A Political Correctness Primer

A Political Correctness Primer

Ideology, Implementation and Influence



Richard H. Mann, PhD



Table of Contents






Chapter 1 – Historical Background














Chapter 2 – Implementation of Political Correctness










Sample PC-Egalitarian beliefs

Sample PC-Authoritarian beliefs




Chapter 3 – Critique of Politically Correct Concepts







Collectivism and Tribalism

Identity Politics and Intersectionality


White Supremacy, White Privilege

Leftist Policies that Harm Blacks

White Guilt and Black Protests

Rational Discrimination

Black Conservatives are not Victims


Feminism Creation Myth

Feminism on Campus

Victim Mentality Disorder

Intersectionality in Feminism

Non-indictment of Oppression of Muslim Women








Safe Spaces

Trigger Warnings





Price’s Law and the Pareto Distribution





Chapter 4 – Critique of Politically Correct Activity





Leftist Research Funded by Leftist Money

Lack of Academic Freedom on University Campus









Agenda 21

Agenda 2030




Diana West from American Betrayal to Red Thread

Vladimir Bukovsky and the Failure to Prosecute the Soviet Regime

Chapter 5 – Political Correctness in Real-Life Scenarios









Male and Female

Gender Identity Pathology

What is needed?



Chapter 6 – Conclusions














Social Justice at work

Social Justice Warriors in action (warning – language)

Pessimistic summary



Lindsay Shepherd Inquisition at Wilfrid Laurier University

Jordan Peterson and two Wilfrid Laurier Professors

Lawsuits against the University – June 2018



A Thorough Exploration of Peterson and Christianity

Other viewpoints

Summary Thoughts on Jordan Peterson and Christianity




Dinesh D’Souza and “The Big Lie” – History of Fascism

Other Commentary on Contemporary Fascism

Pre-WWII Fascist Footage in Germany and Italy

Contemporary Fascists in Action – Attempts to Suppress Free Speech


Articles Dealing with Various Aspects of Transgender ideology

Videos Outlining of Problems with Transgender Ideology:

Speeches and Forums dealing with Gender Dysphoria:

Ravi Zacharias – Christian Perspective

Videos prepared in 2015 by Joseph Backholm, Director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington:



Prager U Videos

Brief Jordan Peterson videos on Capitalism

Additional videos on Capitalism








Videos featuring Greenpeace co-Founder Patrick Moore

Other Voices


Brief summaries of Agenda 21 and 2030

View from the proponents of Agenda 21 and 2030

Pushing back on Agenda 21 and 2030

Longer presentations on Agenda 21 and 2030

Out on the road — evidence of Agenda 21

Informative podcasts concerning Agenda 21 and 2030




 A Political Correctness Primer provides an overview of the history and ideology behind political correctness.  Definitions and critiques for major components of Postmodern neo-Marxism are provided, not only establishing a platform for the interpretation of political activism in the promulgation of this ideology, but also for intelligent, effective resistance.   Significant references are made to intellectual forerunners of the counter-PC movement such as Jordan Peterson, Janice Fiamengo, Dinesh d’Souza, Ben Shapiro, Jonathan Haidt, and Thomas Sowell.

An important source of information is the wealth of video material available on the Internet, mostly from the YouTube platform.  Indeed, a hard-copy version of this material would not have nearly the same impact as an eBook with active hyperlinks.  Thus, this material is most useful when the eBook is used with online access.  Note that the majority of references to source material are found in hyperlinks, but there is also an Endnote section providing a more conventional bibliography where deemed necessary.

In terms of organization, the first two chapters deal with historical background and an overview of the implementation of political correctness.  Chapters three and four then deal with a variety of terms and activities, and may be read either in a linear fashion, or alternatively considered as a reference for these items.  With the possible different approaches, there are occasional redundancies in the text.  For example, Intersectionality is treated as a major item to be thoroughly defined, but in discussions of Feminism and Identity Politics, a brief outline of its meaning and application is provided there as well

Chapter five then deals with a variety of potential real-life scenarios, with the understanding developed in the earlier chapters applied to provide insight into these examples.  Hopefully these applications will serve as templates for the reader to be able to apply understanding to situations they encounter.  It is of utmost importance that the scales be removed from our eyes, and we see clearly the impact of ideology, and the avenues available to successfully oppose PC, and bring clarity and deliverance for all who are negatively impacted.

