunces and weaklings,” the “fullers and the cobblers or the builders or the smiths or the farmers or the merchants or the traffickers in the marketplace who think of nothing but buying cheap and selling dear.”

The common sense and traditional wisdom of these poor and middling citizens, which make them fit to participate in political deliberation, are disparaged. Hence, they should not have the right to speak out during such deliberations but defer to their social betters. Their diversity is an impediment to good government, not, as Aristotle argued, a resource comprising a great diversity of talents and life experiences.

We can hear the echo of such elite disdain and technocratic pretensions in the Left’s slavish obeisance to “following the science,” particularly prevalent during the covid crisis. Notice too that those who challenged the government experts’ consensus of opinion about the crisis have been fair game for censorship by Twitter and Facebook on the pretext of curtailing “misinformation” - even though many critics, like the original signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration, are themselves, scientists.

Just as in ancient Athens, the resentment of elites towards ordinary people’s participation in political speech reflects not just class snobbery, but political ideology rather than superior knowledge or reason. It also explains the progressive preference for technocratic rule through government agencies comprising “experts,” whom Woodrow Wilson called the “hundreds who are wise” given the power to rule the thousands “who are selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish.”

In our times the latter comprise those whom Democrats brand as “bitter clingers,” “deplorables,” and “smelly Wal-Mart shoppers,” while Twitter and Facebook censor their speech to eliminate alleged “hate speech” and “misinformation,” Orwellian euphemisms for the opinions from those whose politics the elite disdain and whose opinions they silence.

The other source of today’s censorship is stale Marxism of various stripes. Communism has always fancied itself as a “science” rather than a political ideology, in which those converted to Marx’s “scientific history” are entitled, by their superior technical expertise to control the political order and guide history towards the progressive paradise or “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “equity.” Those standing in the way of this glorious future must be silenced or eliminated. Diversity of opinion is verboten just as heresy is forbidden in religion, for such views bespeak “false consciousness” and can seduce people away from the leftist gospel. Thus the operating principle is “by any means necessary,” including rank hypocrisy, egregious double standards, propaganda, censorship, “cancel culture,” and political violence like that we witnessed in 2020.

Finally, the leftist eagerness to censor and silence free speech exposes how dishonest and incoherent is their notion of “diversity,” and how ignorant or indifferent they are about freedom’s dependence on free speech. The “diversity” they trade in is not the real diversity of minds and opinions, but the superficial “diversity” of illiberal, racist markers like skin color or hair texture. As such, the real, complex diversity of region, mores, faiths, and socio-economic class that exist even within the same ethnicity is erased, the vacuum filled by leftist political ideology and goofy theories like “systemic racism” and its truly racist idea that all so-called white people are, without exception, racists.

This distortion of diversity, moreover, has compounded the many dysfunctions afflicting our society today. For example, the racialist canards that police target black men for extralegal execution, or that black criminality is created by “systemic racism,”  enable progressive cognitive elites black and white to agitate for reducing police forces, emptying prisons, and putting into power prosecutors and judges who refuse to enforce the laws and the rules for sentencing and granting parole.

The result has been an increase in crime to levels not seen for decades, with many of the perpetrators being career criminals put back on the streets despite their long records of mayhem. And the victims most often are blacks and Latinos, the “people of color” whose lives the marxiste “woke” claim “matter,” but whose daily subjection to violent assaults and murder they’ve ignored for decades.

The Orwellian assault on free speech is an attack on the Constitutional order of political freedom and unalienable rights that the progressives have been undermining for a century. And it weakens the real diversity that has defined our nation from the beginning and contributed to our country’s success as the freest people in history. If this attack continues, our country eventually will be “fundamentally transformed” into a technocratic, oligarchic “soft despotism,” and we citizens reduced to clients of an “immense and tutelary power,” as Tocqueville writes, “absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild,” that will seek “to keep [the people] in perpetual childhood.”

But there are signs of renewal, a coming electoral backlash that may slow down this transformation. Biden’s abysmal policy failures at home and abroad, the growing anger at rampant crime and inflation, the surreally juvenile antics of the “woke,” the suicidal excesses of the “green new deal,” the grotesque violations of common sense and science of transgenderism, and the accelerating awakening of parents to the ideological corruption of public schools are all cheering portents.

Biden 11th-Circuit Nominee Abudu Works for Anti-white, Pro-communist SPLC

Biden 11th-Circuit Nominee Abudu Works for Anti-white, Pro-communist SPLC

BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/biden-11th-circuit-nominee-abudu-works-for-anti-white-pro-communist-splc/;

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

If all goes as planned, the Senate Judiciary Committee will soon consider a nominee for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who is even more radical than recently confirmed Ketanji Jackson Brown, the new associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court who doesn’t know what a woman is.

President Biden’s latest nominee is Nancy Abudu, a radical leftist — if not a communist — who toils for the openly anti-white, pro-communist Southern Poverty Law Center.

Hearings on Biden’s nominees are slated for April 27. 

SPLC’s Invitation to Murder

Led by the Family Research Council, a victim of the SPLC’s smear tactics that almost led to a mass murder at FRC headquarters, prominent conservatives laid out the case against Abudu in a detailed letter.

Writing to Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin and his GOP counterpart, Chuck Grassley, in January, the signatories were blunt. 

“Abudu works for a disreputable organization that has no business being a feeder for positions to any judicial office — not even of a traffic court — let alone the second-highest court system in the United States. She is a political activist, not a jurist, and is unfit to serve at the federal appellate level,” they wrote.

Of course, Biden and his people certainly know about SPLC. And they know why Abudu will be opposed. But Biden nominated the leftist precisely because she works for the leftist smear machine. Biden’s controllers want a hard-core leftist on the 11th circuit.

SPLC is a “a corrupt organization infamous for its decades-long managerial corruption and notorious for unscrupulously designating its political opponents as ‘hate groups’ or ‘extremists,’” the letter averred:

These destructive accusations have done real harm to many people. In the first conviction under the post-9/11 District of Columbia terrorism statute, the convicted terrorist was shown to have been motivated by the SPLC’s “hate group” designation and related identifying information

In 2012, that nutcake, Floyd Lee Corkins, went to FRC headquarters in Washington, D.C., on a murder mission because of SPLC:

Using the SPLC “hate map,” this native of northern Virginia targeted the Family Research Council (FRC) and two other nearby groups in August 2012 for having beliefs supporting traditional marriage. Fortunately, no one was killed, although he did shoot and critically wound FRC’s unarmed building manager who subdued him while wounded.

Despite repeated requests, the SPLC has refused to change its defamatory designations of organizations like FRC with whom, at the end of the day, it merely holds deeply held policy differences. The shooter-domestic terrorist told the FBI that the source of his information was the SPLC. Worse yet, over the past decade the SPLC has targeted an increasing number of policy groups with whom it has policy disagreements. Any group that disagrees with the SPLC about positions it advocates is deemed to be evil and worthy of destruction.

Of course, SPLC hates The New American and its publisher, The John Birch Society.

The Problem With Abudu

Aside from being a political activist, the signers wrote, Abudu surely knew not only about the shooting, but also about SPLC’s “sleazy corporate culture,” which included “long-term charges of racial discrimination and sexual harassment” against founder Morris Dees. “There was a mountain of evidence … when Ms. Abudu arrived there.”

Dees and other SPLC leaders were jettisoned.

Abudu, the letter said, could have easily learned about the outfit’s “notorious reputation” even among leftists, and she clearly didn’t care about SPLC’s “toxic racial and sexual climate.”

The committee must find out whether Abudu interviewed Morris or any other notorious leaders who were forced to resign, the letter said:

Abudu’s acceptance of a senior litigation management role inside America’s largest political defamation factory disqualifies her from any position in which she would be expected to serve as an impartial arbiter of facts and law.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, the appeals court for the 11th Circuit receives appeals from Georgia and Alabama.

Adubu would be required to recuse herself from any cases in those states brought by either SPLC or the communist-founded American Civil Liberties Union, another subversive outfit for which she worked.

UK: Woke Archbishop of Canterbury uses Easter message to attack border control

BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

SEE: https://robertspencer.org/2022/04/uk-woke-archbishop-of-canterbury-uses-easter-message-to-attack-border-control;

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

Much like the Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby uses Christianity to justify open borders — ie. breaking the law and illegally entering sovereign countries. Yet also like the globalist Pope, Welby is surrounded by personal security, and whoever enters his own personal domain is carefully vetted. He is also financially well cared for, unlike so many Britons, who are now saddled with the price tag of accommodating illegals— from feeding them and housing them to providing medical services, and when needed, heightened security services to protect citizens, given the disproportionately high incidents of crime committed by illegals.

A couple of years ago, a sensible cardinal opposed the woke leadership of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Robert Sarah — prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments — compared “the modern influx of Muslim migrants to the invasions of barbarian tribes that ultimately brought down the Roman Empire in a.d. 475.” Sarah also issued a warning which contradicted Pope Francis. He cautioned that “it is a false exegesis [interpretation of scriptural text] to use the Word of God to promote migration. God never wanted these rifts.” But this is precisely what Pope Francis has been doing, along with the Anglican Welby: abusing their positions and acting as blind guides in preaching that it is un-Christian to oppose illegal, mass Muslim migration into Europe.  

“Woke Anglican Archbishop Uses Easter Message to Attack Border Controls,” by Jack Montgomery, Breitbart, April 17, 2022:

Archbishop Justin Welby, the de facto head of the Church of England, has used his Easter message to attack British government plans to transfer some male boat migrants to Rwanda while their asylum claims are processed, claiming the policy “is the opposite of the nature of God”.

In a highly political “sermon” preached at the service of Holy Communion at Canterbury Cathedral and broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on Sunday morning, the woke archbishop loosely linked the resurrection of Jesus Christ to a number of contemporary political issues he is interested in, including the conflict in Ukraine, “the rising cost of power, fuel, and basic food”, and, of course, immigration.

“[T]his season is also why there are such serious ethical questions about sending asylum seekers overseas,” the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed, referring to the Boris Johnson administration’s plans to finally do something about the ever-worsening boat migrant crisis by striking a deal with Rwanda, a safe third country, to host some male asylum seekers while their asylum claims — often bogus — are processed.

“The details are for politics and politicians. The principle must stand the judgement of God and it cannot,” declared Welby, who himself has a direct role in lawmaking as a member of the House of Lords.

“It cannot carry the weight of resurrection justice, of life conquering death. It cannot carry the weight of the resurrection that was first to the least valued, for it privileges the rich and strong,” he went on, without offering a clear explanation as to how paying Rwanda to host people who illegally enter British territory from France — a safe European Union member-state — is an exercise of “privilege”….

Pope Francis’ “MEA CULPA” (FOR YOU, NOT HIM): ‘Through My Racism, Through My Most Grievous Racism’

On a day of spiritual unity, the pontiff chose political division. Remember that well the next time Pope Francis starts making political prescriptions.

"REFUGEES" “Forced like Jesus Christ to flee”

(IN A WORLD OF COMMUNISM & SOCIALISM, WITHOUT BORDERS OR NATIONALISM)

OMITS THOSE WHO HAVE EVIL, JIHADIST INTENTIONS

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2022/04/16/pope-francis-through-my-racism-through-my-racism-through-my-most-grievous-racism-n1590358;

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

Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez now the pope’s advisor on immigration? “It is true,” said Pope Francis Friday, “refugees are subdivided. There’s first-class, second class, skin color, [if] they come from a developed country [or] one that is not developed. We are racists, we are racists. And this is bad.” The claim that Western countries are racist in their approach to immigration is not original to the pontiff: AOC said it back in early March. But the key question, both then and now, is largely overlooked yet quite simple: is it true?

