The “Deprogramming” Begins: Public Defender Representing January 6th Defendants “Re-Educates” Them

BY TYLER DURDEN

Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

Remember the potential re-education of Trump supporters that everyone said was a conspiracy theory? Welp, it turns out (as I said in this article where I “blew someone’s comment on social media out of proportion,”) it’s a fact. So far on a small scale. But having Americans re-educated politically in any way smacks of communism. Particularly problematic is that it’s been done on the taxpayer’s dime.

Defendants in the Jan. 6th Capitol case are being deprogrammed by their own lawyer.

A public defender named H. Heather Shaner, we’re assured by Ryan J. Reilly of the Huffington Post, has no option but to defend the January 6 “attackers” because “who can’t afford their own attorneys, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and as laid out in the Criminal Justice Act.”

But she’s also taking the opportunity to re-educate her clients, so they aren’t racist anymore.

“Reading books and then watching these shows is like a revelation,” Shaner told HuffPost. “I think that education is a very powerful tool … So I gave them book lists and shows that they should watch.”

Shaner said her clients had poor educations and knew very little about the country. Her two female clients took to the task with zeal, Shaner said and got library cards for the first time in their lives.

“Both my women are like, ‘I never learned this in school. Why don’t I know about this?’” Shaner said. (A couple of the male clients weren’t quite as eager students, she said. “The men are very much like ‘Oh, I’ll get to it.’” But she said some of her male clients have been doing some self-education.) (source)

S0, if I understand this correctly, those poor dumb hick women just needed someone to help them see the error of their ways and introduce them to the joy of the public library, but the men refused to be womansplained to?

And how was this case race-related? It was purely political.

Shaner represents six of more than 500 Capitol defendants: Anna Morgan-Lloyd, Annie Howell, Jack Jesse Griffith (aka Juan Bibiano), Israel Tutrow, and Landon Kenneth Copeland.

What’s on the reading/movie list?

Shaner’s re-education program points out many of the worst moments in history (not just American history) to convince these white folks they have been racist. The program suggests the Capitol protest (even though it was based on what many believe to be a fixed election) happened due to their inherent racism.

Different political views? Get ready to face persecution.

While one of the books mentioned was not set in the United States, most will agree the rest showcase some low points in American history. However, when combined and forced upon a client by an attorney to “reform” them, it seems to be the beginning of another low point in America – the persecution of those guilty of having a different political opinion.

It assumes all Trump supports are actively racist and therefore need to be shown the error of their ways.

While Huffington Post cheers the actions of Shaner, not everyone agrees that the indoctrination of clients the government pays one to defend is an acceptable course of action.

Note: It would be as challenging to contest American Greatness as unbiased as it would be Huffington Post. So let me be clear when I say both of these sources have their own political agendas. But here, we like to take a look at both sides of the issue.

Let’s take a look at the other side of this.

Small newspapers across the country widely picked up an article written by Julie Kelly for the website American Greatness. Kelly wrote a powerful argument about the danger of Shaner’s actions. Here are a couple of excerpts:

Shaner’s legal captives are learning the hard way what the government will do when one resists their commands to comply. Not only have their personal lives been shattered, finances depleted, and reputations destroyed by an abusive Justice Department investigation, Shaner’s clients must be indoctrinated with leftist propaganda about America’s alleged systemic racism.

The purge of the populist mindset is underway, courtesy of the fetid Beltway judicial system and the Joe Biden regime. Judges routinely lecture January 6 defendants about the wrongthink of a “stolen election” while prosecutors openly mock their political beliefs, including homeschooling and gun ownership

…On the face of it, there’s nothing wrong with watching or reading any of Shaner’s “booklist.” What is very wrong is a taxpayer-paid attorney—one who is supposed to fight the government’s charges related to January 6, not play along with its phony depiction that “white supremacists” attacked the Capitol—using her authority to reprogram the political views of people she is supposed to be defending. The presumption of racist beliefs is automatic. (source)

You support who? You must be racist.

Anyone who supported Trump – no – let me rephrase that – anyone who did not emphatically denounce Trump – was deemed “crazy” and “racist.” By the very nature of their political beliefs, conservatives are looked down upon by tech giants, the mainstream media, and our government. And, this has been the case ever since Trump announced his run for the presidency.

Thinking outside the far leftist box is akin to treason, and people who do so are now being treated like traitors in a country that was founded on freedom of thought.

Politically correct prosecution?

Kelly cites Joshua Rothstein, the assistant U.S. attorney handling one of Shaner’s cases, who said, “We don’t prosecute people based on their beliefs.”

But we all know that’s not really true…

Meanwhile, approximately 800 people breached the Capitol, and 500 are facing federal charges. Doesn’t that seem a bit skewed?

More woke, less white…?

Look at the ever-increasing lists of things we’re not supposed to say because someone, somewhere, might take offense. Businesses like Coca-Cola and Disney are re-educating their employees to be more “woke” and “less white.”

Disney is pushing critical race theory on employees through a new plan called “Reimagine Tomorrow.” The program urges workers to recognize their “white privilege” in a battery of training modules on topics such as “systemic racism” and “white fragility,” according to internal documents obtained by City-Journal’s Christopher Rufo.

Staffers are told to reject “equality” for “equity.” They must “reflect” on America’s “racist infrastructure” and “think carefully about whether or not [their] wealth” is derived from racism, according to the documents. (source)

If we’re fighting against each other, we can’t stand up beside each other.

That, of course, is the goal. It’s “othering” at its finest, and it sets us up for civil war or the quiet disappearance of conservative views. 

People have been put in a difficult place. Speak up, and you’re likely to lose your job. Disagree, and you’re deemed a heinous racist, homophobic, or some other flavor of bigot. That’s what cancel culture is all about – silencing anyone who dissents with the threat of social and financial destruction. The deprogramming of Trump supporters and the re-education of white people to believe we owe penance to every person of other races is dangerously divisive. 

I’m not a huge government supporter, preferring instead to govern myself. However, our government was designed to have checks and balances to keep the pendulum from swinging too far to one side. Currently, that system is being overridden, and re-education is just the start.

Source: ZeroHedge


Equality vs Equity | Unfair vs Fair???

This is a well made video by Dee Choi on YouTube. You can find the original video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKLDVyEnK2M

I screen captured it and added the opening frame because this is a very important subject! People MUST UNDERSTAND that all of this talk of “Equity” is actually talk of Communism!

The people trying to push this agenda are anti-American Communists and Marxists who ONLY want to destroy the United States!

Unfortunately for them, we are NOT as dumb as THEY LOOK!

