Author Archives: theartfuldilettante
Stupid is as Stupid Votes
If congressional resolutions had a voice, House Bill 1 (HB1), at 30 pounds a considerably obese tome, would let slip the parts usually kept at bay from the electorate. The For the People Act of 2021 is the antonymic title for the most openly unconstitutional and unpopular piece of legislation ever to pass muster in the House of Representatives. It is intended to destroy the process of fair elections in America, turn the watchdog Federal Election Commission into a partisan body, and forestall any state challenges by remanding them to the activist 9th District Court for the District of Columbia.
Passed by the 117th House on March 3, 2021, all 800-plus pages of HB1, redesignated Senate Bill 1 (SB1), made a hard landing in the well of the Senate on St. Patrick’s Day, where it is now being reviewed in hearings before the Committee on Rules and Administration. So long as the Republicans hang tough, it gridlocks and falls upon the sword of the filibuster.
During the Trump presidency, there were five Republican wings within the House and Senate, ranging from those loyal to Trumpism, such as Jordan and Gaetz, to the most Trump-skeptical, Murkowski, Collins, and Romney. Diverse allegiances and stylistic differences with the chief executive encouraged bickering, internecine rivalries, and splintering on issues that demanded consensus. Cloistering in blocs and factions kept them from uniting in the interest of their constituents.
Since the Dems assumed control of the three branches, the Constitution has been repeatedly annotated by presidential executive orders. Paper-thin congressional majorities are breaking the back of the Treasury and indenturing generations through the process of budget reconciliation. The extremism of the Biden regime now appears to have accomplished that which the Trump presidency could not — unanimity among Republicans and an opportunity to repatriate the working class.
In a refreshing turn of events, Chuck Schumer is now the majority leader suffering dissension within his own ranks. Obstructing the partisan path to passage of SB1 are two Democrat holdouts, Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema. Both senators have vowed that they will not cast their lot behind any motion or process that will erode the filibuster or stonewall debate.
The 2016 election of Trump confirmed a decades-long trend and bared an Achilles Heel for the Democrats. The Dems have slowly isolated and have eventually dispossessed their blue-collar base, installing a loyal corporatocracy in its place. These boardroom types with Ivy League pedigrees are all in with the Machiavellian maneuvers of the Democrat regime, throwing bags of money at their campaigns, conspiring to influence election outcomes, and imposing woke practices on their employees and customers in the hope of dodging boycotts, disapproving media, and rabid street militias.
Energized Republican voters returned to the ballot box with a vengeance in 2020, including increased support from Black and Hispanic voters. Simple mathematics exposed incidents of massive fraud in swing states, yet legal challenges to the count were brushed aside by the high courts, ignoring the merits and evidence in plain view. For Republicans and their constituents, it was a familiar obstructive pattern. With Democrats holding a two to one advantage in appointed judges in the most influential federal court districts, Trump administration initiatives concerning immigration, health care, sanctuary cities, and the census, were stopped in their tracks in seventy different rulings over four years.
If the cabal succeeded in handing number 45 his hat, it couldn’t conceal a 2020 red wave that nearly overtook the Congress and gave rise to an angered voter base who believed themselves and their vote ill-treated. As the Biden administration continues to spend money willy-nilly with an economically destructive and globalist wish list driven by Sanders’ Marxists, Republican chances are looking better and better to take back the House in 2022.
If the cabal succeeded in handing number 45 his hat, it couldn’t conceal a 2020 red wave that nearly overtook the Congress and gave rise to an angered voter base who believed themselves and their vote ill-treated. As the Biden administration continues to spend money willy-nilly with an economically destructive and globalist wish list driven by Sanders’ Marxists, Republican chances are looking better and better to take back the House in 2022.
Democrats have placed their stock in SB1 as the only means to avoid the upcoming rout. Without SB1, the current landscape of American elections could do much harm to their party. Moreover, there is a trend in key states like Pennsylvania, Arizona, New York, and Georgia to come to grips with fraud by patching up the holes in loose voter practices in time for the next general election.
At present, thirty-two states, excluding the territorial possessions, still require photo or non-photo identification. Of the eighteen states that don’t require identification, eight are controlled entirely by Democrat executives and legislatures. Six states split party control of the executive and legislature, and four others have a Republican triumvirate.
For the Democrats, thirty-two voter ID states and ten others under split-party or Republican control leaves far too much to chance, not only in a presidential election cycle, but in the state congressional races more specifically. Asserting federal control over state elections via SB1 hedges the bet that Democrats running against odds-on Republican favorites in red or purple states will be able to mount challenges and gain victories through fraud-prone practices such as mail-in voting, ballot harvesting, and extended voting deadlines that allow collections and counts to continue until Democrat candidates prevail. Increasing Democrat margins in the states also assures less pushback or secession from Biden executive actions and regulatory controls that diminish constitutional protections.
Democrats rally around the idea that requiring identification invites voter suppression in that otherwise eligible minority voters do not possess drivers licenses, personally-addressed correspondence, or other free and available forms of government identification. It also presumes that they also don’t drive cars, fly in airplanes, open bank accounts, serve on juries, obtain library cards, book hotels, possess credit cards, or get COVID vaccines. Such straw arguments also conveniently ignore the historic minority voter turnout in the 2020 presidential election.
The rest of the free world appears to exert more common sense in preserving the integrity of their national elections.
Throughout the COVID epidemic, the French continued to traipse to their city halls to vote, with access to sanitizers, social distancing, and sporting their own stylos for signing a registry that required personal identification. They saw no logic in shutting down in-person voting while food market patrons down the boulevards of Paris backed up in the chute to the cashier.
Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Austria, and Slovenia require photo IDs. So do Germany, Hungary, Canada, Israel, and Mexico. The entirety of the rest of Europe, throw in Iceland, all of Scandinavia, and the former Soviet states, the latter no strangers to past voter oppression and rigged elections, follow suit. George Soros, Hilary Clinton, and virtually every Congressional Democrat apparently believe that the world has it all wrong.
As written by Arthur Conan Doyle and stated by his protagonist, Sherlock Holmes, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. If you remove outright stupidity as a premise in the creation of SB1, you’re left with a nefarious intent to seize power in perpetuity.
In SB1, a free America is facing the Rubicon. For Republicans, this may be their finest hour. In unanimity they will prevail, as they now hold tight the cord upon which dangles a representative democracy.