Interviewer Lorena Bianchetti asked the pope, “At this time, Your Holiness, I think of those fleeing: there are these images that show the flight of Ukrainian people who are forced to leave their land, their homes, their loved ones. It is one of the latest exoduses that we are probably, alas, becoming accustomed to. But in this case, there has been a real concrete response. Does this response, I ask you, do you think it means there are cracks in the walls of indifference, of prejudice toward those who flee from other parts of the world wounded by war, or will refugees continue to be subdivided into the category of being an annoyance?” It’s hard to fathom what indifference she could possibly have meant. Europe has welcomed refugees and migrants to the extent that one in four people in Germany now has a migrant background. Those are some mighty porous “walls of indifference.”

Instead of trying to talk some sense to Bianchetti, however, the pope demonstrated that he fully subscribed to the idea that the West’s response to mass migration has been colored, as it were, by prejudice. “It is true. Refugees are subdivided,” he replied. “There’s first class, second class, skin color, [if] they come from a developed country [or] one that is not developed. We are racists, we are racists. And this is bad.” Yeah, sure. But really, can the pope name a single country in Europe or North America that has refused any migrants because of skin color? This is pure Leftist fantasy and propaganda, and it’s incredibly irresponsible for the pope to be retailing it.

Nor did Francis stop there. He went on to frame the refugees as Christ-like, so as to shame Christians into thinking that opposition to unvetted mass migration is somehow sinful. “The problem of the refugees,” the pope asserted, “is a problem that Jesus suffered, too, because he was a migrant and a refugee in Egypt when he was a child, to escape death. How many of them are suffering to escape death?” Good question. Other good questions are: How many of them are economic migrants? What is our obligation in such cases? And how many of them are people who are hoping to take advantage of the West’s generous welfare system (Germany acknowledged as far back as 2017 that 75% of its migrants would be collecting benefits for years to come)? How many are criminals or terrorists?

Related: Pope: ‘There is No Such Thing As a Just War: They Do Not Exist!’

The pope has never shown any sign of considering such questions. He has repeatedly branded those who oppose mass Muslim migration into Europe as un-Christian. He seems to be completely unconcerned about facts, such as the fact that all of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees. In February 2015, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. The Lebanese Education Minister said in September 2015 that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country. On May 10, 2016, Patrick Calvar, the head of France’s DGSI internal intelligence agency, said that the Islamic State was using migrant routes through the Balkans to get jihadis into Europe. In light of all that, it is not “racist” in the slightest degree to be concerned about those who have come in, and about the possibility that there may be jihadis among them.

Instead, back in December, the pope visited the Greek island of Lesbos, a hotspot for migrant landings in Europe, and claimed that the migrants were neglected to the extent that it constituted a veritable “shipwreck of civilization.” Europe, he claimed, was “torn by nationalist egoism.” He added that “in Europe, there are those who persist in treating the problem as a matter that does not concern them.”

The pope’s imagined Europe, which is callously indifferent to the plight of migrants desperately fleeing certain death and chooses among those migrants on the basis of race, simply does not exist and has never existed. Nor will it likely ever exist. And the more the pope spreads these vicious untruths, the more the forces that are calling for some responsible restraints on mass migration for economic and security reasons will be drowned out. We are racists, and racists bad. That’s the depth of this man’s analysis.

Florida Targets Math Textbooks for Including CRT

BY RICK MORAN

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2022/04/16/florida-targets-math-textbooks-for-including-crt-n1590296;

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

The Florida Department of Education has determined that a large number of math textbooks attempted to “indoctrinate” students through the inclusion of critical race theory and other prohibited subjects and have been rejected for the 2022 school year.

The department did not list specific textbooks that were rejected nor did it give any examples of why a textbook was rejected.

Fifty-four of the 132 textbooks that publishers submitted for the state’s review were “impermissible with either Florida’s new standards or contained prohibited topics.” The ax fell heaviest on textbooks designed for grades K-5 — 71% of materials were rejected.

Miami Herald:

“Reasons for rejecting textbooks included references to Critical Race Theory (CRT), inclusions of Common Core, and the unsolicited addition of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) in mathematics,” the press release said.

The decision comes as efforts to challenge books surge in local school board meetings across the nation. In Florida, Republican lawmakers approved a new law that offers more transparency in the book selection process, casting the issue as one about parental rights.

If it were just an issue of “parental rights,” the state would take much greater pains to explain exactly why certain books were rejected and what was objectionable about them. 

“We’re going to ensure that Florida has the highest-quality instructional materials aligned to our nationally-recognized standards,” said Commissioner of Education Richard Corcoran. “Florida has become a national leader in education under the vision and leadership of Governor DeSantis. When it comes to education, other states continue to follow Florida’s lead as we continue to reinforce parents’ rights by focusing on providing their children with a world-class education without the fear of indoctrination or exposure to dangerous and divisive concepts in our classrooms.”

There’s nothing wrong with a little divisiveness in classrooms. Socrates encouraged it. It makes for a far more enriching learning experience if students challenge what’s being taught rather than sit there like a bump on a log and listen to a teacher drone on.

The state has a textbook adoption cycle that rotates through subjects every six years. When buying books for their schools, districts turn to the state’s approved list to make sure they align with state standards.

Next up is social studies, and many educators have predicted the effort will be more confrontational than in past years — particularly after the approval of a new law that will require schools to open to the public committee meetings where books are reviewed for purchase, and to make all materials available for public review before it is approved.

We should applaud these efforts to give parents more say in their child’s education, and all attempts at left-wing indoctrination should be resisted.

Related: LOL: Beto O’Rourke Flip Flops on Critical Race Theory

But what’s extremely worrying is the slap-dash approach to determining what books are in violation of these standards. Critical Race Theory is a philosophy — a specific, defined set of ideas and principles. But what we’re seeing is that many issues having to do with the teaching of slavery, of discrimination, of segregation — issues that need to be taught and discussed — are being carelessly lumped in with the concepts of CRT.

This is worse than left-wing indoctrination. It denies our children a true picture of their heritage and history. The fact that it’s not a pretty picture is irrelevant. It happened, and each of us has to deal with that history in our own way as Americans.

There is no “collective guilt.” But there won’t be an understanding of why unless there’s a clear-eyed view of the past that includes the glorious with the horrible, the sublime with the shameful.

Is Florida giving that complete picture to its students?

A Shooter Puts Critical Race Theory into Practice NYC Dems were too busy fighting white supremacy to stop a black supremacist terrorist.

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/nyc-dems-were-too-busy-fighting-white-supremacy-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.

Mayor Eric Adams, who had called white people “crackers”, claimed that he needed his brother to head his security because of an "increase in white supremacy" in New York City.

The New York City Board of Health falsely claimed that racism was a "public health crisis" and a public school told parents to abolish their “whiteness”.

After all that time battling white supremacy, which is as easy to find in the city as good manners and parking spaces, the black supremacist subway terror attack came out of the blue.

29 people were wounded, including a pregnant woman and a 12-year-old, when Frank James, a racist gunman, opened fire on a Brooklyn subway train. James was a racial supremacist, but not the one that New York City’s political establishment had spent so much time searching for.

James was just “abolishing whiteness” by putting critical race theory into practice.

The black supremacist mass shooter has been charged with terrorism for a carefully planned terror attack, that included dressing up as a construction worker, deploying a smoke bomb, and then opening fire. The racist terrorist’s victims included a pregnant woman, and a number of children and teenagers, some of whom were shot several times by the black supremacist.

Like the black supremacist Jersey City terrorists, James used a U-Haul as a base and was convinced that black people were being victimized.

“These white motherf—--s, this is what they do,” James had ranted in his YouTube videos while claiming that white people were plotting to kill all black people. “It’s just a matter of time before these white motherf—--s decide, ‘Hey listen. Enough is enough. These n—ers got to go.'”

“And so the message to me is: I should have gotten a gun, and just started shooting motherf—--s.”

And indeed that is allegedly what James did.

An initial survey of photos from the scene appears to show wounded white, Latino, and Asian victims, but no black people, suggesting that the terrorist may have targeted people by race.

Where could James have gotten his racist ideas from? While notions such as white replacement by minorities are denounced as dangerous racist conspiracy theories, the inverse, conspiracy theories that claim white people are going to launch a black genocide are mainstream.

The Black Lives Matter protests were accompanied by false claims that police shootings of black men represent genocide. Every policy, from locking up violent criminals to merit-based college admissions, is not just denounced as racist, but as the new slavery and genocide.

A Democrat political candidate even claimed that “The Banning of Critical Race Theory is an Act of Genocide.”

When everything you don’t like is genocide, it becomes a lot easier to kill. In the mind of the subway terrorist, he may well have been acting in self-defense against a vast conspiracy of whiteness which, any day now, was just going to kill black people like, in his own words, “cattle waiting to be taken to the slaughter." Instead, the people on the subway became his cattle.

When even Pizza Hut distributes flyers to teachers encouraging them to indoctrinate their students to believe that "America is a country built on a foundation of slavery, genocide, and white supremacy”, what exactly do you expect from your friendly local racist gunman?

"America is going to come to an end," James insisted in one of his videos, arguing that the country represented the vision of "a handful of Europeans" and that black and white people were as incompatible as different families of monkeys and whales, and could not co-exist.

Or as National Book Award winner Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote, the 9/11 firefighters and police officers “were not human to me” indicating there’s a thin line between literary awards and shooting people on the N train. Crossing the thin line involves taking their rhetoric seriously.

The incompatibility of black and white people, an idea once reserved for the margins where black and white supremacists resided, has been aggressively mainstreamed with racially segregated campus events and employee groups in corporate offices. HR and DEI offices recirculate claims that every form of professional office behavior is evil racist whiteness.

Beliefs that were marginal a generation ago are now being taught in colleges and schools.

James just put them into action. Critical race theory insists that white people are innately evil oppressors. If its proponents really believe that, why aren’t they shooting white people too?

Or, as Nikole Hannah-Jones, the originator of the racial revisionist 1619 Project hoax raved, “the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world" who continues to "pump drugs and guns into the Balck (sic) community, pack Black people into the squalor of segregated urban ghettos and continue to be bloodsuckers in our communities."

If you believe that sort of thing is true, why not act on it?

The language of civil rights has long since been eclipsed by the hysterical language of racism and the institutions, public and private, pushing racism and racial supremacism also deny that mainstreaming racism could possibly have any negative consequences. Instead, Senator Cory Booker and Kamala Harris actually worked to dismantle FBI monitoring of black supremacists.

The rising wave of racist attacks in New York City, primarily against Asians and Jews, was met with failed efforts to blame President Trump even though the perpetrators were mostly black.

Instead of reckoning with the reality and the consequences of racist propaganda, New York City, like other woke cities, remained obsessed with white supremacy. While serious white supremacist attacks have happened elsewhere in the country, the Big Apple is not a likely venue for any such attacks. City and state officials who spent all their time warning about white supremacy were disregarding the more likely sources of violence like that of Frank James.

Almost 30 years ago, Colin Ferguson had opened fire on a Long Island Railroad train. In his notebook were a series of racist rants about white people and Asians. His lawyers famously blamed "black rage" claiming that the experience of racism made the killer lose control.

Ferguson and James are familiar characters in the crazed pantheon of urban life. Every New Yorker passes by them on the daily commute, looking away from the mumbling men obsessed with a world only they can see, orbiting their victimhood, until they finally fall and lash out with a knife or a gun. And people bleed in subways and on sidewalks while the news cameras roll.

Maybe both black supremacist monsters would have pulled the trigger even if there weren’t an entire industry making millions by propping up their racist fantasies.

Or maybe not.