PLEASE SHARE!

And PLEASE tell your kids, your friends, your neighbors, and co-workers too…..

“EQUITY” is COMMUNISM!

“Critical Race Theory” is Racism!

So DON’T you buy the Evil garbage they are selling!

The Unites States Constitution IS THE LAW OF THIS LAND!
And we plan to KEEP IT THAT WAY!

Equality vs Equity | Unfair vs Fair???

12 Years to Disaster? How Climate Activists Distort the Evidence

Source: ReasonTV on YouTube


Refute the radical climate Alarmists claims with FACTS!

Head over to RealClimateScience.com and fill your magazine with some TRUTH & FACTS about climate!

Real Climate Science


From FrontPage MAG

Racist Mayor: Lori Lightfoot

First in a series.Tue Jun 1, 2021

Racist Mayor: Lori Lightfoot

Editor’s note: This is the first in a series Frontpage is running on Racist Mayors. See subsequent parts below this article.

Shortly after 9 p.m. on the night of May 24, a 17-year-old black youth named Keyshawn Williams was standing on a sidewalk along Chicago’s South Oakley Boulevard when someone in a silver BMW opened fire and killed him in a drive-by shooting.

The night before that, a 25-year-old African American named Ladell Arnold was riding in a vehicle along West Flournoy Street in Chicago at 7:10 p.m. when he was shot and killed by a nearby gunman.

The night before that, a 46-year-old black man named Johnnie Williams was standing on a sidewalk along Chicago’s South Michigan Avenue at 7:30 p.m. when some people riding in two passing vehicles shot him dead while also wounding two others.

And at 11:50 p.m. the night before that, a 15-year-old black boy named Dajon Gater was on the front porch of a West Lexington Street house in Chicago, when two armed males approached and killed him with a gunshot to the head.

Like four tiny grains of sand among many thousands in an hourglass, the names of these four dead victims blend imperceptibly into the long list of African Americans whose lives in recent years have been snuffed out by other blacks in the killing field known as Chicago. During the past 12 months alone, more than 820 people have been victims of homicide in The Windy City. And most of them were blacks killed by other blacks.  

Of course, you’ve never before heard of any of the four individuals cited above – nor will you ever come across their names again – for the simple reason that none of their deaths can be traced to the actions of a white police officer – or to the actions of any white person at all, for that matter. Thus, there will be no Black Lives Matter protest marches held in their honor; no $25,000 celebrity-funded golden caskets eternally encasing their bodies in the grave; and no gaggle of reporters or “civil rights leaders” repeatedly recounting, with pained and pious countenances, the tragic stories of how these four individuals died, far too young, in America’s third largest city. No, the only words publicly memorializing these four people will be the names etched silently on their tombstones.

The chief political executive of the hell hole called Chicago is Lori Lightfoot, the latest in an unbroken, 90-year line of exclusively Democrat mayors extending all the way back to 1931. Under Lightfoot’s stewardship, homicides in Chicago increased by an astonishing 40 percent from 2019 to 2020 – a pattern that was seen in a host of Democrat-run cities after George Floyd’s death a year ago. And Chicago’s stratospheric homicide rate has continued well into 2021.

In light of the fact that violent death has become a way of life in Lightfoot’s Chicago, it was nothing short of remarkable to hear her recently announce that “on the occasion of the two-year anniversary of my inauguration as mayor of this great city,” she would be “prioritizing media requests from POC reporters,” an acronym meaning “people of color” — rather than prioritizing the urgent need to get the city’s murder rate under control. Chicago political reporter Mary Ann Ahern confirmed that according to the mayor’s spokeswoman, “Lightfoot is granting 1 on 1 interviews only to Black or Brown journalists.”

Lightfoot was more than eager to defend her clearly articulated intent to separate reporters into two separate classes, the preferred (nonwhite) and the non-preferred (white). Like the Black Lives Matter racists who felt wholly justified in terrorizing hundreds of American cities and towns last year, Lightfoot is more than proud to display her own particular brand of racism like a badge of honor. In a two-page letter to the media, she wrote that her decision to deny interview requests from white reporters was based on her commitment to “fight for diversity and inclusion,” “break up the status quo” that has been “failing so many,” and pay homage to the “historic reckoning” by which the nation has recently been forced to confront its own “systemic racism” and its “deep-seated legacies around institutionalized racism.” Lamenting “the overwhelming whiteness and maleness of Chicago media outlets,” Lightfoot wrote: “It’s a shame that in 2021, the City Hall press corps is overwhelmingly White in a city where more than half of the city identifies as Black, Latino, AAPI [Asian American / Pacific Islander] or Native American.”

“At the two-year anniversary of my inauguration,” Lightfoot told the press, “I am issuing a challenge to you. Hire reporters of color – especially women of color – to cover Chicago politics, and City Hall in particular. If you have only a white reporter covering City Hall, make sure there’s a person of color working with them as well.” In short, Mayor Lightfoot feels justified in dictating to private media companies exactly how they should allocate their limited financial resources, and whom they should hire to do which jobs. As is invariably the case with self-identified leftwing warriors for “racial justice,” the spirit of totalitarianism burns bright and hot in the heart of Lori Lightfoot.

Nor is racial obsession anything new for Mayor Lightfoot. She’s very comfortable with it. Indeed, just three months ago Lightfoot proudly announced that “a racial healing and historical reckoning” initiative known as the  Chicago Monuments Project, which the city had launched six months earlier to confront the “hard truths of Chicago’s racial history,” had determined that no fewer than 41 separate statues and monuments situated in various locations across the city could be subject to removal from the public square because they: (a) “promot[e] narratives of white supremacy”; (b) “memorializ[e] individuals with connections to racist acts, slavery and genocide”; (c) presen[t] selective, over-simplified, one-sided views of history”; and (d) do “not sufficiently include[e] other stories, in particular those of women, people of color and themes of labor, migration and community building.” The purportedly offensive statues and monuments include those erected in honor of such notables as Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, Benjamin Franklin, William McKinley, Leif Ericson, the French missionary Jacques Marquette, and the cartographer Louis Jolliet.

“This project is a powerful opportunity for us to come together as a city to assess the many monuments and memorials across our neighborhoods and communities—to face our history and what and how we memorialize that history,” Lightfoot said. This was particularly important, the mayor emphasized, in light of “the past year and in particular the past summer that made clear [that America’s racist] history isn’t past.”

The standards by which Mayor Lightfoot is prepared to pass judgment on the alleged moral deficiencies of historical giants and national heroes, stand in stark contrast to the standards by which she judges modern-day leftists.