Rick Fuentes, American Thinker
White American are Succumbing to Fierce Racial Attacks
Do white Americans have no will to resist their Demonization and Dehumanizatiom ?
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/02/14/americas-catastrophic-disintegration/
Death Camps on the Horizon
The New Untouchables
White Corporations Declare Election Integrity to be Racist
Western Man Now a Contradiction in Terms
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/03/25/the-feminization-of-western-man/
White Americans Are the Persecuted Untermensch
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/03/23/are-white-americans-privileged-or-persecuted/
White Liberals Resurrect Segregation As Black Privilege
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/519080-racial-segregation-progressives-white-supremacy/
White Americans Need to Realize that Their Enemies Are White Liberals, Not Russia and China
https://www.rt.com/usa/519611-virginia-school-race-theory/
https://www.rt.com/usa/520530-cdc-epidemic-racism-health/
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/520592-public-health-industry-medicalise-racism/
https://www.rt.com/usa/519206-california-city-low-income-white/
https://www.rt.com/usa/518873-evanston-black-reparations-first-city/
Paul Craig Roberts, UNZ Review
How the Nutjobs Took Over & the Best Way to Get Rid of Them
We’re told we can’t have police — not ANY police — because police are “systemically” racist. We’re told we can’t have guns because “guns kill people.” I’m still waiting to see how they enforce gun bans without police.
To say law and order is, by its nature, “systemically” racist means to claim that there’s a conspiracy. What’s the evidence for the conspiracy? None is given. Nor is there any apology for the lack of evidence. There’s only shaming. “If you don’t agree with me that everything is systemically racist, then this proves you are a racist. This makes you a monster, and likely a criminal.” In fact: “If you’re silent, that’s the same as disagreeing with me that there’s a conspiracy of racism. Your silence makes you a monster, and likely a criminal.”
That’s what passes for intellectual persuasion and discourse in America, in 2021. It’s beyond sickening. Talking about today’s society is like examining a corpse. Not just of a government — but an entire culture.
How did we get here? The insane idiots we today see in Congress and throughout the corporate world have been housed in universities for decades. Where do you think the insane idiots GOT their ideas? The insane idiots in academia played the long game. We laughed at their “political correctness” in the 1990s and early 2000s. Most of us said, “It will never happen here. They’ll never get out of the universities.” Well, they did. Their ideas did. Now they’re at your baseball games, they’re in your Coca Cola cans, they’re in your Nike products, they’re in your pancake syrup, they’re in your formerly beloved children’s books, they’re in all your movies and television shows. They’re at all of your kids’ schools, even most of the private ones. They’re in every election, which WILL go their way regardless, as we now know. They won the culture. They won the government, including the military. They got EVERYTHING in the divorce. It doesn’t matter how wrong they are, and it doesn’t matter if they’re the minority. They won, and they’re not letting their victories go. They’re tripling down on them.
Ideas have consequences. Ideas coming out of academia, from social scientists, sociologists, philosophers, feminist or racial studies gurus — these ideas do matter, no matter how insane they are. And if we let academia gain the upper hand, as we did, then eventually we get the psychological and cultural sewage that is today’s America.
Good ideas would be the cure. America was founded on brilliant, timeless ideas. Aristotle had brilliant, game changing ideas back in ancient Greece. More recently, Ayn Rand offered brilliant and transformative philosophical ideas, and pro-liberty thinkers such as Frederic Bastiant and economists Ludwig von Mises and Henry Hazlitt offer all of the solutions required to reverse course today. I am happy to provide any interested party with a reading list of good ideas.
But we’re going to have to shut down academia first. I don’t mean impose censorship. The left is already doing that, and will continue to do so. We must fight and defy their censorship. What we also have to do is 100 percent defund all colleges and universities. That will require these nutjobs running the culture to survive or flounder on their own. I know such a proposal has no chance of winning, at this point. But if you’re trying to figure out where to start, what to advocate, what to cheer for — defunding the evil nutjobs is the best place to start. Starve them of their funds. And watch what happens to them. I guarantee it will make a difference.
Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason
Ayn Rand on Immanuel Kant: Part I
The man who . . . closed the door of philosophy to reason, was Immanuel Kant. . . .
Kant’s expressly stated purpose was to save the morality of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice. He knew that it could not survive without a mystic base—and what it had to be saved from was reason.
Attila’s share of Kant’s universe includes this earth, physical reality, man’s senses, perceptions, reason and science, all of it labeled the “phenomenal” world. The Witch Doctor’s share is another, “higher,” reality, labeled the “noumenal” world, and a special manifestation, labeled the “categorical imperative,” which dictates to man the rules of morality and which makes itself known by means of a feeling, as a special sense of duty.
The “phenomenal” world, said Kant, is not real: reality, as perceived by man’s mind, is a distortion. The distorting mechanism is man’s conceptual faculty: man’s basic concepts (such as time, space, existence) are not derived from experience or reality, but come from an automatic system of filters in his consciousness (labeled “categories” and “forms of perception”) which impose their own design on his perception of the external world and make him incapable of perceiving it in any manner other than the one in which he does perceive it. This proves, said Kant, that man’s concepts are only a delusion, but a collective delusion which no one has the power to escape. Thus reason and science are “limited,” said Kant; they are valid only so long as they deal with this world, with a permanent, pre-determined collective delusion (and thus the criterion of reason’s validity was switched from the objective to the collective), but they are impotent to deal with the fundamental, metaphysical issues of existence, which belong to the “noumenal” world. The “noumenal” world is unknowable; it is the world of “real” reality, “superior” truth and “things in themselves” or “things as they are”—which means: things as they are not perceived by man.
Even apart from the fact that Kant’s theory of the “categories” as the source of man’s concepts was a preposterous invention, his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man’s consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such. His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them.
The Roadmap for the “Great Reset”
As far back as 1996, Mikhail Gorbachev laid bare the agenda driving climate alarmism: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” He was underscoring the importance of advancing Marxist objectives by creating an emergency to convince people they must surrender freedom to be safe. That idea has been parlayed over the decades into a global campaign of the Left to control vibrant economies, end individual freedom and national sovereignties, and impoverish the world. In America, it is being served up as the Green New Deal (GND).