There's been a long list of black supremacist killers in the BLM era from Micah X. Johnson, who killed 5 Dallas cops, Kori Ali Muhammad's murder of 4 people in Fresno, and Darrell Edward Brooks Jr. who ran over women and children at the Waukesha Christmas parade. It would be absurd to pretend that the mainstreaming of black supremacism did not play a role in that.

New York City’s leaders needed to spend less time babbling about white supremacy and more time reckoning with the racist black supremacist terrorists who are walking among them.

Before the next black supremacist terrorist attack takes place.

Darwinian Racism: How Darwinism Influenced Hitler, Nazism and White Nationalism

Richard Weikart's new book cuts through political manipulation of history

BY DANUSHA V. GOSKA

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/darwinian-racism-how-darwinism-influenced-hitler-danusha-v-goska/;

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

Suffering is a commodity. Two recent events demonstrated this. On March 27, 2022, Will Smith slapped Chris Rock at the Academy Awards. Many prominent African Americans, including Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Wanda Sykes, condemned Smith's choice to resort to violence. Race hustlers, though, depicted Will Smith as a victim of white supremacy. The Guardian ran a piece calling the reaction to Will Smith an example of "downright racist … anti-blackness … inequality in plain sight." "Race scholar" and Loyola Marymount University Professor Maia Niguel Hoskin wrote that the slap "is about … White supremacist culture designed to police the behavior of Blacks." Others focused on Jada Pinkett Smith as a victim. "How a black woman’s hair grows out of her head has been a constant battle in this country … while at the same time celebrating white women for fitting your styles … Humiliating a black woman fighting for equality is not a ha-ha moment. Making fun of a black woman a week after we saw Ketanji Brown Jackson’s ambush" proves that "racism always finds a way," wrote columnist Jeneé Osterheldt.

A similar process of victim-mongering occurred after Ketanji Brown Jackson was nominated for the Supreme Court. My Facebook page was flooded with memes depicting Jackson as a helpless Little Match Girl facing off against big, scary, white male dragons.

In fact, of course, Smith is worth an estimated $350 million. He is one of the most profitable and popular film stars who has ever lived. Jackson is the child of two professionals. She attended Harvard and married surgeon Patrick Jackson, a Boston Brahmin, and descendant of a Continental Congress delegate and also a relative of Oliver Wendell Holmes and former House Speaker Paul Ryan. She is a millionaire. White male Joe Biden guaranteed her elevation by vowing, in a political promise to help him win an election, to nominate only black women to the SCOTUS. Ilya Shapiro, a white man, tweeted that Sri Srinavasan, an Indian immigrant, was the best-qualified person to be the next SCOTUS nominee. Shapiro was suspended from his job for this tweet. Neither alleged "white male privilege" nor the first amendment guarantee of free speech protected Shapiro from workplace retaliation for expressing his opinion. Senate questions for Jackson were brief and mild compared to the trials-by-fire endured by conservative nominees Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Slavery, Jim Crow, and white supremacy are all too real and unspeakably evil. But rushing to attribute criticism of Will Smith or the Senate questioning of Ketanji Brown Jackson to past evils is not warranted by the facts. People made those connections because they commodify suffering to gain political ends. In this approach, suffering belongs exclusively to African Americans. Race hustlers are currently depicting war-ravaged Ukrainians as enjoying white privilege, as Joy Reid did in her March 7, 2022 broadcast.

Evil, like suffering, is also commodified. Powerbrokers rush to monopolize the evil Nazis committed to serve their own narrative ends. This commodification and monopolizing of evil interfere with our desire to understand.  

Americans have been struggling for ninety years in their effort to tell the Nazi story accurately. This effort is recorded, inter alia, in Peter Novick's 2000 book, The Holocaust in American Life, Tom Segev's The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, the This American Life episode "Before It Had a Name" and the documentary "Imaginary Witness: Hollywood and the Holocaust." It's hard to believe now, but there was a time when Hollywood moguls were fearful of making accurate films addressing Nazism. There was a time when Holocaust survivors and those who recorded their stories, both in the US and in Israel, were ignored and silenced. In the Soviet Bloc, the unique victimization of Jews under Nazism was suppressed to near invisibility. There was a time, even after the publication of Mein Kampf, when mainstream American and British magazines focused on the interior decorating of Hitler's homes. In these articles, Hitler was referred to as "charming."

In much American media produced before, during, and immediately after World War II, Hitler was seen as a lone madman, unconnected to previous history or culture, and Nazism almost as a kind of virus – an alien force that infected otherwise innocent Germans. There was a great deal of emphasis on depicting "good Germans," so that Americans could learn to hate Nazis while not hating all Germans because Germans were an important part of America's cultural and economic life. This process of condemning Nazism while shielding German identity from hatred is exemplified by the 1951 best-picture-nominee, "Decision before Dawn." See a discussion of how diligently this film works to exculpate "ordinary Germans" from any guilt, here.

In profound contrast to this approach, in 1996, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen published Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. This book became a bestseller and an international sensation. The book was accused, by serious scholars, of being racist against Germans. Goldhagen, his critics alleged, depicted Germanness itself as the guilty party. "No Germans, no Holocaust," as Goldhagen put it. While others pointed to a perfect storm leading up to Hitler's rise, including Germany's defeat in World War I, the violent rise of Communism in Russia, the Versailles Treaty, the Depression, etc, Goldhagen insisted that "Not economic hardship, not the coercive means of a totalitarian state, not social-psychological pressure," caused Germans to kill, but rather their own anti-Semitism. Raul Hilberg, the "founder of the academic field of Holocaust studies," said that Goldhagen depicted Germans as being possessed of "a medieval-like incubus, a demon latent in the German mind ... waiting for the chance to strike out." Hilberg said that Goldhagen is "totally wrong about everything."

Another big change in how the story of Nazism has been told is in how various retellings depict Christians and Christianity. Nazism's ultimate goal was to eliminate Christianity (see hereherehereherehere.) See, for example, this photo of a Nazi shooting Father Piotr Sosnowski to death, or priests murdered in Bydgoszcz, here. In material produced before and during the war, journalists and filmmakers recorded Nazi persecution of Christians. See, for example, "Nazi Persecution of the Catholic Church Shows They Fear It," from the June 1, 1936 New York Timesor "3 Faiths Protest Nazi Persecution: A Catholic, Protestant, and Jew Represent the Conquered Peoples at Meeting Here" from the November 14, 1941 issue. The Times covered clergy who resisted the Nazis, including Dutch Archbishop Johannes de Jong, German Bishop von Galen, Belgian Cardinal van Roey, Norwegian Lutheran Bishop Eivind Berggrav, Serbian Orthodox Patriarch Gavrilo, and the Swiss Calvinist Karl Barth.

The 1943 Hollywood feature film, Hitler's Madman dramatized the real-life assassination of top Nazi Reinhard Heydrich by Czechoslovak partisans, and the subsequent retaliatory Nazi massacre of the Czech village of Lidice. In that film, Heydrich plows his car through a Czech Christian festival, and one of Heydrich's men shoots the village priest dead. In real life, Heydrich was anti-Christian and he identified "clerics" as well as Jews as among the German people's "eternal" "enemies." Heydrich devised ways to close and limit the operation of churches.

Popular attention to Nazi persecution of Catholics and other Christians changed dramatically after the 1963 play, "The Deputy." "The Deputy" insinuated that Pope Pius XII shared guilt for the Holocaust. One image promoting the work depicts a monstrous face wearing a grotesque caricature of Catholic vestments. One of the eyes in the face is replaced with a swastika. Nazism = Catholicism, the image communicates. Playwright Rolf Hochhuth was a former Hitler Youth member. Hochhuth went on to make other shocking allegations. For example, his 1967 play Soldiers, An Obituary for Geneva suggested that Winston Churchill plotted the murder of the Prime Minister of the Polish Government in Exile, General Wladyslaw Sikorski. There is clearly a pattern here; Hochhuth wrote plays that denigrated WW II heroes of the Allied side. Hochhuth also praised Holocaust-denier David Irving as a "fabulous pioneer of contemporary history." Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking defector from the Soviet Bloc to the West, and author of the book Disinformation, alleged that Hochhuth's play was part of a KGB campaign. Whether Hochhuth intended it or not, his tarnishing of Western anti-Nazi figures like Churchill and Pope Pius XII served Soviet interests.

John Cornwell's 1999 book Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII and Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's 2003 book A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair are representational of more recent works condemning Catholics and Catholicism for Holocaust guilt. Both works were criticized as severely flawed (see herehere, and here).

Anti-Semitism from Christians is an undeniable historical fact, and confronting that fact in an honest way with a view to repentance and reconciliation is a good thing, and has been pursued by the Vatican for decades, and, indeed, for centuries. Too many Christians were at worst complicit in genocide and were at least not as heroic as, say, Franz JägerstätterSophie SchollDietrich Bonhoeffer, or the Ulma Family, all of whom were martyred for their resistance to Nazism. What is not a good thing is the distortion of history by politics. "History is politics projected into the past," said Mikhail Pokrovsky, the Russian Marxist historian. We deserve a better approach to history.

In fact, the Catholic Church was notorious among intellectual elites one hundred years ago. It was notorious because official Catholic teaching insisted on human equality, an insistence that defied then current scientific racism, that argued against human equality on scientific grounds. Noteworthy Catholic documents on the equality of humans include, for example, the 1537 Sublimis Deus, which argues for the full humanity of the then recently discovered Native Americans; 1888 In Plurimis, which argues for the full humanity of enslaved persons; Pius XI's 1938 statement that "Anti-Semitism is inadmissible. Spiritually, we are Semites," as well as his 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge. Yes, Catholics have certainly been bigoted and have committed crimes inspired by their bigotry. But official Catholic Church teaching has insisted, for centuries, on human equality, and, again, during the rise of scientific racism one hundred years ago, this stance was seen as backward and anti-science.

Today, though, it has become conventional in university classrooms, in the press, and in popular books and films, to conflate Nazism with Christianity. For one example, see this 2022 Reddit thread. An author attributes the Holocaust to an alleged Christian "two thousand year hatred" for Jews without which "there never could have been the Holocaust."

For the "Nazism is Christian" narrative to work, one must forget that the first and last victims of a Nazi mass killing campaign were not Jews, but were, rather, handicapped Germans. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the following numbers for civilians killed: Jews, six million. Soviet civilians, seven million. Non-Jewish Polish civilians, 1.8 million. Further down, the list records deaths of hundreds of thousands of Serb civilians, people with handicaps, Roma, aka Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, "asocials," German political prisoners, and homosexuals. Nazis persecuted mixed-race Germans, that is Germans with one African parent, forcing them to undergo sterilization. Nazis murdered three million Soviet POWs. Soviet POWs were the first to be gassed with Zyklon B. They were also shot and starved to death. German Nazis did not treat American or British POWs this way. If the death toll includes military deaths, Nazis killed 24 million Soviet citizens. How to explain these deaths?

No group suffered the same percentage loss as Jews. Nazis murdered over 60% of all Europe's pre-war Jewish population. The numbers of Gypsies killed are uncertain; by one estimate, half of Europe's Gypsies were killed by Nazis. Most of these Gypsies were Christian. Even hard-hit Slavic countries like Poland, Belarus, and Russia did not lose that high a percentage of their non-Jewish populations. Even so, we are still talking about millions dead. To personalize those millions of non-Jewish, largely Slavic deaths, think of Czeslawa Kwoka. This sweet-faced, 14-year-old Polish Catholic girl was imprisoned, beaten, and died in Auschwitz. Why did Nazis murder Polish Catholic children, not just in Auschwitz but also in Kinder-KZ Litzmannstadt, a Nazi concentration camp specifically for Polish, Catholic children, children as young as two years old? Why did an SS man force children to watch as he decapitated a 12-year-old Polish Catholic boy? Why did Nazis place 7-year-old Halina Bukowiecka on a train with other Polish Catholic children, without food or water, for a days-long trip to Germany, where she and others would be mistreated and sometimes killed? The Nazism = Christianity explanation fails to explain these atrocities against largely Christian, civilian victims. We need another explanation.