Chapter six provides summary conclusions and applies several Biblical passages to the concepts discussed in earlier chapters.

Note that the Primer should not be considered as an academic treatise on political correctness.  Rather it serves as an educational device to connect the reader to those who are authoritative in matters dealing with history, ideology, implementation strategies and penetration into culture PC.

Although the Primer deals in matters that are highly controversial, with people passionately embracing a variety of views, it is not neutral: it supports a view which is negative towards political correctness.  Thus it is a useful tool for equipping those wishing to oppose PC, as well as means of freeing current PC supporters from the skillful and comprehensive indoctrination that has created their support.

Knowledge of objective truth, the dispelling of false narratives, and the application of logic to political, cultural and spiritual issues are the goals of the Primer for each reader.




This is a draft version, provided for final review and feedback prior to publication to the general public.  Version 0.95 has a similar outline to 0.94, and as of January 2024, all hyperlinks were active.  A further hyperlink check will be made as the last step in the review of this version.



Copyright © 2020 Richard H. Mann




Quotes from Email Exchanges on Political Correctness Writing

From Christopher Haun, co-author of updated book “Is Man the Measure?” by Christian Apologist Norman Geisler, commenting on my proposed chapter on Political Correctness for the Engage the Bay State book of Mass Family Institute:

Regarding the Political Correctness chapter…

Great information that I deeply wish everyone could hear. Why is this not mandatory reading in every Christian school chapel and pulpit? May the Lord bless your message!

It is organized well, logical, succinct, pithy, to the point, important.

From University of Ottawa English professor and anti-Feminist Janice Fiamengo in January 2018, concerning my request to quote her. I sent her the full draft of the eBook for context:

I am impressed! I started working on a print version of some of my videos, but had to lay the project aside with the start of the academic term, and have not progressed very far with it. Therefore I am delighted to know that you will quote from my videos in your upcoming book. Of course I am happy to give permission–more than delighted to get the exposure and to be part of your project.

I wish I could take the time to read your manuscript properly, but I’m afraid I am so desperately behind schedule on all my tasks that I cannot do so at this time. But please keep in touch, and maybe I can be an outside reader at a future date. I am retiring next year so will have some more time.

Also from a brief conversation with Jordan Peterson, after his May 22, 2018 lecture in Boston.  I asked for permission to quote paragraphs from a couple of his videos for the eBook, and his response was, “Yes.  Of course!”

From author J.P. Moreland of about 30 books on Christian Apologetics and similar, also encouraging.  I did NOT send him a draft of the eBook, but commented on an article he wrote on Marxism and Christianity:

How nice to hear from you.  We are definitely on the same page re these issues, and I have followed and recruited several others to follow Peterson in viewing his presentations, debates, and writings.  And thanks for the other sources. I’m afraid my health and commitments make it impossible for me to provide feedback for you.  I’m so sorry, but keep on going.  You mission is important.


And from Dr. Moreland, upon reviewing my eBook draft section concerning Jordan Peterson and Christianity:

You’re the man, Dick.  I agree 100%.  You and a whole team of professors at Biola are co-warriors.  Good to have you on the team.


From Jonathan Pageau, Orthodox Christian icon carver, and friend of Jordan Peterson, concerning my request to quote him:

Hello Dick.  I am flattered that you would quote my talk so extensively, so I am fine with the citation. 

I wish you all the best in your project. 


Quotes as of January, 2019



(no forward written yet)



Chapter 1 – Historical Background

There are a wide range of political, cultural and social issues of concern in our culture; among the social concerns are abortion, same-sex marriage, transgenderism, euthanasia, sex education, religion in the public square, and discrimination against Christians.  Clearly these issues have a common thread throughout: they all have anti-Christian and anti-Family components.  But there is another important commonality: they all deal with political correctness. The policies and desired outcomes of these issues in many governmental jurisdictions are “politically correct”, and the resistance and opposition by pro-family organizations, churches, and citizens is politically incorrect.