Consider, for instance, how Lightfoot, in the early days of her mayoralty two years ago, gleefully celebrated the passage of Illinois’ so-called Reproductive Health Act (RHA), which repealed the state’s Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act; removed restrictions on late-term abortions and on the imposition of criminal penalties against physicians who perform them; and expanded insurance coverage for abortion procedures. When the RHA initially cleared the state’s Human Services Committee and was sent to the full Illinois House for consideration, Lightfoot issued a statement saying, “I applaud the legislators who voted yes tonight on the passage of the Reproductive Health Act…. The time is now to ensure that we preserve access to safe, legal abortion in our state. We won’t go backwards.” When the bill was subsequently signed into law by the governor a few weeks later, Lightfoot said: “Today, the state of Illinois sent a clear message that we will protect the fundamental right of residents and expand access to reproductive health care.”

So, Lori Lightfoot’s standard is abundantly clear. Statues honoring white people who made enormous contributions to America and to Western civilization — but who may have been insufficiently militant, by Lightfoot’s reckoning, in fighting to eradicate slavery — should be banned from the public square as punishment for the shortcomings of those individuals. But modern-day leftwing zealots who stand in favor of legalizing the killing of fully formed human beings in the womb – in the noble name of “reproductive rights,” of course – are to be hailed and celebrated as champions of liberty.

Subsequent Parts of Series:
Part 2: LA’s Eric Garcetti.
Part 3: DC’s Muriel Bowser.
Part 4: KC’s Quinton Lucas.
Part 5: SF’s London Breed.
Part 6: Philly’s Jim Kenney.
Part 7: St. Louis’ Tishaura Jones.

Part 8: Jackson’s Chokwe Antar Lumumba.
Part 9: Seattle’s Jenny Durkan.
Part 10: 
Minneapolis’s Jacob Frey.
Part 11: Charlottesville’s Nikuyah Walker.
Part 12: Portland’s Ted Wheeler.
Part 13: Atlanta’s Keisha Lance Bottoms.

Source: FrontPage MAG


Racism has never been acceptable in America during my entire 52 years, and we are NOT starting now!

Equity” is a code word for Communism. Just like CRT or “Critical Race Theory” is code words for Racism!

You must call these people out for the Communists and Racists they are! Don’t allow the English language to be manipulated by these Tyrannical Cowards! STAND UP TO THE RACISTS & RADICAL COMMUNISTS of America!


THE MIND-BLOWING TRUTH ABOUT COVID-19 VACCINES! Dr. Sherri Tenpenny Testifies

In 2021 Democrats look more like Stalin than Representatives in the United States Government

It’s time to make some Bar Complaints and file charges for

The New York DA’s Witch Hunt Continues – My Thoughts

When is a Prosecution Political?

Adjust Share  By Scott Horton on February 7, 2008

Once a year, in January, the U.S. Government asks me to give a day-long presentation to Foreign Service Officers, FBI agents and Justice Department officials on the legal systems of the post-Soviet world to help prepare them for a posting overseas in nations with a legal system that will certainly seem unfamiliar to them. For several years I have included in this, at the request of the MLAT and legal attachés (that is, Justice Department officials who will be liaisons with law enforcement officials in the countries) and the State Department human rights officers, a section entitled “How to Spot a Political Prosecution.”

In the nations of the former Soviet Union, of course, political prosecutions are rampant. This goes back to the Imperial era, but it also has its doctrinal anchoring in Lenin’s attitude about justice. For the Bolsheviks, the idea of neutral and dispassionate justice is all a bunch of sentimental liberal hogwash. As every good Communist knows, justice is a tool of the class and of the party. It is used to bolster the party and its political control over the state. Individuals may therefore be prosecuted because they presented a threat to the rule of the party, or simply because it is politically expedient to do so. The trial of the great poet Joseph Brodsky, from which I quoted yesterday, is a paradigm case which I used to teach in some of my seminars. With the collapse of communism and the adoption of liberal democratic models across the region, however, these doctrinal positions were rejected. Of course, some traditions are slow to die. And one of the problems faced by American justice officials is the proliferation of requests for assistance in connection with cases that look suspiciously like political persecution. What are the flashpoints to examine in making a determination of whether a case is politically motivated?

It now strikes me that this mode of analysis has some obvious relevance to things going on in the United States. But here are the questions I present for consideration by American Justice officials trying to grapple with the question in a foreign setting:

  1. Identity of the Subject. Is the subject an opposition political figure of some sort? Is he a member of an ethnic or religious minority which the State Department believes faces persecution in the country in question? Even if not a political figure, has the subject criticized the Government or is there reason to believe that he could be harmful to the Government in a political way? Is the subject associated with a political party? Does the subject hold political office? Is the subject seeking election to political office? This is a threshold inquiry. Of course, a person can be an opposition political figure and still commit a crime; he or she has no expectation of immunity by virtue of being in the political opposition.
  2. Nature of the Charges. Some sorts of charges are of an inherently political nature, and some charges go to acts which may be protected conduct under American law which should not be considered criminal. For instance, in this region criminal libel is a frequently charged crime, as is insulting the president. But in the American view, the conduct charged may well be viewed as protected free speech. Similarly, many of the Soviet successor states have a series of “economic crimes” which relate to the Soviet planned-economy past under which simply economic underperformance can be criminalized. With respect to other crimes, you should consider carefully the local law enforcement authority’s pattern of conduct in connection with charging this crime. Is it charged commonly? Are criteria for charging the crime evident? Has the crime been charged regularly in connection with political cases? One recurrent approach involves tax audits and tax charges.
  3. Timing and Circumstances of Criminal Investigations and Charges. Secure information concerning the time line. When was the probe initiated and how did it come to be initiated? Does it comply with established procedures and rules governing investigations? All departures from the rules should be noted. Any investigator may make a mistake, of course, but chronic violations may suggest something else, especially if they consistently prejudice the rights of the target. Consider the parallels between this time line and potentially relevant political events, particularly elections and election campaigns. Charges brought against political candidates during an election cycle are particularly suspect. In several states in this region, certain criminal charges will result in disqualifying a candidate for office. Obviously when charges are brought against an opposition political candidate during an election cycle, this is suspicious. When the Government then seeks the candidate’s disqualification, this is still more suspicious.
  4. Circumstances of Investigation; Arrest and Detention; Media Dealings. When political figures are involved, has an intrusive investigations been conducted? That is, does the investigation appear geared to disrupting the political figure’s work, for instance, as a parliamentarian or local official? Does it appear geared to embarrassing a candidate for election? If the figure was taken into custody and charged, how was this conducted? Was the arrest done in a way designed to maximize publicity and embarrassment for the political figure? Similarly, arrests conducted in the dead of night and at the crack of dawn are historically considered abusive and are associated with totalitarian regimes (as in the Nazi policy “bei Nacht und Nebel,” arrests conducted before dawn to maximize terror on the populace). Was the investigation played out in the media? Was the arrest and announcement of charges hyped in the media? Do media accounts bear any relationship to a political program or campaign which the Government is mounting? Is the allocation of resources and materials for the investigation and prosecution “normal” or commensurate with similarly charged crimes?
  5. Conduct of the Preliminary Investigation. These countries all have a regime of investigatory detention unknown in the United States. The use of investigatory detention is not abusive per se, but attention should be paid to the amount of time spent in the investigatory detention regime. In general after a fixed period, a magistrate must approve the continued detention. Does the detainee have access to counsel? Consider the conditions of the detention facility and the length of detention. During the period of investigatory detention, has the prosecution made statements to the media about the case, suggesting crimes which are being investigated and charges which might be brought?
  6. Conduct of Trial. Has the defendant secured access to counsel. Is the counsel permitted to interview and speak with the accused without a prison guard being present or being otherwise observed? Is the trial open to the public? Is the presentation of evidence open to the public? Has a gag been imposed on the defense counsel? In general, restrictions on access to the media and public should not be considered symmetrically. It is inappropriate for the prosecution to conduct its case in the press because this violates fundamental rules of prosecutorial ethics. Defense counsel generally is accorded much broader latitude in dealing with the press on defense. The conduct of the trial itself should be tested against the rules of criminal procedure of the country in question with a focus on the defendant’s rights. Was there a pattern of abridging or curtailing rights given to the defense in trial? In particular, was the defense precluded from presenting its evidence or its witnesses? Also consider the selection of the trial court and the assignment of the judge to handle the case. Was there any irregularity in connection with venue or judicial assignment? Was the defendant granted freedom pending trial in order to assist in the presentation of his defense? The old Soviet legal standard carried forward in each of these countries matched the U.S. standard, namely, the defendant is entitled to freedom to prepare his case unless he presents a threat to the community or is a flight risk.
  7. Interview of Prosecutors and Defense Counsel. If called to make an assessment as to whether a criminal action is politically motivated, consider paying a call on the prosecutor and defense counsel to discuss the case. In the prosecutor’s presentation of the case, note carefully whether political considerations are articulated at any point. If a prosecutor speaks of a political party or movement as “corrupt” rather than the specific individuals charged, this is extremely telling. Ask the prosecutor whether the case has been coordinated or discussed with Government figures outside of the prokuratura, and whether the prosecutor’s decisions in the case are being controlled or overseen by the Procurator General. Ask the defense counsel whether he/she had full access to the client without being monitored, whether leave was given to present a full defense and whether the defense counsel personally was subjected to any reprisals or threats. Remember that discovery of the sort available in American proceedings is not generally available here, although defense counsel would have access to the prosecutor’s evidentiary file.
  8. State Secrecy. Was state secrecy invoked in any aspect of the case? Why? Did this restrict the right to present a defense in any way? Was state secrecy invoked as a basis for silencing the defendant and his counsel?
  9. Parallel Public Campaigns. Consider carefully whether the prosecution tracks any political campaign which is being run by the Government or the Government party? Is the prosecution being cited as evidence of “corruption” by the opposition? Does the Government appear to have access to the prosecution’s evidence? Does it have prior knowledge that charges will be brought? Is this information used for a political purpose?
  10. Media Coverage. Particularly where the media is controlled or manipulated by the state (this includes almost every country in the region) or aligns itself with the political party which holds the prosecutorial power, consider carefully the tone and tenor of the media coverage. Does the media flavor the criminal case in political tones by stressing for instance the party affiliation of the defendant, by using the word “corrupt” and by generally tendentious reporting? (Suggesting that not just an individual, but “members of party X” are “corrupt”?) Does the media have prior knowledge of criminal investigations, of charges brought, of evidence which will be used? Does the media quote Government officials or prosecutors in connection with pending cases? Conversely, does the media quote the defendant or defense counsel? When the media “tries the case to the public” in advance of the trial, building public sympathy or support for the charges brought, this is a strong indicator of a politically motivated prosecution.
  11. Beyond Guilt and Innocence. It is frequently impossible for an outside observer to form useful views as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Moreover, as law enforcement professionals you may be inclined to take the representations made by your local counterparts at face value. You need to approach them with a healthy level of skepticism when political figures are involved. In fact, I would recommend simply disregarding the question of guilt or innocence when you’re trying to form a view about whether a prosecution is politically motivated. These are separate questions. Remember that it is entirely possible both that a subject is guilty of the crime charged and that the prosecution is politically motivated. Remember Attorney General Robert Jackson’s famous statement that in a modern society with a sweeping criminal code, virtually every citizen can be found to have transgressed a criminal law at some point. This is doubly true for formerly totalitarian societies whose criminal law regime is highly intrusive into what Americans would consider the sphere of private conduct. In making this determination, you should be prepared to question the motives and conduct of the prosecutor. Is the prosecutor investigating and acting on a crime, or is the prosecutor “out to get” an individual? The latter case is per se abusive. When the prosecutor is “out to get” an individual as part of a political agenda, the act of prosecution is an assault on democratic institutions. Political considerations would drive whether the United States would publicly question or condemn such acts–this is a decision generally for the ambassador to take jointly with the State Department in Washington–but in any event, U.S. policy would strongly oppose cooperation with or support of a prosecution when there is strong reason to believe it is politically motivated.

Jackson’s view of the prosecutor rigorously detached from politics, who conducts a case without even a suggestion of political motivation, reflects the American ideal. But the post-Soviet space is haunted by a different legacy. The key historical figure is Andrei Januaryevich Vyshinsky, Stalin’s prosecutor. As Arkady Vaksberg wrote in his masterful biography of Vyshinsky, “his prime contributions were that ‘justice’ is flexible depending on what is ‘in the interests of the people,’ and his explanation that the ‘presumption of innocence’ is an abstract liberal legal principle that has a ‘demobilizing, demagnetizing effect … in the fight against crime.’” But Vyshinsky is best known for his use of prosecution as a political tool. Those identified as enemies of the regime could of course simply be liquidated, but Vyshinsky argued, and Stalin accepted, that it was far more efficient to use the criminal justice system to destroy them. They would be accused of both political crimes and the normal garden variety of crimes–petty corruption, for instance. They would be placed under strong pressure to confess their guilt. The pressure included coercive interrogation techniques, but more frequently it involved identifying the target’s family and friends and threatening action against them. Finally, Vyshinsky pioneered the notion of the “show trial” in which the defendant would be brought before the world, a broken and hollow man, to confess his crimes as one act in a longer play in which his crimes would be staged before the world. Through this technique, Vyshinsky argued, he could not only eliminate the opponent, but destroy even the memory of the opponent, limiting the likelihood that an opposition group might form around him.