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen exercises "considerable distortion" to write off the persecution of non-Jews as "incidental … mere tactical operations." Goldhagen's dismissal is wrong. Soviet POWs, handicapped Germans, persons with one African and one German parent, Polish Catholic two-year-olds: what ties all these targeted populations together is not Christian anti-Semitism, but rather Nazism's biological focus, a focus sometimes called "scientific racism," "social Darwinism," or "eugenics." All of these diverse populations, in their millions, were deemed "life unworthy of life," and a biological threat to Germany.

Nazism advanced a new ethic, a new ethic that explicitly rejected Christianity and was informed by scientific racism. Germans should be kind and loving – to other Germans. Germans should ruthlessly exploit and then mass-murder those not conducive to German advancement. SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler, in his speeches, stated this new ethic quite succinctly.

"We will have to deal with Christianity in a tougher way than hitherto. We must settle accounts with this Christianity, this greatest of plagues that could have happened to us in our history, which has weakened us in every conflict … We shall once again have to find a new scale of values for our people … everything that we do must be justifiable vis-à-vis the clan, our ancestors. If we do not secure this moral foundation which is the deepest and best because the most natural, we will not be able to overcome Christianity on this plane and create the Germanic Reich which will be a blessing for the earth … We must be honest, decent, loyal, and comradely to members of our own blood and nobody else … Whether nations live in prosperity or starve to death interests me only in so far as we need them as slaves for our culture … Whether ten thousand Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch interests me only in so far as the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished."

Himmler stated the Nazi ethic explicitly in recorded speeches. Why, then, does one still encounter, in social media debates on the internet, in college classrooms, and in high-profile published books and journalism, so little about the role scientific racism played in Nazism, and so much about Christian anti-Semitism? Because evil and suffering are commodities. If one can attribute absolute evil to Christianity, then one has struck a blow against Christianity, against religious belief, and against Western Civilization; and one has struck a blow for their competitors, including scientism, relativism, Marxism, and Atheism.

Atheists like to say that religion has killed more people than any other cause. This statement is fabricated out of thin air, but one hears it frequently, without support, of course. Atheists like to present Atheism as the panacea. If only we could all wise up and acknowledge that there is no God, war would cease. If only we could replace backward, superstitious religious belief with scientism, human life would improve stratospherically.

John Lennon's "Imagine" encapsulates this approach. "Imagine there's no heaven … No hell below us … Nothing to kill or die for. And no religion, too … Imagine all the people livin' life in peace." Steven Pinker, in his 2011 book The Better Angels of Our Nature, correlates "The Escalator of Reason," that is a posited increase in rational thought, to a decline in human violence. The title of Michael Shermer's 2015 book The Moral Arc: How Science Leads Humanity Toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom announces the book's thesis. Oxford Fellow and atheist Peter Atkins argues in a 2018 article that "only science can answer all the big questions" while religion offers only "the sword, the bomb or the flame." To acknowledge that top theorists justified Nazi crimes with an explicit rejection of the Judeo-Christian ethic and with reference to science and rationality is a bridge too far for devout Atheists.

The very best author to read on Nazism's roots in scientific racism is Richard Weikart. A great place to start reading Weikart is his brief, accessible, 2022 book, Darwinian Racism: How Darwinism Influenced Hitler, Nazism, and White Nationalism. Richard Weikart has been publishing on Germany, Nazism, and Darwin for over twenty years. His work has been published by the University of Chicago Press and it has appeared in peer-reviewed journals. He has presented at numerous academic conferences. He is an emeritus professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus. Weikart is fluent in German, was a Fulbright scholar in Germany, and lived in Germany for five years. His work has been called, by his fellow scholars, "masterful," "outstanding," "sober," " insightful, thoughtful, informative, and highly readable."

Why, then, has Weikart's work not made the same splash as work by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen or John Cornwell? Why do some Amazon readers award Weikart's books one-star, as does this poorly punctuated three-sentence review: "Hitler was baptized as a Christian and died a Christian. I would not even give this book 1 star not even worth reading" (sic). Why does Robert J. Richards, the Morris Fishbein Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the University of Chicago, dismiss Weikart as a "religious conservative" who sees shapes in clouds? Why is Richards an endowed chair at the prestigious University of Chicago, why is John Cornwell at Cambridge, and why did Goldhagen teach at Harvard, while Weikart spent his career at a less prestigious school? Why? Because Richard Weikart tells unpopular truths. Nazism was inspired by Darwinism. It is simply less popular to state that basic truth than to pump out yet another trite attack on Catholicism in particular and religious belief in general.

In his books that I have read, Weikart never exculpates Christianity or denies Christian anti-Semitism, or Nazism's exploitation of pre-existing anti-Semitism to accomplish its evil ends. Weikart never claims that being a Christian or any other kind of religious believer exempts one from committing atrocities. He makes clear that Darwin was no Nazi, and that believing in Darwinism does not turn one into a Nazi. Weikart emphasizes that many factors, having nothing to do with Darwinism, contributed to the rise of Nazism. But Weikart is crystal clear and irrefutable on his main point: Nazis themselves cited a Darwinian evolutionary worldview as foundational to their ethic and their genocidal behavior.  

Nazis rejected the Judeo-Christian ethic that had been foundational to Western Civilization. Nazis rejected the concept, unique to the Hebrew Bible's book of Genesis, that all humans were equally created in the image of God, and that, therefore, unjustly ending any human life carries an eternal cost. Nazis regarded human beings as comparable to animals, the very animals we slaughter without much thought. Nazis rejected Christian concepts of compassion. Nazis embraced the idea that human groups are arranged on an evolutionary hierarchy, with higher and lower forms. Nazis enthusiastically embraced the idea of struggle as perfecting the species, of "survival of the fittest" as the highest and unquestionable good, and of death as the just destroyer of uncompetitive life. Nazis reduced "life unworthy of life" to a biological threat to the German species. Jews, handicapped Germans, Christian Gypsies, and Slavs, were biological threats that needed to be destroyed just as rats or lice are destroyed in order to enable the flourishing of the desired species. Any "Christian compassion" extended to non-group members was deleterious and condemnable. Nazis spelled out these beliefs in document after document, speech after speech, textbook after textbook. Weikart documents this in exhaustive detail.

Is Weikart threatening Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory? Not for this reader. I accept Darwinian evolution and I have never read anything by Weikart that caused me to doubt Darwinian evolution. But Weikart's work makes plain that powerful people accepted Darwinian evolution and made the immediate leap into genocide.

One can witness the leap from Darwin to genocide in German Darwinian Ernst Haeckel's ironically titled 1904 book The Wonders of LifeOn page 121, Haeckel argues strenuously against the belief in "the immortality of the soul" or in "an all-loving God." How could a human being who was "utterly ruined … born an idiot" enjoy eternal life in Heaven, Haeckel asks. "Pathology, the science of the diseased organism" obliterates faith in God. On page 122, Haeckel argues that "the widespread belief that man is bound under all circumstances to maintain and prolong life" is a senseless religious dogma. "Lunatics, lepers, people with cancer" Haeckel protests, are kept alive "without the slightest profit to themselves or the general body." "What a huge public and private expenditure!" he mourns, on page 123. "A dose of morphia" or a "dose of some painless and rapid poison" "under the control of an authoritative commission" would solve the problem. Then, just as the Nazis did – see the opening of Leni Riefenstahl film Olympia – Haeckel jumps over 2,000 years of Christian influence on ethics and returns to the ancient, Pagan world, where parents had the good sense to commit infanticide of their defective offspring. "The ancient Spartans" owed their "bodily strength and beauty as well as their mental energy and capacity" to the infanticide of the "weak or crippled." "Religious journals" protest with "pious indignation" "as always happens when pure reason" "opposes prejudices and traditional beliefs" "Religion" is "irrational and superstitious."

Haeckel's argument is not unique. Similar intellectual journeys were taken by others, including Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant, two big names in American scientific racism. Stoddard's 1922 book, The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under Man, praises Darwin as making Stoddard's own racist ideas possible. Stoddard positions Darwin as an authoritative opponent of "The Christian doctrine of the equality of all souls before God." He blames this doctrine for "appeals to altruism" which mistakenly encourage efforts to improve "inferior" lives. Stoddard denigrates the compassion springing from Christian teachings of "equality" as "emotional" and "mystic faith." To replace these inferior approaches, Stoddard recommends "science" and "reason" because both inarguably demonstrate that some human lives are worthless. "During the past ten years biology and kindred sciences have refuted practically all the intellectual arguments on which the doctrine of 'natural equality' relies." Stoddard spent time in Nazi Germany and reported the chummy conversations he shared with Himmler. He observed Nazi eugenics procedures and granted those procedures his stamp of approval. Nazis were "weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly humanitarian way."

Margaret Sanger, who founded what would become Planned Parenthood, cited Darwin when, in 1920, she bemoaned "philanthropies and charities" that "build asylums and hospitals and keep the medical profession busy preserving those who could not otherwise survive." Sanger voiced an opinion that would appear again and again in Darwin-inspired commentary, including that produced by Nazis: that there is a greater difference between the highest and lowest human and the lowest human and an animal. Because of this differential between more highly evolved humans and less evolved ones, Sanger argued, external control of human reproduction is necessary. In 1916, Sanger wrote, "the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets." Compare this Sanger statement to one by Ernst Haeckel, "The distance between the thinking soul of the cultured human and the thoughtless animal soul of the wild natural human is extremely vast, greater than the distance between the latter and the soul of a dog." And compare Sanger and Haeckel to this statement: "The gulf between the lowest creature which can still be styled man and our highest races is greater than that between the lowest type of man and the highest ape." The final speaker is Hitler.

In 1916, Madison Grant published The Passing of the Great Race, a book Hitler called his "bible." Scholar Jonathan Spiro writes that "Mein Kampf is riddled with passages that seem directly inspired by The Passing of the Great Race" some "encapsulate all the aspects of Grantian thought including the primacy of race" and "the worship of modern science." Grant wrote, "The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit, and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race … The church assumes a serious responsibility toward the future of the race whenever it steps in and preserves a defective strain … A rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit – in other words, social failures – would solve the whole question in one hundred years."

Grant, an environmentalist who co-founded the Bronx Zoo, played a role in placing Ota Benga, a Pygmy, on display with primates in 1906. The goal was to demonstrate that Benga was close to a monkey himself. The Evening Post reported that Benga "has a great influence with the beasts …  including the orang-outang with whom he plays as though one of them … chattering to them in his own guttural tongue, which they seem to understand." The Rev. James H. Gordon said, "The Darwinian theory is absolutely opposed to Christianity, and a public demonstration in its favor should not be permitted." The always enlightened New York Times responded that Ota Benga "belongs to a race that scientists do not rate high in the human scale…The idea that men are all much alike … is now far out of date." Benga, being low on the evolutionary scale, was, the Times wrote, not capable of experiencing "humiliation and degradation." Benga eventually committed suicide.

Nor did Grant, Stoddard, and other Darwin-citing, scientific racists limit their disdain to dark-skinned people. Eastern and Southern Europeans were also deemed racially inferior. America's mainstream and even scholarly presses – including the New York TimesThe Saturday Evening PostThe American Anthropologist, Colliers, and The Atlantic were flooded with inflammatory racist material denigrating Poles, Slovaks, Jews, and Italians as subhuman. As sociologist Edward Alsworth Ross put it, "A Slav can live in dirt that would kill a white man." Ironically, Grant, a self-declared member of the superior Nordic race, but, an arthritic, was too frail to testify in front of Congress. Even so, through lobbying, Grant influenced Congress to pass immigration restrictions targeting allegedly racially inferior Eastern and Southern Europeans.