Additionally, in the political and cultural realms there are issues which are also impacted by political correctness: free speech, race and ethnicity, welfare, Climate Change, Capitalism vs. Socialism, legal and illegal immigration, globalization, gun control, and military concerns is a partial list.

Consider the following exchange from the early 20th century:

“Comrade, your statement is factually incorrect.”

“Yes it is.  But it is politically correct.”

That implies that whatever is politically correct contains false narratives.

Thus, what does it mean to be politically correct?  What is “correct”, and whose “politics” are we talking about?  It is vital that we gain an understanding to the answers to these questions.  Otherwise we will see little pattern to the claims, pet issues, and stances of opponents; and we will find ourselves constantly asking, “What will they think of next?” It is, however, quite possible to know who the “they” is, to anticipate further “what’s”, and to identify the false narratives.


Political correctness as we know it today had its origins in the Frankfurt School in Germany in the 1920’s, whereby communist intellectuals re-cast Marxism from economic into cultural terms: the result is known as Cultural Marxism. This action was taken because classic Marxism had predicted that a great war in Europe would provide the opening for the workers of the world to overthrow their factory owners.  However, although World War I took place, an actual Marxist revolution only happened in one country: Russia. So, after that war, Marxist intellectuals looked for a new paradigm, and the result was to focus on the culture instead of economics. Their intent was still revolutionary in that they desired to upend power relationships, but it was among “cultural” groups rather than traditional economic classes.

These individuals set out to undertake what has been termed the “long march” through the various pillars of Western culture, with the ultimate goal of an “egalitarian” society (i.e., equal outcomes for all) with a central government controlling all aspects of life.  Their vision is fairly accurately rendered in the lyrics to John Lennon’s song, “Imagine”.

In the following sections, representative quotes or characterizations of some of the early Cultural Marxists are provided.


“Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity; [Socialism is] religion in the sense that it too is a faith with its mystics and rituals; religion because it has substituted for the consciousness of the transcendental God of the Catholics, the faith in man and in his great strength as a unique spiritual reality.[1]

Antonio Gramsci (1920s-1930s)

Cultural Marxism pioneer, “Prison Notebooks” author

To accomplish their goals, the Frankfurt School knew it had to destroy the hold of Judeo-Christianity and the traditional family on the West, then create a revolutionary, post-Christian, morally relativistic, classless culture.  The goal of a classless society means that equal opportunity for everyone is superseded by equal outcomes for each endeavor.

In fact, an emphasis on equality of opportunity becomes a liability to Cultural Marxism.  Since individuals vary in their capabilities and their willingness to apply themselves for success, they are destined to achieve unequal outcomes in virtually all endeavors.  Equal outcomes can happen only via coercion implemented by a totalitarian government. Coercion is an integral part of this Marxist vision; thus, individual freedom must be eliminated for it to be fulfilled.


The anti-Christian animus that has been central to the Cultural Marxist ideology is exemplified by the thinking of the two pioneers of Cultural Marxism: Italian Antonio Gramsci (GRAM-SHE), and Hungarian Georg Lukacs (LU-KOSH).

Here are representative Gramsci thoughts:

 “For though Christianity appeared on the surface to be strong, it had for some time been debilitated by unceasing attacks against the failing remnant of Christianity. … Marxists must change the residually Christian mind… so that it would become not merely a non-Christian mind but an anti-Christian mind.” [2]

Gramsci stated that the West was dominated by a Judeo-Christian worldview; he characterized morality and ethics as a hegemony of traditional thinking.  These were to be replaced with a hegemony of revolutionary thinking.

“…it is through winning hegemony over the minds of the people and in robbing enemy classes of their most gifted men that Marxism will triumph over all.” 

He understood that the transition would take time, but in the end, it would take over the West culturally without a shot being fired or a need for any gulags.  He felt that the people of the West would ultimately desire the socialist utopia.