Author Marc Morano exposes that elaborate con game in Green Fraud: Why the Green New Deal Is Even Worse Than You Think. Morano is a former senior staff member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and narrator of the film Climate Hustle. His book shows how the GND — which dovetails with the U.N.’s Agenda 21 — has nothing to do with “saving the planet” and is actually about “transforming modern America into a centrally planned and managed society and imposing an ideology that will rein in the freedoms of individual Americans.”
Like Gorbachev, GND champions admit as much. Morano quotes Saikat Chakrabarti, former chief of staff to debutant Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as saying, “We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” And he cites Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign aide Waleed Shahid explaining the GND as “a proposal to redistribute wealth and power from people on top to the people at the bottom.”
For an agenda so ambitious, the name ironically draws on FDR’s failed New Deal of the 1930s, a massive program that expanded the size and scope of the federal government to stimulate an economic recovery but ended up prolonging the Great Depression. The prognosis for the GND — which includes components like universal healthcare, guaranteed annual income, affordable housing, clear water and air projects, and special social and racial justice goals — is worse. Says David Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, “To reach zero net-carbon emissions in 10 years, the government would regulate and ultimately prohibit the use of affordable energy sources. This would trigger a massive decline in industrial productivity and result in mass layoffs.”
Morano attacks the misconception that CO2 levels are rising, explaining how they are in fact among the lowest now in Earth’s history, and debunks the idea that it is the “control knob” of the climate. He notes how land use, volcanoes, wind oscillations, ocean cycles, solar activity, the Earth’s tilt, and multifarious other factors impact climate, adding up to much more than the impact of CO2. He explains that the gas is a harmless and essential component of the atmosphere, a natural product of respiration. Climate scientist Anastasios Tsonis, a former distinguished professor emeritus of University of Wisconsin, is in agreement: “I’m a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science… Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one .aause
truth, the GND is an all-encompassing attack on capitalism, wealth creation, and freedom; it’s a vehicle for a “fundamental transformation” of our constitutional republic. The list of non-climate issues tagged on to so-called green goals is ludicrous: income inequality, racial wealth divide, gender earnings gap, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Ocasio-Cortez even believes 100% renewable energy will lead to “economic, social, and racial justice” in America. Meat-eating isn’t spared: the GND proposes to end meat-eating, in line with U.N. climate advisors’ suggestion that meat-eaters be ostracized like smokers and meat prices wildly inflated to discourage consumption. Why? Flatulent cows and sheep flood the atmosphere with climate-changing methane. To get to “net zero” emissions by 2050, GND proponents want to eliminate private vehicles, home ownership, and air travel; they also want to ban new roads, fossil fuel production, and nuclear power. These will be achieved through draconian taxes and regulations that advance the Left’s depopulation and deindustrialization agenda.
Shorn of environmental hysterics and the accompanying litany of socialist solutions — massive government intervention, population control, wealth redistribution, economic restructuring, and limits to national sovereignty — the GND is an onslaught on the very American spirit of freedom, innovation, and creativity that leads to prosperity. It’s well known that prosperous countries do a better job preserving the environment and providing efficient healthcare and cleaner air and water to their people.Shorn of environmental hysterics and the accompanying litany of socialist solutions — massive government intervention, population control, wealth redistribution, economic restructuring, and limits to national sovereignty — the GND is an onslaught on the very American spirit of freedom, innovation, and creativity that leads to prosperity. It’s well known that prosperous countries do a better job preserving the environment and providing efficient healthcare and cleaner air and water to their people.
In Green Fraud, Morano tallies the astronomical cost of the GND’s fossil fuel phase-out, predicated on the false premise that fossil fuels are a cost rather than a net benefit to society. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a libertarian think tank, phasing out fossil fuels and regulating how electricity is produced will cost the average household $75,000 annually. It will also result in steep economic depression and a massive increase in land use for no meaningful climate benefit. The institute calls the GND a “back-to-the-Dark-Ages manifesto” and has released a series of educational videos on the GND’s “heavy-handed regulations.”
Contrary to the GNP’s insistence on renewables, the world continues to run on fossil fuels. According to the Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 by BP Plc, oil, coal, and gas constitute 85% of the world’s energy consumption while wind and solar represent only 3%. This despite $50 billion in subsidies. Fans of wind and solar energy ignore the mining of rare earth minerals used in components, the toxic wastes produced, and that components — like windmill blades, which are buried upon scrapping — cannot be recycled. Solar panels create 200 times more waste than nuclear plants. To produce the same amount of energy, solar and wind farms require 300-400 times more land on average than a natural gas or nuclear plant. Manufacturing the rechargeable batteries used in electric vehicles requires the mining of huge amounts of cobalt, lithium, manganese, copper, and other minerals, resulting in massive environmental costs.
During the pandemic, climate activists and left-leaning celebrities celebrated the economic collapse and hoped it would result in an inflection point for the planet as the world came to a standstill. Some linked the coronavirus to climate change. Actress-turned-scientist Jane Fonda nonsensically ventured: “The melting of the Arctic sheet is releasing untold pathogens to which humans are not immune.” Lockdowns necessitated by the pandemic were viewed as a template for the GND. Klaus Schwab, chairman and founder of the World Economic Forum, gleefully contemplated how COVID lockdowns could morph into climate lockdowns.
These might seem like over-the-top instances of Lysenkoism at work — the willful distortion of science to serve a political purpose. But the ‘woke’ Left has long been utilizing environmentalism to advance its agenda, insidiously linking climate issues to race, identity, gender, and whatnot. Unfortunately, fashionable ‘wokeness’ is gaining traction. NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel thinks “climate justice and racial justice are the same thing, and we’ll never head off climate catastrophe without dismantling white supremacy.” U.N. delegates came up with a Gender Action Plan based on observations that climate change “exacerbates existing gender inequality.”
Morano final statement on saving America and the world from a crew of anarchists and radicals says it all: “The way forward is already clear. Improving technologies, expanding energy access, and growing economies in the developing world are already improving the environment in the United States and across the world more than any Green New Deal, UN treaty, or carbon (dioxide) taxes ever conceivably could.”