This history violates the monopoly race hustlers claim over evil and suffering. Eastern and Southern Europeans were white and largely Christian. These white, Christian peasants were subject to murderous and hateful racism. They were lynched, exploited at work sites, and defamed.  

In short, those seeking the roots of Nazism in Christianity are commodifying evil and suffering to serve their own petty vendetta against faith and to shield science from critique. Those genuinely about the heartbreaking, demanding work of understanding atrocity will benefit from reading Richard Weikart.

Darwinian Racism: How Darwinism Influenced Hitler, Nazism, and White Nationalism, is a must-read intro to Weikart's entire oeuvre. Though jam-packed with facts and citations, Darwinian Racism is an easier, quicker read than Weikart's more scholarly works.

Weikart proves that Nazis themselves believed themselves to be good Darwinians. They got this idea not from fringe publications or conspiracy theories but from esteemed scientists. Chapter one of Weikart's book includes Darwin quotes which, even if you have encountered them in other contexts, are newly shocking in the context of a discussion of genocide. "We may console ourselves with the full belief, that the war of nature is not incessant … that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply … Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows" (emphasis added). These exact words could appear in a Himmler speech justifying the Einsatzgruppen. Obviously, Darwin and Himmler would apply a different valence to the words. Compare that quote to this one, "War is thus the unalterable law of all life, the precondition for the natural selection of the strong … What appears to people thereby as cruel is from the standpoint of nature obviously wise." The speaker of this last quote is Hitler.

Weikart shows, in chapter two, that Hitler held to a Darwinian worldview. In chapter three, Weikart amply demonstrates that Darwinian evolution was advanced by Nazis in Nazi-mandated school curricula. "Nature eliminates everything sick and weak. All life is struggle. The weak perish," reads the captions on a series of drawings depicting a fox eating a rabbit, a bird falling from the sky, and other cheerful, very non-Disney themes pounded into the heads of German tots. Catholics protested; Konrad Lorenz, who would later win a Nobel Prize, countered, "evolution provided an even more elevated ideal" than Catholicism did. The elevated ideal the church of Darwin promised was "the higher evolution of humanity." "For us, the race and volk are everything … the individual person as good as nothing."

Lorenz was a Nazi Party member. His ethic directly contradicts the Talmud's commentary on Genesis' insistence that we all descend, not from a plethora of diverse creations, but from one couple, Adam and Eve. This descent, the Talmud informs us, means that to murder one person is to murder the entire world. Similarly, the Talmud teaches that after Cain murders Abel, not just Abel's "blood," but his "blood," plural, cry out from the ground. Why is "blood" plural? The Talmud explains: "This teaches that it was also the blood of his children and his children’s children, and all his future generations, until the end of the human line, that would have one day descended from him. They all stood up and cried out before the Holy Blessed One. (So you learn from this that one person is considered as important as the entire work of Creation.)" Clearly, in the ethic of the Hebrew Bible, murder is a big deal. To the Darwin-inspired Nazi, to kill an individual who is not a member of one's own volk, "the individual person is as good as nothing."

Chapter four of Weikart's book records the many other Darwinian Nazi scientists at work during the Third Reich. Hans Weinert, one of the scientists Weikart discusses in chapter four, was a university anthropologist. In the interest of advancing Darwinian science, Weinert proposed inseminating a chimpanzee with sperm from a Pygmy. Such hideous proposals are not limited to Nazi scientists from decades ago. In 2001, Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous, celebrated, and charismatic atheist and Darwinian in the world today, encouraged his fellow scientists to use genetic engineering to create a "missing link" between apes and humans. "The same benefits in moral education would be delivered by a successful hybridization of a human and a chimpanzee … it would shatter our speciesist illusions very effectively." Dawkins goes on to compare aborting a human fetus to eating beef, using that as an illustration of "speciesism." Himmler similarly complained of "speciesism." "Man is nothing special at all … He has no idea how a fly is constructed – however unpleasant, it is a miracle," Himmler said, in one of his speeches justifying the genocide of human beings.

In chapter five, Weikart covers eugenics and euthanasia. Those adopting these policies believed themselves to be Darwinists. They cited Darwin's statements like, "Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." Weikart quotes Darwin contrasting the "hard reason" that might encourage callous treatment of handicapped persons with "sympathy." In the Christian worldview, "sympathy" is not the opposite of "hard reason." Rather, Christians like the geophysicist and Catholic Xavier le Pichon, regard handicapped persons as necessary and beneficial parts of God's creation.

Chapter six documents Nazi propaganda's promotion of Darwinism. Nazi propaganda did "not just mention Darwinism in passing, but accorded it a prominent place in Nazi racial ideology." Chapter seven charts Nazi Germany's treatment of German Darwinian Ernst Haeckel. The above-mentioned Robert J. Richards claims that Nazi Germany rejected Haeckel. Weikart proves Richards' claim false. Heinz Brucher was a world-class botanist, a Nazi Party member, an SS Sammelkommando – that is, one who stole seed research from the Soviet Union – and, after the war, a biology advisor to UNESCO. Before Nazis began their T4 euthanasia program, "Heinz Brucher was publicly lauding Haeckel for advocating the killing of disabled people." Heinrich Schmidt, Haeckel's protegee and director of the Haeckel house, wrote in 1934, "In the new Reich, his [Haeckel's] ideas about biology … are celebrating a surprisingly powerful resurrection. The religious trajectory of the present is often traveling in the course of his simple, yet sublime nature religion."

In chapter eight, Weikart lists American neo-Nazis and white supremacists who embrace Darwinism. He cites the 1896 book Might is Right, which repeatedly cites Darwin as the new gospel. The book is available for free at white supremacist websites. "As Darwin commands, let the strongest live," author Ragnar Redbeard writes. No longer should humanity follow the "hypnotic myth that centers around the execution of a Hebrew slave." "Christ was a pariah Jew." "Darwinism is the mortal foe of Hebraism." We must reject "the Gospel of Ineffectuality." Our heroes must be "brutal," made so through "brutal warfare, brutal personal encounters, brutal thoughts." "A man is brutal who will not turn the other cheek." Redbeard parodies the Christian beatitudes. He writes, "Cursed are the unfit for they shall be righteously exterminated." Like the Nazis, Haeckel, and many New Atheists today who regret the Judeo-Christian influence on Western Civilization, Redbeard wishes to turn the clock back to Ancient Paganism, focused, as it was, on amoral beauty, strength, health, youth, selfish desires, and raw power. Redbeard writes, "In ancient Rome, it was considered the height of impiety, heresy, and treason, for free-born citizens to adore a circumcised Asiatic [Jesus], but in America it is considered pious and fashionable and highly commendable to do so." Redbeard also bemoans Christianity's negative influence on manly Nordic Pagans. Christians banned the "holmgang," a one-on-one fight to settle disputes. "When Clericalism abolished the holmgang the pride of Norland silently waned away … when it banned gladiatorial contests, the Eternal City had its day."

Robert J. Richards has written "Was Hitler a Darwinian?" a 2013, 54-page rebuttal to Richard Weikart's work. Richards repeatedly resorts to ad hominem commentary, referring to anyone who mentions Darwinism's influence on Nazism as a "conservative" "religious" thinker; in fact, Richards does this in his first sentence, and repeats the ad hominem comment four times; "religious" is also used to dismiss other "constricted" "thinkers" four times, as in "a myriad of religious and politically constricted thinkers." Such thinkers are not "reputable." Richards explicitly blames Christianity for Nazism. Richards claims that Hitler admired Christianity's "greatness." Richards draws a straight line from Martin Luther to Nazism.

In 1919, Julius Streicher helped to found the Deutschsozialistische Partei a nationalist, anti-Catholic, and anti-Semitic party. Soon thereafter he joined the Nazi party. In 1923, he began publishing Der Sturmer, an anti-Semitic and also an anti-Catholic newspaper. In 1937, Streicher was given a copy of Martin Luther's "The Jews and their Lies" for his birthday. Many authors cite this as Streicher's first encounter with Luther's work. Streicher was 52 at the time. He had been a leading German anti-Semite for at least 18 years. He had been publishing the most notorious anti-Semitic newspaper in history for 14 years. Streicher is not alone. Johannes Wallmann argues against the idea that Luther's sixteenth-century tract was continuously influential in Germany. In any case, Luther raged violently against the Catholic Church, and his Reformation was followed by two centuries of vicious blood-letting by Catholics and Protestants on each other. The Nazis did not oppose Catholicism because of Martin Luther. The Nazis opposed Catholicism for their own reasons.

The most notorious Nazi anti-Semitic film, The Eternal Jew, conflated Jews and rats. It depicted Jews as biological and economic threats. The most successful Nazi propaganda film, Jud Suss, relied on images of Jews as middleman minorities who manipulated the powerful to their own economic enrichment and the impoverishment of the German middle and lower classes. Nazis did not choose Luther's tract as their primary propaganda instrument. They choose biological and economic imagery. Aligning their anti-Semitism most significantly with Christianity did not meet Nazi ideological ends. Presenting their anti-Semitism as rooted in biology, economics, and culture did.

Richards mentions only Jews as victims of the Nazis, and anti-Semitism as the only Nazi hate. Richards thus never has to address why Nazis murdered handicapped Germans, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, Polish children, and why Nazis sterilized Germans of African descent. Richards creates a strawman, insisting that Weikart cannot prove Darwinian evolution to be incorrect. I don't think Weikart ever attempts to do that, certainly not in the book under review here. Richards writes that Haeckel's "own moral theory certainly did not abandon Judeo-Christian precepts." In fact, as the above quotes show, it certainly did exactly that. Richards makes a mistake many invested in the "white privilege" assumption about racism make. Only whites are racist; only non-whites are victims of racism. Richards identifies Madison Grant as prejudiced against Slavs – he was – but Richards inexplicably calls "Poles, Czechs, and Russians" "swarthy." In other words, because Grant denigrated Slavs, Slavs must be dark-skinned. Most Slavs are in fact quite pale. Richards claims that "nowhere does Hitler even use" "any word that obviously refers to evolutionary theory." In fact, Hitler does, and he also refers to the "struggle for existence," for example, "the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to 'save' feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost." I asked Weikart about the specific term "evolution" in Mein Kampf in the original German. Weikart wrote back that Richards "argued that the German term 'Entwicklung,' which can be translated as 'development' or 'evolution' was no longer being used by biologists during Hitler’s time to refer to biological evolution. This is completely false. Biologists during the entire twentieth century used the term 'Entwicklung' to mean evolution."

As I write this, Russians are committing atrocities in Ukraine. In one intercepted phone call, a laughing Russian woman tells her man to wear a condom when raping Ukrainian women. A Russian soldier has been arrested for filming assaults on babies. He apparently hoped to market the videos. Commodifying evil and suffering to insist that white skin or Christianity explains wrongdoing, and even reactions to Will Smith's Oscar slap, is abhorrent. The Judeo-Christian tradition insists on a different approach. We are all culpable – white, black, rich, poor, believer, Atheist – "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." We must all monitor our behavior in order to comply with God's commands based on the premise that we are all made in the image and likeness of God.

We may never be fully able to get into the minds of individual Nazis who committed atrocities. But we can read, in clear prose, their justifications for genocide. Those justifications were, more often than not, written out in the logic of scientific racism and a rejection of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Danusha Goska is the author of God through Binoculars: A Hitchhiker at a Monastery.