From Malachi Martin’s Keys of This Blood, speaking of Gramsci:

“…he needed to get individuals and groups in every class and station of life to think about life’s problems without reference to the Christian transcendent, without reference to God and the laws of God. He needed to get them to react with antipathy and positive opposition to any introduction of Christian ideals or the Christian transcendent into the treatment and solution of the problems of modern life.” [3]

For Lukacs, these vital human realities (i.e., Biblical values) that had served and undergirded Western civilization were repressive obstacles to the new society he and his comrades envisioned.

“Of these obstacles, …. the two greatest were God and the family … The family was not only a receptacle of the continuity in values, but the cement which held society together, and Lukacs hotly hated both God and the family.”

“Woman is the enemy.  Healthy love dies in marriage, which is a business transaction…. The bourgeois family gives off swamp vapors.”  “Politics is only the means.  Culture is the goal.” [4]

Note that the destruction of the influence of Western Civilization was the hallmark of all 20th century totalitarian Marxist regimes; the Soviets deriding traditional culture as “bourgeois”, the Maoists undertaking a murderous “cultural revolution” to eliminate Western influence, etc.

“Any political movement capable of bringing Bolshevism to the West would have to be ‘Demonic’.”

Georg Lukacs (1910s-1930s)

Hungarian Bolshevik regime

This thinking of the two leading pioneers of Cultural Marxism speak for themselves, and represent an essentially uniform anti-Christian viewpoint within Cultural Marxism.


An important emphasis for the Cultural Marxists to break down Christianity and the family was the introduction of as much sexual activity as possible; this essentially constituted a fusion of classic Marxism with Freudian thought.  Thus, we were given “make love, not war”, early sex indoctrination, and as Frankfurt School luminary Herbert Marcuse encouraged: “polymorphous perversity” which encouraged all manner of sexual expression, especially non-procreative activity, with both hetero- and homosexual behavior.

Marcuse proposed sexual liberation through the cultivation of “polymorphous perverse” sexuality …. that eschews a narrow focus on [normal sex.]  Marcuse believed that sexual liberation was achieved by exploring new permutations of sexual desires, sexual activities, and gender rules – what Freud called “perverse” sexual desires, that is, all non-reproductive forms of sexual behavior….

Marcuse himself was heterosexual, but he identified the homosexual as the radical standard bearer of sex for the sake of pleasure…. Marcuse, like other leading theorists of sexuality, such as Freud and Wilhelm Reich, argued that homosexuality was a form of sexuality of which everyone was capable – that in fact, everyone was fundamentally bisexual…

Herbert Marcuse (1920s-1960s)

Frankfurt School, New Left luminary

Consider the following description of “cultural terrorism” unleashed in 1919 by future Frankfurt School luminary Georg Lukacs, then the Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary:

He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary.  Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow. Lukacs launched a radical sex education program in the schools.  Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority.  All of this was accompanied by a reign of cultural terror perpetrated against parents, priests, and dissenters.

And there was Freudian Psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich, who was one of the leaders of the sexual revolution that burst upon the US scene in the 1960s:

“A true political revolution would only be possible once sexual repression was overthrown, the one obstacle Reich felt had scuppered the efforts of the Bolsheviks.” Reich insisted – not incorrectly albeit prophetically early – that the sexual revolution was under way and that “no power in the world” would stop it.” [5]

“The truth of the matter is that sexuality changes in the course of the revolution.” [6]

In “The Sexual Revolution”, he argued that the pleasure life – which for him was the “free love” life – was incompatible with the moral life; it was, he said, “antithetical to nature.” [7]

“Reich saw the family, with its inevitable patriarchal authority, as the chief source of repression. Therefore, the family had to be dismantled.” [8]

Reich insisted that the children of marriage must be freed from the sway of “parental ideas.” This included (in Reich’s words) “defending children’s and teenagers’ right to natural love.” [9]

Wilhelm Reich: (1920s-1950s)

Freudian Psychoanalyst, Frankfurt School Collaborator

The above quotes are the tip of the iceberg concerning the obsession of Cultural Marxism with breaking down traditional, Biblical views of sexuality.