We must halt the GND and curtail this leftist madness. Or we will lose the world’s greatest experiment in liberty. We will lose America and what it stands for.
truth, the GND is an all-encompassing attack on capitalism, wealth creation, and freedom; it’s a vehicle for a “fundamental transformation” of our constitutional republic. The list of non-climate issues tagged on to so-called green goals is ludicrous: income inequality, racial wealth divide, gender earnings gap, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Ocasio-Cortez even believes 100% renewable energy will lead to “economic, social, and racial justice” in America. Meat-eating isn’t spared: the GND proposes to end meat-eating, in line with U.N. climate advisors’ suggestion that meat-eaters be ostracized like smokers and meat prices wildly inflated to discourage consumption. Why? Flatulent cows and sheep flood the atmosphere with climate-changing methane. To get to “net zero” emissions by 2050, GND proponents want to eliminate private vehicles, home ownership, and air travel; they also want to ban new roads, fossil fuel production, and nuclear power. These will be achieved through draconian taxes and regulations that advance the Left’s depopulation and deindustrialization agenda.
Shorn of environmental hysterics and the accompanying litany of socialist solutions — massive government intervention, population control, wealth redistribution, economic restructuring, and limits to national sovereignty — the GND is an onslaught on the very American spirit of freedom, innovation, and creativity that leads to prosperity. It’s well known that prosperous countries do a better job preserving the environment and providing efficient healthcare and cleaner air and water to their people.Shorn of environmental hysterics and the accompanying litany of socialist solutions — massive government intervention, population control, wealth redistribution, economic restructuring, and limits to national sovereignty — the GND is an onslaught on the very American spirit of freedom, innovation, and creativity that leads to prosperity. It’s well known that prosperous countries do a better job preserving the environment and providing efficient healthcare and cleaner air and water to their people.Shorn of environmental hysterics and the accompanying litany of socialist solutions — massive government intervention, population control, wealth redistribution, economic restructuring, and limits to national sovereignty — the GND is an onslaught on the very American spirit of freedom, innovation, and creativity that leads to prosperity. It’s well known that prosperous countries do a better job preserving the environment and providing efficient healthcare and cleaner air and water to their people.
In Green Fraud, Morano tallies the astronomical cost of the GND’s fossil fuel phase-out, predicated on the false premise that fossil fuels are a cost rather than a net benefit to society. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a libertarian think tank, phasing out fossil fuels and regulating how electricity is produced will cost the average household $75,000 annually. It will also result in steep economic depression and a massive increase in land use for no meaningful climate benefit. The institute calls the GND a “back-to-the-Dark-Ages manifesto” and has released a series of educational videos on the GND’s “heavy-handed regulations.”
Contrary to the GNP’s insistence on renewables, the world continues to run on fossil fuels. According to the Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 by BP Plc, oil, coal, and gas constitute 85% of the world’s energy consumption while wind and solar represent only 3%. This despite $50 billion in subsidies. Fans of wind and solar energy ignore the mining of rare earth minerals used in components, the toxic wastes produced, and that components — like windmill blades, which are buried upon scrapping — cannot be recycled. Solar panels create 200 times more waste than nuclear plants. To produce the same amount of energy, solar and wind farms require 300-400 times more land on average than a natural gas or nuclear plant. Manufacturing the rechargeable batteries used in electric vehicles requires the mining of huge amounts of cobalt, lithium, manganese, copper, and other minerals, resulting in massive environmental costs.
During the pandemic, climate activists and left-leaning celebrities celebrated the economic collapse and hoped it would result in an inflection point for the planet as the world came to a standstill. Some linked the coronavirus to climate change. Actress-turned-scientist Jane Fonda nonsensically ventured: “The melting of the Arctic sheet is releasing untold pathogens to which humans are not immune.” Lockdowns necessitated by the pandemic were viewed as a template for the GND. Klaus Schwab, chairman and founder of the World Economic Forum, gleefully contemplated how COVID lockdowns could morph into climate lockdowns.
These might seem like over-the-top instances of Lysenkoism at work — the willful distortion of science to serve a political purpose. But the ‘woke’ Left has long been utilizing environmentalism to advance its agenda, insidiously linking climate issues to race, identity, gender, and whatnot. Unfortunately, fashionable ‘wokeness’ is gaining traction. NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel thinks “climate justice and racial justice are the same thing, and we’ll never head off climate catastrophe without dismantling white supremacy.” U.N. delegates came up with a Gender Action Plan based on observations that climate change “exacerbates existing gender inequality.”
Morano final statement on saving America and the world from a crew of anarchists and radicals says it all: “The way forward is already clear. Improving technologies, expanding energy access, and growing economies in the developing world are already improving the environment in the United States and across the world more than any Green New Deal, UN treaty, or carbon (dioxide) taxes ever conceivably could.”
We must halt the GND and curtail this leftist madness. Or we will lose the world’s greatest experiment in liberty. We will lose America and what it stands for.
Janet Levy
![]()
In truth, the GND is an all-encompassing attack on capitalism, wealth creation, and freedom; it’s a vehicle for a “fundamental transformation” of our constitutional republic. The list of non-climate issues tagged on to so-called green goals is ludicrous: income inequality, racial wealth divide, gender earnings gap, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Ocasio-Cortez even believes 100% renewable energy will lead to “economic, social, and racial justice” in America. Meat-eating isn’t spared: the GND proposes to end meat-eating, in line with U.N. climate advisors’ suggestion that meat-eaters be ostracized like smokers and meat prices wildly inflated to discourage consumption. Why? Flatulent cows and sheep flood the atmosphere with climate-changing methane. To get to “net zero” emissions by 2050, GND proponents want to eliminate private vehicles, home ownership, and air travel; they also want to ban new roads, fossil fuel production, and nuclear power. These will be achieved through draconian taxes and regulations that advance the Left’s depopulation and deindustrialization agenda.
Shorn of environmental hysterics and the accompanying litany of socialist solutions — massive government intervention, population control, wealth redistribution, economic restructuring, and limits to national sovereignty — the GND is an onslaught on the very American spirit of freedom, innovation, and creativity that leads to prosperity. It’s well known that prosperous countries do a better job preserving the environment and providing efficient healthcare and cleaner air and water to their people.