Nabbed New York Terror Shooter Suspect Is Black Nationalist Who Praised 9/11 and Called for Killing ‘All the Whiteys’

BY VICTORIA TAFT

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/uncategorized/victoria-taft/2022/04/13/nabbed-new-york-terror-shooter-suspect-is-black-nationalist-who-praised-9-11-and-called-for-killing-all-the-whiteys-n1589480;

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

Now that the suspected New York train shooter has been arrested by the police, charges of terrorism and hate crimes can’t be far behind. Or can they?

As PJ Media has reported, suspected terrorist Frank James was a supporter of the black separatist group Nation of Islam. His recorded rantings on his YouTube channel and Twitter account were full of his racist poison. YouTube has already disappeared his channel with Frank James’s hundreds of videos.

"F— you & your white ass too, you white racist mother f—ker"

"Slant-eyed f—king piece of sh—"
"You're a crime against f—king nature, you Spanish speaking mother f—ker"

The person of interest in the #Brooklyn mass shooting posted a video of himself shouting racial insults in NYC. pic.twitter.com/ajBkMJJnbb

— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) April 13, 2022

But there’s one comment, in particular, that may sound eerily familiar to those who were sentient beings on 9/11/01 and remember its aftermath.

One of the most shocking comments uttered in response to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon and the attempted attack on the White House or Congress was said by Senator Barack Obama’s spiritual advisor and pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Barack Obama’s Chicago minister, who officiated the Obama’s wedding ceremony, declared before cheering parishioners that the Islamist Al Qaeda attack was America’s “chickens coming home to roost.” It was so divisive that Obama, then running for president, had to disavow Wright and gave a speech on race to distract from the poison coming from the pulpit of the church he’d belonged to for 20 years.

Related: FBI Blows It Again: Knew About Subway Terrorist’s Racist Videos and Had Him on Watch List

James, who, as we reported, calls himself a “prophet of doom,” described 9/11 as “the most beautiful day, probably in the history of this f***ing world.”

James was also quite upset that new Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is married to a white man. “I had no idea, with that African name, that she would be married to a white man. … Our black sister Supreme Court Justice, power to the people, is married to a f**king white man. (Crying) I don’t believe this sh*t. Oh, God! Wait a minute. This motherf**ker right there, there he is. There he is! White man! Black sister, Ketanji, married to a white man.”

He posted positive things about Black Lives Matter shooter Micah Xavier Johnson, who murdered five Dallas Police officers.

Will the Leftist media memory-hole the name of the racist terror suspect and stay mum on hate crime and terror charges against the man, as they have done with other Leftist killers?

________________________________________________________________

Frank James, Brooklyn subway shooting suspect, arrested

‘I didn't stay quiet, I just took action’: New Yorker who identified Frank James 

Brooklyn Subway Shooting: Federal documents describe Frank James's connection to Philadelphia

_____________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2022/04/13/fbi-blows-it-again-knew-about-subway-terrorists-racist-videos-and-had-him-on-watch-list-n1589334

Defund Disney: It’s time to stand up to the assault on conservatives, Christians and patriots.

BY WAYNE ALLYN ROOT

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/defund-disney-wayne-allyn-root/;

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

My great friend and co-author Nicky Billou and I recently released our first book together, "The Great Patriot Protest & Boycott Book: The Priceless List For Conservatives, Christians, Patriots, and 80+ Million Trump Warriors To Cancel 'Cancel Culture' And Save America."

It's a book that lists 116 "woke" corporations and condemns their fear-driven assault on normal, traditional Americans. We show conservatives, Christians, capitalists, and patriots how to fight back against these gigantic, woke, anti-American corporations spitting in our faces while we make them rich by buying their products.

One of the companies on our list is The Walt Disney Co. Lo and behold, Disney just became THE poster child for our struggle to save America. They must be our "Mona Lisa" — our masterpiece proving we can successfully cancel woke companies that offend conservatives. Once we hurt Disney in the pocketbook and bring them to their knees, this will serve as Exhibit A for how the Silent Majority can take back America.

But first things first: We must successfully "Defund Disney."

Disney could very well be the worst offender we've ever seen. With their arrogance and radical beliefs, they've made themselves the target of 80 million Trump conservatives. Disney has made it easy to hate Disney. They have no one but themselves to blame.

Disney has chosen a "hill to die on": they want to overturn the new Florida law that stops the indoctrination of little children, from pre-kindergarten through third grade, with woke, sexual, gender-identity brainwashing and transgender equality education. Keep in mind that we're only talking about 5- to 8-year-olds. What parent could possibly disagree? What parent visiting Disney could possibly disagree?

But Disney doesn't care. They are intent on alienating the tens of millions of parents who believe that 5- to 8-year-olds shouldn't be sexualized at school and that those same 5- to 8-year-olds shouldn't be taught to change their sexual identity like they're changing a pair of sneakers. Can you imagine? Disney has chosen this hill to die on.

The president of Disney recently bragged that she will make sure half of all characters in Disney movies, television shows, and videos are either gay, lesbian, trans, or other minorities. I have no problem with that. America is a free country. But I hope she and her Disney bosses have no problem if conservatives, Christians, and patriots decide to never again visit any Disney theme park or spend a dime on any Disney product.

All is fair in war, right? And this is a war between Disney and America, American values, American exceptionalism, and Judeo-Christian values.

This is a far cry from the vision of Disney's founder, the iconic Walt Disney, a true American patriot who wanted to create movies and television programs that were family-oriented and wholesome to entertain the whole family. Disney made billions of dollars from brilliantly executing Walt's amazing and wholesome vision.

Billou and I outline exactly what to do in our book. We provide the name of Disney's chairman of the board and CEO, their phone numbers, email addresses, social media addresses, and physical addresses (for snail mail). All of this information is provided in our book's directory of 116 woke companies.

Disney just became our No. 1 target.

First, look up the social media handles for Disney and its key senior executives. Then bombard them with polite but firm messages stating that you will choose to boycott Disney for its woke choices. Here is an example:

"Dear Bob Chapek (CEO of Disney),

I am disgusted that Disney is choosing to create content that brainwashes and sexualizes children with your woke and radical anti-American and anti-Christian agenda. This is not the Disney that I grew up with, and I believe it's highly inappropriate to insert adult and woke brainwashing into children's stories. I will be canceling my family's Disney + membership, and we will not be doing business with your company anymore. Shame on you for caving to the woke mob.

Sincerely,

Wayne Allyn Root"

Secondly, FOLLOW THROUGH. Stop doing business with Disney. Post on social media. Encourage others to stop doing business with them. Make them pay, financially speaking.

Third, sign up to our email list at ROOTforAmerica.com, and join the army of God-fearing, patriotic Americans who are fed up with woke corporations who take our money and then spit in our faces.

Businesses exist to serve their customers, solve their problems and make their lives better with their products and services. Not to promote woke ideologies or brainwash our children to change their sexual identities.

Disney is the poster child for this. It's time for Disney to pay. It's time to bring Disney to its knees. It's time to "DEFUND DISNEY."

And after we prove we have the power to change the direction of this country, one company at a time, with Disney as our first target, then we have 115 other companies to target.

But let's start by treating Disney like the feds once treated Al Capone. Disney is now our "public enemy number one." They richly deserve it.

"DEFUND DISNEY."

Yale Law School Recruits and Trains Social Justice Warriors

Mission: wage lawfare to effect change across every sector of society.

BY MICHAEL CUTLER

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/yale-law-school-recruits-and-trains-social-justice-michael-cutler/;

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

If practitioners of any profession would be expected to understand and honor the notion of Free Speech, it would be lawyers.  In years past this would be a reasonable conclusion.  However, in so many ways traditional American values have been turned upside down and inside out!

Consider that on March 17, 2022, Fox News reported, Liberal Yale Law students derail a bipartisan 'free speech' event in a chaotic protest; police were called to the scene.

 The report began with the following:

A bipartisan panel on civil liberties at Yale Law School was disrupted last week when more than 100 law students tried to drown out and intimidate the speakers, who eventually needed police to escort them out of the building, according to reports.

The school’s Federalist Society hosted the March 10 panel, which featured Monica Miller, of the progressive American Humanist Association, and Kristen Waggoner, of the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). About 120 student protesters showed up with signs attacking the ADF to shout down the speakers, with one reportedly recorded on audio telling a member of the conservative group that she would "literally fight you, b——."

"It was disturbing to witness law students whipped into a mindless frenzy. I did not feel it was safe to get out of the room without security," Waggoner told the Washington Free Beacon.

The Fox News report also included this important observation by Waggoner:

Waggoner later tweeted: "My hot take: Good lawyers win with civility & persuasion, not physical intimidation and threats of violence. We aren’t afraid to engage with people and ideas we disagree with. Apparently, many of the students missed this lesson."

It is beyond disturbing that law students at one of America’s most prestigious and influential law schools would witness the sort of madness that occurred at the event described in the Fox News report.

Many of those Yale law students will not only go on to successful careers as attorneys but become judges, leaders in major corporations, and law professors.

About a dozen years ago I was invited by the Federalist Society at Yale Law School to participate in a debate about Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

The debate was spirited and fair and all who attended were courteous and respectful.  But that was then.

Open debate is at the heart of a free society and is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Indeed, you can think of debate as an example of intellectual capitalism.  Competing concepts are provided to the audience who then decide which concept they are willing to “buy.”

On a personal note, I have a degree in Communications Arts and Sciences and had planned to teach speech and debate at the college level when I had the opportunity to make a career change and became a federal agent.

You never understand your side of an argument more than when you have to defend it against an opponent- in fact, one of my debate coaches would have us prepare to argue both sides of a debate and then not tell us which side we would take until 30 minutes before the debate!

The Radical Left, however, knows that they cannot win a fair debate so they now seek to shut down debate as they sought to do in that debate at Yale Law School in February.

Laws can be thought of as the rulebook by which society functions.  Laws control human conduct and behavior and regulate the way that corporations function.

Without laws or law enforcement anarchy follows.  However, overbearing laws and law enforcement can create a dictatorship that strips the citizens of their freedoms.

It is clear that those who write the laws, along with those practicing law and those who enforce our laws are at the foundation of our society and government.

For decades radicals and globalists have sought to wrest control over our government to gain control over America and Americans and strip our nation of its sovereignty.

In point of fact, Radical Democrats Have Become 'Adversaries of Freedom'.

When Obama was elected President, in his victory speech Obama declared, “Change has come to America!’

It would appear that today, Lawfare is being waged against America and Americans.

Lawfare has been defined as:

Legal action undertaken as part of a hostile campaign against a country or group.

We will explore how this is being implemented shortly, but first, consider that in the wake of the death of George Floyd riots broke out across the United States in which innocent people were killed and buildings were reduced to rubble and ashes in so-called “peaceful demonstrations” as reported on by supposed “news organizations.” These supposed news organizations were thinly veiled propaganda machines that could have been part of Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” straight out of the pages of his novel, 1984.

The Radical Left began demanding “Criminal Justice Reform” and the defunding of police.”

Anarchistic enclaves sprung up in cities such as Seattle, Washington.  In short order Americans rejected this lunacy, so the Left distanced themselves from the Defund Police movement, but their goals did not change.

Radical Leftists have simply taken a different approach to achieve the same anarchistic goals.

“Bail Reform” was implemented in many cities controlled by the Leftists under the guise that this would only involve those charged with non-violent crimes.  It quickly became apparent, however, that many violent thugs were released without bail and went on to commit more violent crimes that injured or killed more innocent victims including children.

New York City, which had been the safest big city in the United States, quickly descended into violence and chaos as the newly-elected Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, implemented new bail policies and established prosecutorial discretion policies that encouraged not deterred violent crimes.

Effective law enforcement is a system with a number of important elements.  When dedicated laws enforcement officers make arrests and conduct criminal investigations, they must be supported by dedicated prosecutors who are on the same page, seeking the effective prosecution of criminals.