Source: Harper’s Magazine 2008

God Bless you and your, Have a Great Day on Monday July 05, 2021

If the US Military continues teaching CRT then good soldiers will quit. Is THAT what they want so they can attack Americans with a group of Woke-Tardian soldiers?

I hate to sound as if I’m joking, because I’m NOT!

This is book about “Racism” according to it’s author. Well, excuse me, it’s a book on “anti-Racism” according to the author Henry Rogers, AKA “Ibram X. Kendi” who changed his name to peddle open racism in America, and like all other “anti-this and anti-that groups” they are NOT “ANTI” they ARE JUST “Racists!”

Antifa claims to be “Anti-Fascist” as they promote and exercise Fascism and endorse Fascistic acts! Okay, but this guy who has become the Left’s “god of CRT” is a MORON! I’m Not talking about just a little slow, or maybe not too sharp, NO……. This dude is a blatant MORON, an imbecile, a maroon, a snake oil salesman who is full of feces!

Watch the MORON Dr. “Ibram X. Kendi” (AKA Henry Rogers) The OPEN RACIST, WHO ADMITS HATING WHITE PEOPLE IN HIS OWN BOOK, attempt to “Define” the term “Racism.” What was that rule about using a word to define that word? You know like defining <A monkey> “is a monkey like creature who acts like a monkey and does monkey stuff”

You cannot use a word in the definition of the word there “DOCTOR!” This guy is a pathetic MORON! But the entire left worships at his dumb-ass feet! Blind to the FACT that the man don’t even know what Racism is! You can jump ahead to 6:15 if you just want to hear the definition! or type “t=370” at the end of this link.

6.18.2021 Tucker Carlson Tonight

It’s important to understand that if the military can force all the normal people to quit by requiring insane CRT Training then nobody will remain but Radicals!

I say this is the most dangerous thing America has ever faced! If these radical scumbags can get a majority in our military how long will it be before they are going house to house in America to “Get the imaginary Racists” that their sick and twisted minds have invented after years of CNN & MSNBC Propaganda??? SCARY!


Ibram X. Kendi is really Henry Rogers, a radical professor from the University of Florida, and he cannot even DEFINE the term “Racism” much less teach us all about it! How can you teach about something you cannot define? This moron and his book are everywhere!

The Dumbest man on campus has written a Racist book of hate, based on “Racism” a term which he cannot even define! Remember folks, bad reviews, down votes, nuke the product line of him and anyone who promotes his filth! It’s time to ACT LIKE THE PROGRESSIVES and FIGHT!

Here is one DUMB SOB! The man has written a dozen books on “Racism” yet he cannot define the term!

Do like Dinesh D’Souza said! Fight these people the way they fight YOU! Watch the next video and learn how!

Guys and Gals… IT’S OUR TURN! Listen to me today and YOU CAN CHANGE THE CORPORATE WORLD OF MARXIST CRAP FOREVER! You have to adopt the tactics used by leftists and you’ll destroy corporate scum!

Cancel these companies distributors, badmouth people who sell their products! Lead demonstrations at stores selling their stuff! Write the corporate scumbags FIRST and tell them why you are about to do what you do! But then DO IT TIRELESSLY! Take THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WITH YOU!

We really need to organize “action groups” to focus on advertisers and marketers AND ESPECIALLY THE CORPORATIONS THEY MARKET FOR! Get your kids involved! The most effective means is to go where their products are sold and give awful reviews!

Say you bought the product and it sucks, delivery was slow, customer service was non-existent! Learn to MASTER THE CANCEL CULTURE THEY HAVE WEAPONIZED AGAINST YOU!

TURN THE TABLES ON THEM!

And watch Dinesh D’Souza speak about when Costco cancelled his book! LOOK WHAT HAPPENED when his fans did EXACTLY what I’m telling you to do!!! They brought his book back, gave him his own display and made a special place for his new movies!!! it’s below!

You MUST FIGHT BACK!

How Do We Cancel Cancel Culture?

How Do We Cancel Cancel Culture? FIGHT BACK AMERICA! Here’s how!

Below is just one of several thousand articles saying this Racist is America’s best and only hope!


By no means is this drivel supported here! I’m just pointing it out! This is from the “Millenial Grind” grinding on the brains of children!

I just cut and pasted the nonsenser for you to see, if you want to read it you should go there for sure! It’s a PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN LIKE MANKIND HAS NEVER SEEN!

The brainwashed masses just love this idiots book it would appear! But I’ll bet you that is another lie just like covid19 was made possible by using MEANINGLESS PCR tests to make it appear like a pandemic, when in fact there was NONE!


30 Quotes from How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi

In How to Be an Antiracist, Kendi takes readers through a widening circle of antiracist ideas—from the most basic concepts to visionary possibilities—that will help readers see all forms of racism clearly, understand their poisonous consequences, and work to oppose them in our systems and in ourselves.

Kendi weaves an electrifying combination of ethics, history, law, and science with his own personal story of awakening to antiracism.

This is an essential work for anyone who wants to go beyond the awareness of racism to the next step: contributing to the formation of a just and equitable society.

Keep scrolling to read 30 Powerful Quotes from How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi.

Get The BookHow to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi available now on Amazon.

Related Article: 10 Best Books On Anti-Racism

30 Quotes from How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi

Quote from How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi

The opposite of racist isn’t “not racist”. It is “anti-racist”.

What’s the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an anti-racist.

One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist.

One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an anti-racist. There is no in-between safe space of “not racist”.

What’s the problem with being “not racist”? It is a claim that signifies neutrality: “I am not a racist, but neither am I aggressively against racism.”

There is no neutrality in the racism struggle. The opposite of “racist” isn’t “not racist.” It is “antiracist”.

The claim of “not racist” neutrality is a mask for racism.

The good news is that racist and antiracist are not fixed identities. We can be a racist one minute and an antiracist the next. What we say about race, what we do about race, in each moment, determines what — not who — we are.