Shorn of environmental hysterics and the accompanying litany of socialist solutions — massive government intervention, population control, wealth redistribution, economic restructuring, and limits to national sovereignty — the GND is an onslaught on the very American spirit of freedom, innovation, and creativity that leads to prosperity. It’s well known that prosperous countries do a better job preserving the environment and providing efficient healthcare and cleaner air and water to their people.Shorn of environmental hysterics and the accompanying litany of socialist solutions — massive government intervention, population control, wealth redistribution, economic restructuring, and limits to national sovereignty — the GND is an onslaught on the very American spirit of freedom, innovation, and creativity that leads to prosperity. It’s well known that prosperous countries do a better job preserving the environment and providing efficient healthcare and cleaner air and water to their people.Shorn of environmental hysterics and the accompanying litany of socialist solutions — massive government intervention, population control, wealth redistribution, economic restructuring, and limits to national sovereignty — the GND is an onslaught on the very American spirit of freedom, innovation, and creativity that leads to prosperity. It’s well known that prosperous countries do a better job preserving the environment and providing efficient healthcare and cleaner air and water to their people.Shorn of environmental hysterics and the accompanying litany of socialist solutions — massive government intervention, population control, wealth redistribution, economic restructuring, and limits to national sovereignty — the GND is an onslaught on the very American spirit of freedom, innovation, and creativity that leads to prosperity. It’s well known that prosperous countries do a better job preserving the environment and providing efficient healthcare and cleaner air and water to their people.
In Green Fraud, Morano tallies the astronomical cost of the GND’s fossil fuel phase-out, predicated on the false premise that fossil fuels are a cost rather than a net benefit to society. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a libertarian think tank, phasing out fossil fuels and regulating how electricity is produced will cost the average household $75,000 annually. It will also result in steep economic depression and a massive increase in land use for no meaningful climate benefit. The institute calls the GND a “back-to-the-Dark-Ages manifesto” and has released a series of educational videos on the GND’s “heavy-handed regulations.”
Contrary to the GNP’s insistence on renewables, the world continues to run on fossil fuels. According to the Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 by BP Plc, oil, coal, and gas constitute 85% of the world’s energy consumption while wind and solar represent only 3%. This despite $50 billion in subsidies. Fans of wind and solar energy ignore the mining of rare earth minerals used in components, the toxic wastes produced, and that components — like windmill blades, which are buried upon scrapping — cannot be recycled. Solar panels create 200 times more waste than nuclear plants. To produce the same amount of energy, solar and wind farms require 300-400 times more land on average than a natural gas or nuclear plant. Manufacturing the rechargeable batteries used in electric vehicles requires the mining of huge amounts of cobalt, lithium, manganese, copper, and other minerals, resulting in massive environmental costs.
During the pandemic, climate activists and left-leaning celebrities celebrated the economic collapse and hoped it would result in an inflection point for the planet as the world came to a standstill. Some linked the coronavirus to climate change. Actress-turned-scientist Jane Fonda nonsensically ventured: “The melting of the Arctic sheet is releasing untold pathogens to which humans are not immune.” Lockdowns necessitated by the pandemic were viewed as a template for the GND. Klaus Schwab, chairman and founder of the World Economic Forum, gleefully contemplated how COVID lockdowns could morph into climate lockdowns.
These might seem like over-the-top instances of Lysenkoism at work — the willful distortion of science to serve a political purpose. But the ‘woke’ Left has long been utilizing environmentalism to advance its agenda, insidiously linking climate issues to race, identity, gender, and whatnot. Unfortunately, fashionable ‘wokeness’ is gaining traction. NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel thinks “climate justice and racial justice are the same thing, and we’ll never head off climate catastrophe without dismantling white supremacy.” U.N. delegates came up with a Gender Action Plan based on observations that climate change “exacerbates existing gender inequality.”
Morano final statement on saving America and the world from a crew of anarchists and radicals says it all: “The way forward is already clear. Improving technologies, expanding energy access, and growing economies in the developing world are already improving the environment in the United States and across the world more than any Green New Deal, UN treaty, or carbon (dioxide) taxes ever conceivably could.”
We must halt the GND and curtail this leftist madness. Or we will lose the world’s greatest experiment in liberty. We will lose America and what it stands for.
Image: Regnery Publishng
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.
If you would like to comment on this or any other American Thinker article or post, we invite you to visit the American Thinker Forum at MeWe. There, you can converse with other American Thinker readers and comment freely (subject to MeWe’s terms of use). The Forum will be fully populated and ready for comments by midday (Eastern time) each day.
Help Support American Thinker
In today’s climate of political correctness and economic uncertainty, ad revenue only goes so far to keep an independent voice like AmericanThinker.com going. If you enjoy our articles, please consider supporting us with a direct contribution of as much or as little as you can give. Your donation will ensure that we continue to bring great pieces from our outstanding columnists.
Thank you.
RECOMMENDED
RECOMMENDED
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- The Roadmap for the ‘Great Reset’
- Dark, Cold Years Are Coming, So You’d Better Get Ready
- The Filibuster Gets the Lib-Dem Race Card Play
- How the Obama Crew Makes Things Worse
- When HR1 Passes, We’ll Need a Fair Elections Amendment
- Does Woke Intersectionality Require Individual Rights?
- The Mendacity of Joe Biden and the Ruling Elites
- US Supreme Court: Gun Licensing Fees Are Unconstitutional
- Fixing Racism by Being Racist?
- The Liberal Race To Vaccinate
Blog Posts
- Jen Psaki has conservatives pinned down pat: NASCAR fans
- CNN’s Jim Acosta takes virtue-signaling to a whole new level
- In Minnesota, attacks on police are escalating in ugly ways
- Due process is no more in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
- Tucker’s magnificent statement about Democrats disenfranchising Americans
- The host has terminated your participation in this forum
- What it will look like for us if history repeats itself
- Another black eye for the police…but is it justified?
- Popular delusions: shades of past follies
- The spring of stupid mistakes
- Why schools matter
- Photo-colorizer gives smiles to the Khmer Rouge’s victims
- The woke corporations are coming for election integrity
- When 2 + 2 = 4,000, we might just be in trouble
- I am a ‘2020 Doubter’
Monthly Archives
If Rioting and Looting are 24/7, How do They make Their Point ?
People riot and loot to make a point. Whatever you think of their “points” or tactics, this is their claim. “We’re protesting racism. We’re protesting income inequality.” In order to make a point, rioting and looting cannot become a 24/7, everyday event. If rioting is the norm, and not the exception, then what are we to think? So my question for woke supporters: If looting and rioting are NEVER, EVER going to stop, and are to become a permanent part of human “civilization” — then what the hell is your point?
Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason
The Vanishing Hong Kong…China’s Latest Casualty
Over the past nine months, China’s Communist Party rulers in Beijing have launched a wholesale transformation of nearly every aspect of life in this prosperous territory – in the schools, the courts, the civil service, the media, the elected legislature, and even the relatively powerless local neighborhood councils. Only the local business community has been largely spared – but not untouched – by the changes.