Today, unfortunately, in many jurisdictions, prosecutors who are supposed to work in close coordination with law enforcement officers are now acting as though they are criminal defense attorneys.

George Gascon, the infamous Los Angeles District Attorney became the veritable “poster child” of such prosecutors who sought to protect criminals and not their victims.

It has become clear that the vast majority of Americans reject the lunacy of defunding the police and many politicians who had advocated for this policy are now denying that they support this madness.  However, their goals of creating anarchy, likely in order to subsequently fill the void created by anarchy with their notion of control over government and hence society.

Now we come to the issue of “Lawfare” I raised earlier in my commentary.

A news release that was issued by Yale Law School on February 21, 2022, announced:  Yale Law School Announces Tuition-Free Scholarships for Highest Need Students.

The idea of providing free college education for American students is a concept I personally approve of.  Children growing up in poverty are not likely to be able to afford tuition for college or to attend graduate schools and therefore scholarships for such students of appropriate academic standing could be a way to help combat endemic poverty.

Yale Law School is not, however being altruistic in this case- it is clear that their actual goal is to enlist an army of lawyers who will practice Lawfare.

Consider this final paragraph in that Yale news release:

At Yale Law School, we prepare lawyers and leaders to face the most critical challenges of the future and effect change across every sector of society,” said Gerken. We are committed to ensuring every student can fully immerse themselves in our vibrant intellectual experience and has the tools and resources they need to leave their mark on the world. The Hurst Horizon Scholarship Program cements our commitment to access and equity for all.”

The motivation is clear- Yale Law School is not as benevolent it may appear to be.  Yale Law School is clearly determined to create an army of lawyers who are literally indebted to Yale who will engage in “Lawfare”

In his famous Iron Curtain Speech Winston Churchill delivered on March 5, 1946, at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri  Churchill spoke of:

...communist fifth columns that were operating throughout western and southern Europe. Drawing parallels with the disastrous appeasement of Hitler prior to World War II, Churchill advised that in dealing with the Soviets there was nothing which they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for military weakness.”

That concern voiced by Churchill about communist fifth columns” (and other adversaries of freedom), should also have included the United States.

Pittsburgh: Catholic university hosts speaker who calls on white people to ‘crucify their whiteness’

Undergraduate Visits | Pittsburgh, Pa | Carlow University

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://robertspencer.org/2022/04/pittsburgh-catholic-university-hosts-speaker-who-calls-on-white-people-to-crucify-their-whiteness;

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

Miguel de la Torre argues that “hope” is a “white concept,” which would come as a surprise to St. Paul. In typical fashion, Sean McFarland, Carlow University Public Relations & Communications Manager, defends the university’s featuring of de la Torre’s message of fashionable racial hatred, resentment, and rage by claiming that the university exposes students to a wide variety of perspectives in order to encourage critical thinking. Is that so? All right: when was the last time the university hosted a foe of jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women? Why, never, because that would be “Islamophobic”? That’s what I thought. So what’s that you were saying about free thought and free expression, McFarland?

Universities today are indoctrination camps for the hard Left. Flee them.

“Catholic university speaker: ‘crucify whiteness,’ embrace ‘hopelessness,’ ‘ethically lie,’” by Katelynn Richardson, College Fix, April 1, 2022:

Carlow University recently hosted an event on “Rejecting White Christianity” that featured a speaker who argued white people should “crucify their whiteness,” called for the embrace of “hopelessness,” and urged people to “ethically lie” to make right for past wrongs….

The March 3 event was sponsored by Carlow’s Atkins Center for Ethics and featured Miguel De La Torre, professor of social ethics and Latinx studies at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver, Colorado.

De La Torre began his presentation by lambasting evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump, according to a video of the speech.

“When eight out of ten white evangelicals voted for a person who is completely against everything Christianity stands for, I don’t know what Christianity they are practicing,” he said. “But I want nothing to do with that Christianity.”

He then distinguished “white theology and ethics” from “Latinx ethics” and noted that the term white does not refer to skin pigmentation but is an “ontological concept.”

“Those of us who are colored, some of us can also be white. But the good news is there is salvation,” he said. Later, he explained that this salvation means “we [who are colored] have to crucify our colonized minds, and for our white brothers and sisters, they need to crucify their whiteness.”

Torre’s speech focused on the idea of “hope,” which he rejected and characterized as a white concept.

“We embrace Euro-centric concepts like hope because it helps to pacify the oppressed during their oppression,” he said. “It leads to spiritual liberation, and ignores physical liberation.”…

Action for De La Torre means using what he called a “trickster ethic” to transform society.

The ethic covers things like “how to ethically lie so we can discover what is true, how to ethically steal so we can feed those who are hungry…[and] how to disrupt the structures that have trained us to oppress ourselves and to take upon our body our own discipline,” he said.

“This empire was built on stolen resources and cheap labor,” De La Torre said. “So hospitality is really the wrong word. What we need is restitution…By seeing this dilemma through the eyes of the margin, we come to a very different understanding of what the Christian response should be.”…

Sean McFarland, Carlow University Public Relations & Communications Manager, told The College Fix that “viewpoints of lecturers should not be taken as either an endorsement or opposition of how the University feels about a particular issue.”

“Rather, the intent of our university’s liberal arts tradition is to expose students to a variety of worldly perspectives and encourage them to think critically and individually on how they feel about the topic(s) in question,” McFarland said.

“Carlow University is proud of our Catholic heritage and mercy mission, which welcomes all. As such, the University welcomes respectful discourse and multiple perspectives, including being open to hosting speakers like Dr. De La Torre whose topic may engender thoughtful reflection and dialogue.”

 

Ketanji Brown Jackson Puts the Moral Poverty of Identity Politics on Display

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://robertspencer.org/2022/03/ketanji-brown-jackson-puts-the-moral-poverty-of-identity-politics-on-display;

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

“I actually don’t know the answer to that question — I’m sorry — I don’t.”

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

Joe Biden had promised black voters in South Carolina that he would put a black woman on the Supreme Court if they voted for him. After a pressure campaign aimed at the Supreme Court’s lone liberal justice who agreed to step down and make way for a black woman, Biden picked between two candidates, one backed by moderates and one backed by radical leftists.

Even while leftists wished that Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s lone black justice, would die after reports that he was hospitalized, they cheered the incredible breakthrough of the first black female, and more importantly leftist, being nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court.

The long contentious hearings had plenty of awkward moments, but the most definitive clash came from a simple question that highlighted the vast moral gap between identity politics and natural rights.

“When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?” Senator Kennedy asked Jackson.

“Well Senator, um… I believe that the Supreme Court… um… actually I, I actually don’t know the answer to that question — I’m sorry — I don’t,” she awkwardly replied.

The postmodern leftist notion of human rights revolves around pursuing equity for discriminated groups. Leftists like Jackson have thorough notions about what equal protection looks like for black or transgender people, but no notion of a grander principle that protects all human life.

Jackson obviously found the question uncomfortable because it addresses abortion. And yet even a militant abortion supporter like Jackson ought to be able to tackle the basic moral question of when life begins and when human rights come into play. The Framers are often attacked for refusing to grapple with the moral questions of slavery, yet they did. That they narrowly chose not to break up the country over a monstrous evil did not change the fact that they struggled to reconcile their ideals and the compromises they believed they had to make.

Leftists, like the most hard-boiled defenders of slavery, refuse to even admit that there’s an issue. Jackson’s smirking response would have befitted a Buchanan Democrat pretending not to understand that human slavery might have moral, not just economic, legal implications.

Identity politics reduces every issue to victimhood. The same worldview that makes it all too easy to blame highways and obesity on systemic racism makes it equally impossible for leftist jurists like Jackson to even conceive of life and liberty as natural rights bestowed on everyone. And yet it was this conviction that eventually overturned slavery and segregation.

“Do you have a personal belief though about when life begins?” Senator Kennedy asked Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“I have a religious view that I set aside when I am ruling on cases,” she replied.

Judges shouldn’t rule from theology, but the idea that their religious moral convictions should play no role in basic notions of rights is alien to the words of the Declaration of Independence 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”.

If religious views of human rights are things to be set aside, then what is the basis for anyone’s rights? Judicial precedent, a “living constitution” that incorporates current academic doctrines, the pursuit of equity? Those are where leftists derive their moral authority and notions of rights.

And yet without that grand conviction that human equality and rights proceed from a higher power, they remain at the mercy of judges like Jackson who can decide when to take them away. And Jackson is unable to even articulate when those rights actually begin which will make it that much more morally and intellectually easier for her to take them away, from babies and from anyone else whose existence obstructs her political ideology and personal biases.

Jackson can’t comprehend rights except in terms of equity. If a group isn’t sufficiently wealthy, healthy, or otherwise successful, the government has to step in and alter the equation. But if a group is all of the above, then the government needs to examine how it oppressed others.

This Procrustean Bed in which the government stretches some and shrinks others in pursuit of the impossible mission of making everyone equal is the only kind of rights leftists understand. And they have no notion of the origin of rights except as a mindless pursuit of leveling everyone, and an atonement for the social sins that resulted in everyone not being equally successful.

Rather than looking back to an origin point, they look forward to a secular utopian “right side of history”, a transcendentalist conviction that one day we will all be made equal, to justify everything they believe and everything they do. And so you can’t ask Ketanji Brown Jackson when rights begin, because they haven’t ended yet. The present is just an unfinished future.

Rights don’t begin with God or with our founding documents, they run backward in time from some inchoate socialist future that they intend to achieve by forcibly “equalizing” all of us.

Jackson couldn’t process the question of when universal human rights come into being, because she doesn’t view rights as universal except in the sense that everyone has the right to be made equal. To assess whether someone has rights, leftists have to know their race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background, and other details that indicate where they stand on the equity spectrum. Asking them to articulate rights without reference to equity is like asking Thomas Jefferson where rights come from if there was no Creator or guiding natural order.

What rights does a baby have? According to leftists, the right to be made equal. The only real right in leftist judicial doctrine is the right to have what others have. And the amplification of whatever privileges and benefits are necessary to cut in line in order to achieve equity.

But does a baby have the right to live? That simple question whose parameters the Founders and Framers would have had no trouble understanding frustrates and infuriates leftist jurists to whom rights are not natural, but relative, and not individual, but collective. While they can amply expound on the plight of transgender Navajo Indians, they can’t offer a decision on the life of a single infant of unknown race and sex because they don’t believe in rights apart from identity.

Leftists can’t affirm natural universal rights, only compare rights relative to someone else.

Ask a leftist to compare my rights to your rights and they can easily do it. A baby can’t have innate natural rights but must have her rights compared to her mother and to society at large. Stakeholders must be consulted, and papers must be reviewed on the status of women in Colonial America to derive who is the greater victim and who is entitled to more rights.

The question of when human rights are conferred is baffling and annoying to Jackson. In her legalistic worldview, the question “when” is almost entirely irrelevant. It’s like asking “when is racism” or “when is sexism”. The dividing lines in leftist jurisprudence are not based on time or other rational metrics, but on the subjective and relative ones of who loses and who gains.

That’s why asking for firm rational metrics for anything is routinely derided as white western masculine thinking in academic circles. Leftists prefer to make decisions based on lived experience which is another way of saying anecdotal subjectivity which leaves plenty of room for personal bias, but none for any meaningful guarantee of rights beyond momentary feelings.

The Founders and Framers were certainly flawed, but they proceeded from an understanding of rights that expanded them, while leftists like Jackson can only contract and reduce them. Where our nation’s founders universalized rights, leftists use equity to de-universalize them, replacing general guarantees of human rights with situational activism through academic lenses.

They claim that they are expanding rights when all they’re doing is taking away our universal natural rights and replacing them with a ranked caste system of identity politics privileges that can bestow a “right” to a house, a car, or fat-free yogurt, but not the absolute right to live.