Black people are apparently responsible for calming the fears of violent cops in the way women are supposedly responsible for calming the sexual desires of male rapists.

Racist ideas love believers, not thinkers.

Racist ideas love believers, not thinkers.

Americans have long been trained to see the deficiencies of people rather than policy.

Like fighting an addiction, being an antiracist requires persistent self-awareness, constant self-criticism, and regular self-examination.

Denial is the heartbeat of racism, beating across ideologies, races, and nations. 

We were unarmed, but we knew that blackness armed us, even though we had no guns.

Assimilationist ideas are racist ideas. Assimilationists can position any racial group as the superior standard that another racial group should be measuring themselves against, the benchmark they should be trying to reach.

The only way to undo racism is to consistently identify and describe it—and then dismantle it.

“Institutional racism” and “structural racism” and “systemic racism” are redundant. Racism itself is institutional, structural, and systemic.

To be antiracist is to think nothing is behaviorally wrong or right- inferior or superior- with any of the racial groups.

To be antiracist is to deracialize behavior, to remove the tattooed stereotype from every racialized body.

Behavior is something humans do, not races do.

Behavior is something humans do, not races do.

The idea that Black languages outside Africa are broken is as culturally racist as the idea that languages inside Europe are fixed.

No one becomes racist or antiracist. We can only strive to be one or the other.

What if we realized the best way to ensure an effective educational system is not by standardizing our curricula and tests but by standardizing the opportunities available to all students?

To be antiracist is to view national and transnational ethnic groups as equal in all their differences.

To be antiracist is to challenge the racist policies that plague racialized ethnic groups across the world.

To be antiracist is to view the inequities between all racialized ethnic groups as a problem of policy.

Culture defines a group tradition that a particular racial group might share but that is not shared among all individuals in that racial group or among all racial groups.

Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups.

Every single person actually has the power to protest racist and antiracist policies, to advance them, or, in some small way, to stall them.

Individual behaviors can shape the success of individuals. But policies determine the success of groups. And it is racist power that creates the policies that cause racial inequities.

Individual behaviors can shape the success of individuals. But policies determine the success of groups. And it is racist power that creates the policies that cause racial inequities.

Which quote from How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi is your favorite?


It amazes me that a man who cannot define the term “Racist” can write 20 Racist books on the subject!

Henry Rogers AKA “Ibram X. Kendi” the phony race baiting guru of STUPID also did a TED Talk!

Folks, there is nowhere on Earth the people pushing this radical, racist, ignorant theory based in Marxism called CRT should feel safe!

People like this scumbag should have every person selling their material inundated with negative comments, complaints, letters to corporate scumbags, letter to stores and bookstores etc…. But most importantly the negative comments on the pages selling this filth!

Claim you bought it and it sucks, the quality was poor, the theory wrong, and it took months to get it!!!

If you see grocers selling the book LOAD A BASKET FULL OF GROCERIES and pretend to notice the “offensive” & “Racist” book, tell the manager you will no longer shop at a place that sells this TRASH!

Create a group of “Action Warriors” to go after corporate scum the way the left has gone after YOU and Conservatives in general! You should be wortking the product pages of these people! Work the physical buildings too!

The US Military has forced members to attend training sessions authored by Racist twits like this!

Admiral Mike Gilday has put this piece of toilet paper on the military’s recommended Reading list!

PLEASE SIGN & SHARE TO HAVE MIKE GILDAY De-Commisioned!

Petition to Remove Admiral Michael Gilday as Chief of Naval Operations

Petition to Remove Admiral Michael Gilday as Chief of Naval Operations

Petition to Remove Admiral Michael Gilday as Chief of Naval Operations

Tue Jun 22, 2021 

Our military is under attack by “anti-racism” activists whose message is that white America is racist.

“Critical Race Theory” is the academic discipline that is used to justify the attack. Critical Race Theory is a hateful Marxist fiction that maintains America is evil because the majority of its citizens are white, and that its Constitution is evil because it was written by white people. The agents of this dogma, including those lecturing at the Naval War College, teach that white people – from the Founding Fathers to the 200 million white people in the country today – are oppressors, who are an internal enemy,

Critical Race Theory began by destroying the moral integrity of colleges and corporations. Now its target is the U.S. Navy.

Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday has told the third of a million naval personnel that they should be reading and learning from Ibram X. Kendi, a mediocre, fact-challenged university professor who has become the go-to “anti-racism” expert for America’s woke elites.

In a congressional hearing, Admiral Gilday was asked by Representative Jim Banks to denounce Kendi’s view that white people are criminals – that they created the AIDS virus to kill black people. The Admiral refused to do so, dismissing it as a “cherry picked” quote about which he had no other opinion.

By adding Ibram X. Kendi’s book – How To Be An Anti-Racist – to the Navy’s Professional Reading Program, Gilday put the weight of the U.S. Navy behind Kendi’s hatred of white America and all white people as the allegedly racist oppressors of blacks.

That’s why I hope you’ll join me, and demand the Removal of Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday.