As a result, in less than a year, this once freewheeling city known for its frenetic energy, lively debates, rambunctious local media, and long tradition of street protests has become hardly recognizable. This longtime British colony which once embodied the perfect blend of East and West now resembles every other sprawling megacity on the Chinese mainland, marked by soaring skyscrapers and impressive infrastructure, but stifled by repression and fear.
The vehicle for Hong Kong’s rapid transformation is the new draconian national security law (“NSL”) imposed by Beijing and handed down last year. Hong Kong’s China-appointed local government was supposed to draft and implement its own version of the national security law immediately after the ’97 handover, but successive leaders repeatedly demurred in the face of intense local opposition.
Finally, Beijing’s leaders decided to step in and do it themselves. The proximate cause was a series of large-scale and often violent anti-government protests that erupted here in June 2019 and continued unabated for the next seven months, until the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic early last year brought a ban on all public gatherings.
The demonstrations were sparked when the city’s Beijing-appointed administrator, called “Chief Executive,” Carrie Lam, introduced an ill-conceived criminal extradition bill that would have allowed suspects arrested in Hong Kong to be shipped over the border to stand trial in China’s opaque and unjust legal system. In the face of government intransigence and increasingly brutal police tactics, the demonstrations soon morphed into a broader movement that began to challenge China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong.
The 2019 protests saw unprecedented scenes of masked, black-clad demonstrators armed with rocks, slingshots, Molotov cocktails, and even bows and arrows battling riot police who fired tens of thousands of rounds of tear gas, water from a spray cannon, rubber bullets, and live ammunition. High-end shopping malls, subway stations, university campuses, and even the upscale financial district of Central came to resemble a single fluid and shifting battle zone. Thousands were arrested under the charge of “rioting,” which carries a lengthy prison term.
At first, China’s Communist leaders tried to ignore the protests. In the early days, there was almost no mention of the riots made in the tightly controlled, heavily censored state-run media. When stories eventually did begin to appear, it was almost always to depict the demonstrators as a small band of “rioters.” But when protesters attacked the Beijing central government’s main office in Hong Kong and provocatively defaced the Chinese emblem with black paint, defiantly tossed the Chinese flag into the harbor, and began targeting China-affiliated banks and mainland-owned restaurants, authorities in Beijing decided enough was enough… And the result is the new NSL.
The national security law is actually somewhat a misnomer. The new law is much more an Internal Security Act of the kind commonly used in Britain’s other former colonies like Malaysia and Singapore, which is aimed at crushing internal dissent, not deterring an attack from abroad. China’s version of the law, imposed on Hong Kong with no local input or debate, defines four broad categories of offenses: terrorism, secession, subversion, and collusion with foreign forces. Those sweeping categories are left deliberately vague, meaning the NSL can proscribe virtually anything police, prosecutors, or the Chinese government wants it to.
Under the law, singing “Glory to Hong Kong,” the anthem of the 2019 protest movement, or chanting the movement’s slogan, “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Time,” can now be deemed a national security offense. Carrying a banner, wearing a T-shirt, or posting a social media text advocating Hong Kong independence can lead to arrest and a lifetime prison sentence. Under the new law, inciting hatred against the local government, the Communist authorities in Beijing, or against the Hong Kong police is now a national security crime.
The law is so broadly written that even criticizing the NSL itself is a crime against national security.
Keith Richburg
How Will Decolonizing the Curriculum Help the Poor and Dispossessed?
February 8th, 2021, the Students of Color Liberation Front at the University of Michigan made a series of anti-racist demands, including a call to “Decolonize the University of Michigan’s pedagogies and campus broadly.” This is a recent manifestation of the “decolonize the university” movement, which has been making similar demands over the past few years at most Western academic institutions. The movement has called for universities to decolonize curricula and math, to privilege “other ways of knowing,” and to #DisruptTexts from the Western canon, among other demands. The Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford (RMFO) campaign explains that decolonization aims to “remedy the highly selective narrative of traditional academia—which frames the West as sole producers of universal knowledge—by integrating subjugated and local epistemologies” thereby creating “a more intellectually rigorous, complete academy.”
Demands for decolonized epistemology stem from legitimate grievances about colonial era atrocities. Some activists propose helpful suggestions for improving access to higher education for students in the global South, especially in STEM fields. For example, in Decolonise the University (2018), Pat Lockley promotes open access resources, including courses, publishing, data, lab, scholarship programs, and research exchanges. In the same volume, William Jamal Richardson makes an excellent case for an increased focus on “undone science”—areas of research “identified by social movements and other civil society organizations as having potentially broad social benefit.”
However, everyone should be deeply concerned about the serious damage to knowledge advancement that will occur if activists accomplish their goal to decolonize the epistemological foundation of science. During the 2016 #FeesMustFall protests at the University of Cape Town, a #ScienceMustFall activist explained her views on decolonizing science. A video was taken, which Emeritus Professor Tim Crowe analyzed in detail. The activist “derided science as enshrined unshakable ‘truth’ developed and driven as ‘Western modality.’” Therefore, “the whole thing should be scratched off” and replaced with an Afrocentric science.
This is a total misrepresentation of science, which doesn’t assert unshakable truths, but provisional ones; and which doesn’t belong to the West, but to the world. Science is a method for inquiry—guided by intellectual humility, skepticism, careful observation, questioning, hypothesis formulation, prediction, and experimentation—that is open to everyone, that aims to advance knowledge and improve the lives of all. While indigenous epistemologies are certainly worthy of study, and valuable in their own right, such epistemologies should not be promoted as superior to, or as a replacement for, Enlightenment epistemologies. This is not least because Enlightenment thinkers—most notably the founder of modern science Francis Bacon—articulated the intellectual foundation for extremely rapid improvements in global living standards.
The intellectual genealogy of decolonization demands
Why has decolonization become an increasingly popular rallying cry for social justice activists? The framework for decolonization demands stems from Critical Theory, specifically postcolonial and postmodern feminist critiques of the Enlightenment. During the “Science Wars” of the 1990s, between scientific realists and postmodernists, Sandra Harding, Carolyn Merchant, and Evelyn Fox Keller condemned Francis Bacon for what they deemed misogynistic sexual metaphors. Although they could have critiqued Bacon’s writing and left it at that, these feminists went much further, arguing that misogyny is at the heart of modern science. In 1995, Alan Soble made a convincing case that postmodern feminist readings of Bacon are based on misquotations, passages taken out of context, projection, and scholarly uncharitability. I would add that these critiques are wholly contingent upon the technological advancements produced by applying the epistemology advocated for by thinkers like Bacon. Imagine the short-sightedness of encountering a metaphor you dislike in a 17th century philosophical treatise, then proclaiming that the entire epistemological basis of modern civilization is inherently flawed—all while typing on a computer powered by reliable electricity, in a stable country, where you’ve never gone hungry.