Where the Bill of Rights could define free speech as a universal right, leftists have dismantled the ACLU and insist that only the people who agree with them should have free speech. And so it goes for everything from the right to assemble to freedom of the press. Conservatives rightly see this as an unconstitutional double standard because it transgresses universal rights. But leftists only see universal rights as a leveling mechanism that only applies to the extent that it makes people more equal, but not when it does not. And so it’s natural for them to reject the idea that their opponents, who they argue make people less equal, should have free speech.

This is the totalitarian logic of civil rights which has slowly taken away rights from everyone.

Cancel culture is the inevitable result of the impulse to make people equal by destroying those who are perceived to stand in the way of the social activism that is the only source of equality.

Is it any wonder that Jackson can’t articulate or even grasp the concept that universal human rights exist and that they have some origin point in the process of human development?

Jackson’s incomprehension of the question reveals the moral bankruptcy of identity politics.

Identity politics is not making us a better society, more concerned with rights, it’s transforming us from a society that believed everyone had rights to a society that has no concept of rights.

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Favorite Critical Race Theory Book Rejects the Constitution~INSPIRED BY RACIST DERRICK BELL~BOARD MEMBER OF GEORGETOWN PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, PRO-LGBTQ, PRO-CRT DAY SCHOOL

Critical race theorist Derrick Bell on racism

African American Legends: Derrick Bell, New York University

Taped: 04/03/1995

 

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://robertspencer.org/2022/03/ketanji-brown-jacksons-favorite-critical-race-theory-book-rejects-the-constitution;

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

A judge who does not believe in the Constitution, but believes in critical race theory, is unfit.

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

The existence of a speech by Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, praising Derrick Bell, the godfather of critical race theory, and citing his book, “Faces At the Bottom of a Well”, as an influence has been widely reported. Conservatives have covered Bell’s racist views, his praise for Farrakhan, his antisemitism, and attacks on America. Much of this was already hashed out during the exposure of the relationship between Barack Obama and Derrick Bell.

But it’s important to specifically focus on Jackson’s interest in “Faces At the Bottom of the Well.”

In her speech, Jackson mentions that Bell, whom along with his wife she praises throughout her speech, “wrote a book in the early 1990s about the persistence of racism in American life”.

The subtitle of the book, which few people have mentioned, is, “The Permanence Of Racism”.

Persistence and permanence are not the same things. But this is another example of Jackson subtly distorting Bell and his book in order to make their extremism seem more moderate.

Jackson goes on to say, “My parents had this book on their coffee table for many years, and I remember staring at the image on the cover when I was growing up; I found it difficult to reconcile the image of the person, who seemed to be smiling, with the depressing message that the title and subtitle conveyed. I thought about this book cover again for the first time in forty years when I started preparing for this speech.” That would have made her ten years old.

As others have pointed out, “Faces At the Bottom of the Well” was published when Jackson was in her early twenties during Bell’s tantrum against Harvard University. It’s unlikely that Biden’s Supreme Court nominee grew up with the hateful text, but it’s entirely plausible that she was influenced by the book which came out when she was at Harvard and then Harvard Law.

Since Bell began his racial strike against Harvard Law before she had completed her undergraduate degree, it’s unlikely that she had taken any of his classes, but the former member of the faculty was clearly an influence on her. Perhaps Jackson’s memory is faulty or she’s deliberately backdating the book’s influence on her childhood to make it seem more innocent. Surely no one could blame a ten-year-old for being attracted to a racialist text.

“Faces At the Bottom of the Well” is the sort of racist book that could conceivably appeal to a bright ten-year-old. Bell, despite his position, was never much of a legal or constitutional scholar, and Faces, like the preceding “And We Are Not Saved”, conveys its message that the constitution is just a facade for a white racist agenda through science fiction short stories.

Where “And We Are Not Saved” transports the protagonist back to the Constitutional Convention to denounce the Constitution, “Faces At the Bottom of the Well” indulges in more hyperbolic science fiction scenarios including the rise of a new continent of Afroatlantis and space aliens offering Americans profits in exchange for selling black people into space slavery.

While the scenarios are absurd, they’re there to illustrate Bell’s argument that the Constitution is nothing more than what benefits white people at any given time. This is the same argument that the godfather of critical race theory had repeatedly made throughout his career, contending, for example, that the ban on segregation was not a rejection of racism, only a ploy by white people to defeat the Soviet Union and Communism by showing that they weren’t racist.

(Likewise, Faces, along with a defense of Farrakhan and condemnation of Jews for opposing black antisemitism, portrays Jews as protesting against the plan to sell black people into slavery only because in the absence of blacks, “Jews could become the scapegoats”.)

Such racial conspiracy theories, ubiquitous in the work and thought of black nationalists and supremacists, who always begin and end with the premise of white evil, pervade Bell’s work. 

“Faces At the Bottom of the Well” was a way to popularize and communicate this central idea at a level that even a child or a not particularly bright Harvard student, already nursing resentments, would be able to understand by depicting scenarios in which the white society and white people would cheerfully revamp the Constitution to bring back black slavery.

Thus near the end of the “Space Traders” story, Bell has the Supreme Court unanimously rule that, “if inducted in accordance with a constitutionally approved conscription provision, blacks would have no issues of individual rights for review” and tells us that, “By 70 percent to 30 percent, American citizens voted to ratify the constitutional amendment that provided a legal basis for acceptance of the Space Traders’ offer”. Behind the SciFi is the message that the majority of Americans, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution would allow black people to be enslaved again and that therefore black people should not rely on whites or the Constitution.

The Constitution, according to Bell, is merely the whim of a white agenda that serves its purposes. To the extent that the law has outlawed segregation and slavery, it did so only because it temporarily served white purposes and the moment that it would serve white purposes to enslave black people again, it would be done within the Constitution.

That is the message of “Faces At the Bottom of the Well”: the book that influenced Jackson.

Does Jackson believe that the Supreme Court would rule that black people could be sold into slavery? Like everything about her record, we know we can’t expect an honest answer.

And yet her speech, which touches not only on the racist rants of Bell and his wife but on the 1619 Project, introduces the idea that our founding documents are racially untrustworthy.

Praising the racial revisionist history of the 1619 Project, Jackson touts Nikole Hannah-Jones’ “provocative thesis that the America that was born in 1776 was not the perfect union that it purported to be” and that only black civil rights activism made America “the free nation that the Framers initially touted.”

Much like the 1619 Project, this description is rife with historical anachronisms and fundamental inaccuracies that is even less befitting a Supreme Court justice than a New York Times hack, but also implicitly echoes the critical race theory understanding that the civil rights struggle was not about upholding the Constitution, but overcoming it, that America’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were racist and remain the enemy.

In the process of her lecture, Jackson invokes critical race theory, the pernicious concept of “white privilege”, and intersectionality. 

The radicalism oozes around the edges of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s talk.

The Supreme Court nominee praises Gloria Richardson who, in Jackson’s words, “took part in several protests that ended in violent clashes with white residents” and “indirectly challenged SNCC’s non-violent ideology.” She quotes Richardson as saying, “[w]hen we were attacked at demonstrations, [we women] were the ones throwing stones back at the whites.”

Gloria Richardson was a wealthy leftist organizer with political connections during the Cambridge Riots who had contemptuously dismissed Martin Luther King and asserted, “We weren’t going to stop until we got it, and if violence occurred, then we would have to accept that.” 

Black nationalists hail her because she’s seen as breaking the embargo on local nonviolence in protests. And Richardson had emphasized that to the extent to which she used nonviolence was as a “tactical device”. To Jackson, most of the law seems to likewise be a tactical device.

And that’s the problem.

Absorbing the paranoid racism of the godfather of critical race theory during her formative years at Harvard makes for a bad judge and a worse justice. Bell’s approach to the Constitution, like that of black nationalists, was that it was a trick to lure black people into lowering their guard. 

White people, he believed, could never be trusted and all that mattered was seizing power.

Any laws or documents made by white people would only serve them. Only black people could secure the rights of black people. Like the Nazis, the ultimate truths were race and power.

Everything else was a distraction.

If that is Ketanji Brown Jackson’s worldview, she cannot be expected to come out and say it. But the highest court in the land is the last place for racial paranoia and nationalism. The Supreme  Court is charged with upholding the Constitution. A judge who does not believe in the Constitution, but believes in critical race theory, the 1619 Project, and white privilege is manifestly unfit to decide the fate of a nation and its hundreds of millions of people.

Derrick Bell and his hateful ideology believed that white racism was the only abiding truth.

There’s no room for that kind of thinking on the Supreme Court.

__________________________________________________________________

JACKSON, ON THE SCHOOL BOARD:

EXCERPTS BELOW FROM: https://adnamerica.com/en/united-states/scotus-nominee-jackson-argued-critical-race-theory-should-be-considered-during

FAMILY AND EDUCATOR ANTI-RACIST RESOURCES AT GEORGETOWN DAY SCHOOL-

https://www.gds.org/academics/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/resources-for-parents

G.D.S. ANTI-RACISM ACTION PLAN-https://www.gds.org/academics/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/anti-racism-action-plan

The school also allows 2nd graders to "explore and claim their identities in a yearlong multidisciplinary study and project," while 4th graders lead the annual Free to Be Me Assembly, which "celebrates all kinds of families, self-determination, LGBTQ+ pride, inclusion, and comprehensive belonging."

Free to Be Me Assembly 2021

FULL VIMEO VIDEO: https://vimeo.com/560517119

 

The annual Free to Be Me Assembly is one of GDS’s cornerstone assemblies and celebrates all kinds of families, self-determination, LGBTQ+ pride, inclusion, and comprehensive belonging. The virtual assembly this year, led as always by the 4th grade, facilitated the intentional inclusion of the performing and visual arts, centered and uplifted LGBTQ+ voices, and highlighted student voices. The 4th-grade students did nearly all of the talking—one kindergartener remarked, “Wow, they are doing so great. They sound like parents!” 

  • https://www.gds.org/academics/diversity-equity-and-inclusion
    … Free to Be Me Assembly 2021 Jun 9 The annual Free to Be Me Assembly is one of GDS’s …
  • https://www.gds.org/tenley-testing/story/~board/gds-news/post/free-to-be-me-assembly-2021
    … free-to-be-me-assembly-2021-1.jpg 20210609_free-to-be-me-assembly-2021-2.jpg 20210609_free-to …
  • https://www.gds.org/about/news/story/~board/gds-news/post/free-to-be-me-assembly-2021
    … free-to-be-me-assembly-2021-1.jpg 20210609_free-to-be-me-assembly-2021-2.jpg 20210609_free-to …
  • https://www.gds.org/tenley-testing/story/~board/gds-news/post/pride-week
    … record and send one now! Please note, the Lower School Free to Be Me Assembly will also take place virtually …
  • https://www.gds.org/about/news/story/~board/gds-news/post/pride-week
    … record and send one now! Please note, the Lower School Free to Be Me Assembly will also take place virtually …
  • https://www.gds.org/academics/lower-school
    … Free to Be Me Assembly 2021 Jun 9 The annual Free to Be Me Assembly is one of GDS’s …

___________________________________________________________________

JACKSON'S MLK, JR. DAY SPEECH TRANSCRIPT HERE: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-supreme-court-nominee-jackson-nyts-1619-project

"COURAGE // PURPOSE // AUTHENTICITY"
Black Women Leaders In The Civil Rights Movement Era And Beyond
 Ketanji Brown JacksonUniversity of Michigan Law School MLK Day Lecture January 20, 2020

https://www.scribd.com/document/565127840/1-20-20-UM-Law-MLK-Day-Lecture?secret_password=FPnMVYgBIOVxKgEZFL56#download

 

1 2 3 16