Kendi defines anti-racism as opposition to America’s “systemic racism.” Systemic racism was outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If it were an actual problem there would be a tsunami of lawsuits and a tsunami of judgments awarding millions of dollars in penalties to the victims. There are no such tsunamis because systemic racism is a myth manufactured by leftists to disarm their critics and force their retreat. In Kendi’s dogma, the only way not to be a racist is to agree with him that racism is in America’s DNA, and white people are racists because they are white.In Kendi’s own words: “There is no such thing as a not-racist idea, only racist ideas and antiracist ideas.” Either you agree with Kendi’s leftwing politics, or you’re a racist.Gilday was not only endorsing Kendi’s racism, but also his politically partisan agenda, which claims ridiculously that dissent from the left is racist even when it comes to global warming.“Do-nothing climate policy is racist policy,” Kendi argues, “since the predominantly non-White global south is being victimized by climate change more than the Whiter global north.”But the world’s greatest polluters are China, India, and Pakistan . – countries that are not white, and that refuse to implement the Paris Climate Accords.Gilday’s support for Kendi is part of his effort to divide and weaken the Navy by imposing Critical Race Theory and radical Identity Politics on the men and women who defend us. Last year Gilday promoted “conversations” that endorsed Black Lives Matter’s view that all whites are racists and encouraged recruits and naval officers to believe that, like America, the navy is systemically racist – no evidence required. According to Gilday-Kendi, life for black people is miserable in America, and white people have to be “transformed” by atoning for their white skin privilege . “White Skin Privilege is, in fact, a term invented by the Weather Underground: a notorious terrorist group which bombed the Pentagon in the 1970s.An official Navy video introduced by Gilday featured a black aviation tech complaining that, “being African-American in America is not fun;” a black lieutenant commander who claimed that he had experienced “systemic racism” and “implicit bias”, and a white female musician confessing her “privilege as a white person” and attacking America over unfounded claims of “systemic racism”The video of Navy personnel putting down America, blaming their problems on systemic racism, and reciting Marxist talking points was the centerpiece of what Gilday called vital “conversations” about racism. Usually, a conversation has more than one side. But not in today’s U.S. Navy which has become a Critical Race Theory echo chamber.While the theme of Gilday’s racial crusade is, “One Team, One Navy”, its real message is that there are two navies and two Americas: white and non-white. The goal of the admiral’s new “diversity and inclusion” mandate is for the victimized non-white Navy to defeat the oppressive and racist white Navy. Or as one crew member in the video declares, “Tomorrow’s Navy will finally stand on the right side of history when we realize that black lives matter.” Considering that the latest ethnic genocide, involving millions of Uighur Muslims, is taking place in a non-white nation, China, today, it would be interesting to know what “the right side of history” is, or whether history has a side.An official video sponsored by Gilday, broadcasts the anti-American claim that the 245-year-old Navy has been on the wrong side of history, that John Paul Jones, who fought the British, Stephen Decatur, who fought Islamic pirates, and the men who fought on the USS Kearsarge to end slavery during the Civil War, were all on the “wrong side” of history until Gilday and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came along to set them straight.Please add your name to this petition right away, and demand the Senate remove Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday.
Under Gilday’s leadership, minority members of the Navy are being told that it’s okay to question whether they should be serving their country. They’re being encouraged to view all of their interactions with white personnel as racist because all white people are inherently racist. Including their commanding officers and their comrades in arms.Communist China could not be damaging the Navy’s readiness any more than Gilday is with his divisive accusations about the racism of the majority of his troops.In the two years since Gilday took over as Chief of Naval Operations, morale is down, and instead of preparing them to fight America’s enemies, he has set off a civil war within his own ranks. China doesn’t need to fire a single shot if Gilday is successful in destroying our military’s cohesion, morale and will to defend the country.Biden is slashing the Navy’s shipbuilding budget even as the People’s Republic of China is building more ships than the U.S. Navy. The United States is losing the command of the seas. While Biden is undermining the physical infrastructure of the Navy, Gilday is waging a relentless war against the moral infrastructure of the service men and women under his command.Gilday and other military leaders are replacing military readiness with military radicalism. Admiral Bill Moran, Gilday’s predecessor and President Trump’s choice, had a reputation for standing up for his people. America First was his guide. Gilday has focused instead on political wokeness and demonizing those who resist his new order.Gilday – a vice admiral – was unqualified for his promotion to Chief of Naval Operations in the first place. He got his job through a political coup.His predecessor, Admiral Moran was forced out over a fake scandal generated by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Gilday, a vice admiral, should not have been in line to be Chief of Naval Operations, but Democrat politicians and bureaucrats were determined to purge as many of President Trump’s appointments as they could. Their goal was to undermine his America First policies. They were so successful that no one qualified to be Chief of Naval Operations actually wanted it.As Chief, Gilday quickly showed why the same people who persecuted Moran left him alone. The men and women of the Navy can rely on Gilday to promote Black Lives Matter agendas, but they can’t count on him to watch their backs.Using race as the measure of all things, Gilday unleashed a political indoctrination campaign as the Black Lives Matter riots got underway. Video confessions of white privilege and condemnations of America are the heart and soul of that campaign. He initiated the Task Force One Navy whose report called for reinventing the Navy to fight “racism, sexism, ableism and other structural and interpersonal biases” – perfect Marxist slang for their war on America.White members of the Navy are being told to check their white privilege, to believe that they didn’t earn their ranks, but were awarded them because of systemic racism, and that the more they achieve, the guiltier they are of getting ahead at the expense of disadvantaged minorities.Officers are being told to stop thinking about ability and merit – racist categories – and to focus on meeting racial and gender quotas when it comes to mentoring and promotions. They’re being warned that their judgement is racially biased and that any decision they make will be racist. There is talk of using computer programs to achieve racial quotas for personnel and of subjecting officers to “implicit bias” training which is based on the hateful idea that whites are racists by virtue of their skin color.These are the same poisonous attitudes that destroyed American achievement on college campuses so that China’s educational system now outperforms our own, and racist mediocrities like Ibram X. Kendi become intellectual celebrities. Gilday and his allies are hard at work trying to reward activism over ability, and sow doubt about the merits of any sailor who is white.The Chief of Naval Operations is dividing the men and women of the Navy by skin color and turning them against each other. When you are a 19-year-old deciding whether to risk your young life for your country how does being told by your military commanders that America is a 400-year-old cesspool of white racist oppression help you to make the decision to fulfill your oath to defend that country and its Constitution?Gilday is undermining military readiness in the face of a possible naval conflict with enemies of the United States, especially the increasingly aggressive regime in Communist China.Gilday’s indoctrination program is already a threat to national security and must be terminated before it’s too late. And the best way to do that is for him to resign or be forced to step down.Our national security is at stake. Sign this petition and take a stand against Gilday’s destruction of the U.S. Navy.Sign this petition and take a stand against Gilday’s destruction of the U.S. Navy.
Sincerely, 

David Horowitz

Source FrontPageMag


It’s time to unleash Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” on the Left, the way they have effectively used them on us! The left uses these rules to bring forth an evil NWO with Lucifer on the throne!

While we DON’T want to push Satanic ideology the way the left does, their tactics outlined below are very powerful and very successful! Especially Number 4! Hold THEM to their own standards!

The new strategy against the LEFT! See how THEY like it!

Here’s a GREAT GUY to start using these tactics against! This should be EVERYWHERE!

Ep. 1548 The China Spy Story Erupts. Where Is He? – The Dan Bongino Show

Ep. 1548 The China Spy Story Erupts. Where Is He? – The Dan Bongino Show

Critical Race Theory Is Worse Than Marxism

I’ve put together a couple of very relevant discussions on Marxism and Critical Race Theory that are absolutely needed to hold an intelligent discussion about either! Please read and watch the following videos and share them wherever you can! Take the advice in the videos! It’s some of the best I’ve seen! Most importantly is stay in the fight!

No Way does American’s accept CRT and Marxism in America! Both of these totalitarian systems are far inferior to the system America has always had and under no circumstances do we change for the worst!!! NO WAY!!!