Students promoting the decolonize the university movement make some reasonable demands, among them the integration of more Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) authors in the curriculum and hiring more BIPOC faculty members. However, the activists also make a more radical demand: epistemology itself must be decolonized by becoming decentered from the European Enlightenment tradition. In the introduction to Decolonising the University, the editors call for completely restructuring the knowledge systems of Western universities because, within them, “colonial intellectuals developed theories of racism, popularised discourses that bolstered support for colonial endeavours and provided ethical and intellectual grounds for the dispossession, oppression and domination of colonised subjects” (p.5). The editors do not mention that many Western universities were founded several centuries before European colonization began, including the universities of Bologna (1088), Oxford (1096), Salamanca (1134), Paris (1257), and Cambridge (1209), to name a few.
Lest one observe that the colonial period has passed, the editors assert that Western universities continue to “reproduce and justify colonial hierarchies” (p.6). But is providing intellectual grounds for colonialism all that Western universities have done, even now? The Decolonising the University scholar-activists think so. Rosalba Icaza and Rolando Vázquez assert that “movements to decolonise the university are fighting the ‘arrogant ignorance’ that is produced by a system of knowledge that is Eurocentric.” Western epistemology, they argue, claims to have “universal validity, while remaining oblivious to the epistemic diversity of the world” (p.112).
Similarly, Dalia Gebrial attacks the Enlightenment for having “forged and reproduced modalities of colonial thinking,” and for “racialising” the “values of reason and objective knowledge pursuit as white and European” (pp.27-8). Gebrial takes issue with how “the Enlightenment is geographically mapped as a self-contained, European project, rather than constituted through and alongside imperialism and slavery.” Gebrial, however, is silent on the question of whether non-Western empires that engaged in imperialism and slavery (for example, Barbary enslavement of Europeans) also have inherently flawed epistemologies that require decolonization. Neither Gebrial, nor any of the other Decolonising the University authors, mention that an estimated 40.3 million people are enslaved now.
Moreover, the scholar-activists mention only one instance of non-Western colonialism: the “profound impact of Japanese imperialism and Japan’s history of fascism” (p.72). However, they do not call for the decolonization of Japanese epistemology and universities. The contributors are also silent about Chinese territorial expansion, which has affected East Asia for the past four thousand years; the volume does not call for the decolonization of Chinese epistemology. Nor do they state that universities in the many regions colonized by the Ottoman Empire must be decolonized. And these are just a few examples of a much longer list of non-Western regions that have engaged in colonialism.
While some Western thinkers within universities did indeed justify colonialism, the implication that all Western universities, and their epistemological foundations, can be characterized as colonial enablers of dispossession, oppression, and domination, is a radical oversimplification.
Moreover, the assertion that the epistemology of Western universities is entirely a product of Western hegemony is an insult to every non-Western person who has contributed to knowledge production within Western universities. Decolonization activists demonize the Enlightenment, creating straw man arguments, which they propose to solve with “decolonial epistemology.” But what is decolonial epistemology? Although scholar-activists make a variety of recommendations, they all share similarities. I will address one proposal as a representative sample.
Decolonial epistemology and a recuperation of Francis Bacon
Decolonial activists, in their understandable anger over Western colonial injustices—provoked by Critical Theorist scholar-activists—are unlikely to read Francis Bacon. He can be dismissed as “pale, male (and often stale),” per the Decolonising the University’s editors’ formulation. Yet, decolonization activists might be surprised to find that Bacon makes strong arguments for much of what they demand. In Decolonising the University, Icaza and Vázquez identify three aspects of decolonial epistemology: positionality, relationality, and transitionality. Epistemic practices of positionality reject Enlightenment epistemology, which they characterize as a “closed form” of expertise that presents itself as “ahistorical and universally valid.” By contrast, positionality, an “open” form of expertise, is a “humble” approach in which researchers make the “location of their knowledge an integral part of their doing” (p.119).
In The Great Instauration (1620), one of the most important works of the Enlightenment, Bacon identified humility as his most important virtue: “Wherein if I have made any progress, the way has been opened to me by no other means than the true and legitimate humiliation of the human spirit.” Operating from a position of radical skepticism, Bacon maintained that the information we gather from our senses is a positioned knowledge, unique to the individual observer and not universal: “the testimony and information of the senses bears always a relation to man and not to the universe, and it is altogether a great mistake to assert that our senses are the measure of things.”
Because of these sensory limitations, Bacon recommended a process that we now call the scientific method. This process, which is open to everyone, relies on experimenters publishing their methods so that others can identify errors and correct them. Bacon made it clear that any “phantoms”—a metaphor for unfalsifiable hypotheses—must be rejected:
In every new and rather delicate experiment, although to us it may appear sure and satisfactory, we yet publish the method we employed, that, by the discovery of every attendant circumstance, men may perceive the possibly latent and inherent errors, and be roused to proofs of a more certain and exact nature, if such there be. Lastly, we intersperse the whole with advice, doubts, and cautions, casting out and restraining, as it were, all phantoms by a sacred ceremony and exorcism.
In addition to his cautions about experiments, Bacon urged vigilance about the purpose of knowledge: “we would in general admonish all to consider the true ends of knowledge, and not to seek it for the gratifications of their minds, or for disputation, or that they may despise others, or for emolument, or fame, or power, or such low objeets, but for its intrinsic merit and the purposes of life, and that they would perfect and regulate it by charity.” Bacon’s rejection of self-gratification, hate, fame, and power might gain the approval of 21st century decolonization activists.