You need to SHOW UP to school Board meetings, and run for a position on the school boards!!!

You need to SHOW UP to your state capital and to any corporation or institution trying to force these inferior principles on American citizens! You have simply got to get out of your “Safe Space” and make your voice heard!

Lastly, and the most important thing.. SUE! Sue government, sue corporations, sue schools and colleges, and sue ANYONE ELSE trying to force people to attend indoctrination at anti-white, racist “Diversity Training Sessions!”

SUE! It is time to challenge these totalitarian ideologies in courtrooms! Free Speech is your right, protected under the Constitution! It is a God-Given, natural right specifically protected by our Constitution! SUE!


Critical Race Theory Is Worse Than Marxism

Blog May 26, 2021

By Paul Gottfried

The swear words “Marxist” and “revolutionary” are now thrown around by conservatives, such as those at Heritage, the New York Post, and Fox News, with the same abandon with which the left speaks about “human rights” or “marriage,” particularly in relation to the concept of Critical Race Theory (CRT). But as someone who has studied Marxism extensively, I believe it’s necessary to state that CRT is most definitely not Marxist, nor is it in any sense revolutionary. Instead, it is an instrument of repression brandished by those in power against those whom it is feared might resist them, and those labeling this instrument as Marxist misdiagnose the problem to their detriment.

An ideology does not become Marxist because it launches an attack on white Americans for being white, or on white men as intrinsically evil human beings. Nor is feminism a form of Marxism because it attacks gender differences or the assignment of distinctive social roles to men and women. One does not change established meanings by assigning one’s own invented descriptions to whatever the media and academics decide to extend them to. Marriage is between men and women, even if the state decides to extend marriage licenses to homosexual pairs and throws pastors in jail for disagreeing with this policy. Likewise, something does not become Marxist simply because it is socially dangerous and features the term “struggle.”

True Marxism focuses on socioeconomic distinctions and the struggle by which the working-class overthrows and replaces the bourgeoisie and establishes a socialist economy, presumably by force. It has nothing to do with downgrading whites, heterosexuals, or males, and even less with supporting transgender activists in combat with cisgender bigots. It must fit other criteria than these cultural issues in order to be genuinely Marxist; and the advocates of CRT do not escape this labeling problem by claiming to have come up with a more advanced form of Marxist ideology while rejecting “vulgar Marxism.”

It is the “vulgar,” or more traditional form of Marxism which is the only real one. Transgender crusaders or black nationalists going after “prejudiced” Americans or destroying their property have nothing to do with a Marxist class struggle, as understood by Karl Marx and his socialist followers. Nor do AOC or other members of her Squad calling for higher taxes together with the teaching of CRT make them true Marxists. If anyone thinks Joe and Kamala are going to inflict huge pain on the corporations that brought them to power, that person is suffering from self-delusion “bigly,” as the Donald used to say. Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Jeff Bezos, and the corporate managers of American Airlines and Coca Cola do not have to worry about being expropriated in an American Marxist revolution carried out by the Biden administration.

The intersectional left has gained social control because it is allied to government administrators and corporate oligarchs, a fact which both political commentator Pedro Gonzalez and I have written about. Yet this power constellation is no more revolutionary than the sclerotic Soviet nomenklatura that fell with the dissolution of the Soviet empire. These oligarchs pulled out all stops to get rid of the Trump interregnum and are now making sure that no effective opposition remains to combat their rule. Gonzalez is correct that what we are witnessing is the ruling class striking back.

Racial strife is a way of achieving this end of rooting out opposition, and that strife occurs by deploying black nationalists and other grievance-mongers against what I refer to as “normal people.” Moreover, with help from the media, corporations, and government officials, the “black revolutionaries” seem to be prevailing. They may even be given a share of power, which Biden is divvying up with black Democrats, like his CRT-intoxicated Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, and black racialist Kirsten Clark, whom the president’s advisers earmarked as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.

But black activists are not in charge of this arrangement. They provide the front for those already in power to tighten their hold on the rest of us. The oligarchs may shift their favor from one group of grievance-mongers to another but that does nothing to seriously change the distribution of power.

What does pose a serious problem for the oligarchs and administrators are the raw emotionality and inherent conflicts among the groups they have weaponized. Why should we think that Muslim Fundamentalists, Black Lives Matter, feminists, and LGBT activists are united by more than a shared enemy, personified in the hated Deplorables? Is there anything else that holds this coalition together, other than hate, the availability of corporate money, and support from the Deep State?

Furthermore, in their eagerness to keep their motley crew of haters behind them, the electronic media giants commit massive indiscretions. New York Post columnist Bethany Mandel has justifiably scolded Twitter for abetting anti-Semitism on the left. The tech giants have kept open their services to the most outrageous “purveyors of Jew hate” after arbitrarily cancelling Trump and many of his fans. Mandel cites examples of anti-Semitic outbursts that would have seemed appropriate for the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda. This may underscore a difficulty that besets the ruling class: to keep its hateful mobs behind it, it trades in hate. This is entirely obvious in the way Critical Race Theory is designed to denigrate an entire race, which has nothing to do with traditional Marxism.

Paul Gottfried

Paul Gottfried is editor in chief of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. He is also the Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years, a Guggenheim recipient, and a Yale Ph.D. He is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents.

Source: Chronicles




The New Censorship in American Higher Ed: Insights from Portland State

A new wave of censorship has arisen in the United States propelled by the January 2021 Capitol Riot and building upon “anti-racism” activism that arose in the Summer of 2020. In higher education, this has taken the form of new policies to limit criticism of various critical and Woke studies programs, as well as efforts to curtail academic freedom for faculty, teaching, and research deemed “racist.” Join us on May 6th at 1 pm ET as NAS board member and Oregon chapter head Dr. Bruce Gilley, Portland State University colleague Dr. Peter Boghossian, and Oregon Senator Dennis Linthicum discuss a new Oregon Association of Scholars report and accompanying video entitled “The New Censorship in American Higher Education: Insights from Portland State University.”

Source: National Association of Scholars




Combatting Social Justice Rhetoric: A Cheat Sheet for Policy Makers

Source: National Association of Scholars

Save the above graphic and arm every American you can with it! The most diabolical thing about CRT and Marxism is that they are manipulating our language in a way where their sick and twisted, anti-white racist views cannot be challenged without you looking like the racist instead of the true racists………..The ones pushing CRT!

You have to learn to defeat their illogical logic!

Critical Race Theory is antithetical to American and Christian values
The actual “Racist” is the person calling other people racists 99.9% of the time!