Icaza and Vázquez’s second epistemological change, “relationality,” dismisses Enlightenment pedagogy as “authoritarian” and “one-directional.” In contrast, their proposed relational approach “is one in which the diverse backgrounds and the geo-historical positioning of the different participants in the classroom are rendered valuable” (120). This description of Enlightenment epistemology and pedagogy as “authoritarian,” “one-directional,” and failing to value diverse participants is uncharitable, to say the least. Bacon was completely anti-authoritarian; his epistemology was an explicit rejection of the knowledge deemed authoritative at his time. As Bacon explained, “That wisdom which we have derived principally from the Greeks is but like the boyhood of knowledge.” His purpose was to “commence a total reconstruction of sciences, arts, and all human knowledge, raised upon the proper foundations.”
Rather than asserting his own authority or seeking to impose it on others in a one-directional manner, Bacon discussed how he depended on assistance from others to advance knowledge benefiting “the human race,” a phrase he used five times in the prefatory section alone. Bacon bemoaned his ignorance about knowledge advancement in different locations: “we are far from knowing all that in the matter of sciences and arts has in various ages and places been brought to light and published, much less all that has been by private persons secretly attempted and stirred.” Bacon highlighted how knowledge production is an open form of expertise that happens in diverse locations.
Icaza and Vázquez’s final proposed epistemological change, “transitionality,” rejects “the abstract position of knowledge” and enables “students to bridge the epistemic border between the classroom and society.” The “recognition of difference as enriching for teaching and learning” is connected to “knowledge that has been humbled” and “recognises its own limits” (120). Since transitionality is related to teaching, it is fortunate that Bacon explained his pedagogical philosophy:
And the same humility which I use in inventing I employ likewise in teaching. For I do not endeavor either by triumphs of confutation, or pleadings of antiquity, or assumption of authority, or even by the veil of obscurity, to invest these inventions of mine with any majesty; which might easily be done by one who sought to give luster to his own name rather than light to other men’s minds. I have not sought (I say) nor do I seek either to force or ensnare men’s judgments, but I lead them to things themselves and the concordances of things, that they may see for themselves what they have, what they can dispute, what they can add and contribute to the common stock.
Bacon did not articulate an abstract position of knowledge. Instead, he emphasized what decolonial activists call for: knowledge that humbly recognizes its own limits. Bacon urged his students to think for themselves and participate in knowledge production. His pedagogy valued other perspectives because he implored his students to dispute bad ideas and to contribute their own. Additionally, Bacon affirmed the relevance of knowledge beyond the classroom. He wrote that he sought the sciences “not arrogantly in the little cells of human wit, but with reverence in the greater world.”
What is to be done?
The path to progress is definitely not paved by destroying the epistemological framework bequeathed to us by the Enlightenment. Yet it is important to understand why many young people are more attracted to social justice-based decolonization demands than to Enlightenment era intellectual advancements. Social justice ideology appeals to young adults’ desire to establish their identity, independent from their parents, and an ideology that represents itself as subversive is compelling. Also, as young people become aware of injustices, they are understandably captivated by a movement that represents itself as the most righteous way to advocate for justice.
For these reasons, it is necessary to make Enlightenment ideas not merely palatable, but inspiring. Educators must respond to decolonization activists’ arguments, then explain why Enlightenment ideas are a better foundation for improving people’s lives all over the world. Philanthropists are needed to fund a movement that popularizes an informed understanding of Enlightenment era scientific and political advancements. This movement should use online platforms and its curricula should have students read influential Enlightenment thinkers, in their own words, not only misleading representations promulgated by Critical Theory scholar-activists, as they do now.
This movement should explain how Enlightenment ideas accelerated global knowledge advancement. It is important to center the voices of immigrants to Western countries who have been drawn to the West for its liberal values, and for the wealth generation and scientific advancements produced by Enlightenment epistemology. People should create video and written testimonies of immigrants discussing their experiences in their home countries—specifically the lack of Enlightenment principles—and why these principles are attractive because they have been shown to work.
It is also essential to underscore that demands for decolonization in Western universities are the product of affluence. What do you think that impoverished people in the global South care about more: decolonizing Western epistemology or increasing their prosperity? While indigenous people are probably proud of their epistemology, I would bet that the majority care more about meeting their material needs. Decolonization activists might consider how changing epistemology in Western universities will solve the main problems experienced by most people in the world, including extreme poverty, rampant political corruption, substandard infrastructure, inadequate police, and dysfunctional judicial systems. The political advancement of the Enlightenment, liberalism, provides a framework for solving these problems by establishing limited, republican government; enforcing the rule of law; and protecting individual rights and liberties, especially freedom of speech, so that people can have honest discussions about problems and work toward solutions—without descending into authoritarianism and violence.
People in the West must ensure that our educators teach the epistemology bequeathed to us by Enlightenment intellectuals so that we continue to advance and prosper. In the 17th century, Francis Bacon lamented people in his time who did little to improve knowledge, remarking that such people “made a passage for themselves and their own opinions by pulling down and demolishing former ones; and yet all their stir has but little advanced the matter, since their aim has been not to extend philosophy and the arts in substance and value, but only to change doctrines and transfer the kingdom of opinions to themselves.” This strikes me as the most precise description of decolonial activists that I have seen. Be forewarned: decolonization demands won’t stop at the university gates. As Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang state, decolonization is not a metaphor; it is a struggle over dispossession, the repatriation of indigenous land, and the seizing of imperial wealth. If you have any European heritage, the activists will soon demand that you be decolonized, too.
Samantha Jones is a pseudonym for a dissident Women’s Studies PhD. Her writing has also appeared in New Discourses.
White America Is Succumbing to Fierce Racial Attack on White Americans
White Americans Have No Will to Resist Their Demonization and Dehumanization?
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/02/14/americas-catastrophic-disintegration/
Death Camps on the Horizon
The New Untouchables
White Corporations Declare Election Integrity to be Racist
Western Man Now a Contradiction in Terms
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/03/25/the-feminization-of-western-man/
White Americans Are the Persecuted Untermensch
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/03/23/are-white-americans-privileged-or-persecuted/
White Liberals Resurrect Segregation As Black Privilege
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/519080-racial-segregation-progressives-white-supremacy/
White Americans Need to Realize that Their Enemies Are White Liberals, Not Russia and China
https://www.rt.com/usa/519611-virginia-school-race-theory/
https://www.rt.com/usa/520530-cdc-epidemic-racism-health/
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/520592-public-health-industry-medicalise-racism/
https://www.rt.com/usa/519206-california-city-low-income-white/
https://www.rt.com/usa/518873-evanston-black-reparations-first-city/
Paul Craig Roberts, UNZ Review