Critical Theory became a centerpiece tool for Cultural Marxism, seeking to tear down Western Civilization via criticism of Judeo-Christian culture, capitalism, the family, and even language itself. Note that Critical Theory is not an actual theory; it is a weapon.  It offers no answers, no remedies – it merely criticizes for the purpose of destruction.

An important target of Critical Theory has been the family and sexual behavior.  Consider the following quote from Frankfurt School historian Ralph de Toledano:

All the guidelines that society had laid down to make sexuality an orderly part of existence were condemned as horrendous capitalist depravity. Their so-called “Critical Theory” would spout everything and anything from “compulsory promiscuity” to one-parent families, premarital sexual activity, and also homosexuality, since it struck at the family and child-bearing. [10]

A major architect of Critical Theory was Frankfurt School luminary Theodor Adorno.  His 1950 book “The Authoritarian Personality” served as both a principal textbook for Critical Theory, but also as revisionist history in an attempt to distance Cultural Marxism from Fascism and especially Nazism.

See a more expansive discussion of Critical Theory in Chapter 3.


Adorno invented the narrative that America was a candidate for its own form of Fascism. Of course, in a sense he was correct, since the US government under Democrat/Progressive Woodrow Wilson was a Fascist prototype for both Mussolini and Hitler, and there was mutual admiration among Mussolini, Hitler, and FDR in the 1930s. Additionally, in the case of America, there was significant infatuation also with Soviet communism in those years; FDR repeatedly referred to Josef Stalin as “Uncle Joe”.

So, Adorno was correct in the respect that the American Progressives thought highly of Fascism, but it wasn’t the conservative, limited government, church-going, pro-family Americans, it was the Leftist Americans. Here’s a quote about Adorno’s thoughts:

America, Adorno and his research team pronounced, was ripe for its own, home-grown fascist takeover. Not only was the American population hopelessly racist and anti-Semitic, but it had far too acquiescent an attitude towards authority figures such as fathers, policemen, clergy, military leaders, and so forth. It was also far too obsessed with such “fascist” notions as efficiency, cleanliness, and success, for these qualities revealed an inward “pessimistic and contemptuous view of humanity,” a view that leads, Adorno held, to fascism.

Theodor Adorno (1920s-1960s)

Frankfurt School luminary

The obvious conclusion is that the “authoritarian” characteristics that Adorno railed against were those which were characteristic of believing Christians, pro-family, pro-capitalism, etc., some of the core characteristics of the anti-Marxist, anti-Fascist, political Right. Even to this day, many see Nazism as Right-wing, but the term “Nazi” refers to the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party. How can a socialist be considered Right-wing?  No, Adorno was creating revisionist history, in an attempt to deflect attention away from his brand of Marxism, in the light of the revelations of the Holocaust after World War 2.

And consider this quote from an article by Dinesh D’Souza, author of “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left”:

Adorno decided to repackage fascism as a form of capitalism and moral traditionalism. In effect, they reinvented fascism as a phenomenon of the political right. In this preposterous interpretation, fascism was remade into two things that real fascists despised: free markets and support for a traditional moral order. With a vengeance that appears only comic in retrospect, the Frankfurt School launched a massive program to uproot nascent fascism in the United States by making people less attached to the core economic and social institutions of American society.

The point is that America in fact did have a connection to Fascism in the 20th century through the beliefs and actions of Democrats Woodrow Wilson and FDR.  And that connection continues to this day but is it all on the Left: it has nothing to do with Right-wing, Constitution-based, Judeo/Christianity-oriented conservatism.  Fascism is a variant of Marxism.


“The realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or oppressed….    Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and tolerance of movements from the Left.”

Herbert Marcuse (1920s-1960s)

According to Cultural Marxism, only Whites can be racist, there is such a thing as homophobia but not heterophobia, there is Islamophobia but not Christianophobia, etc.   Herbert Marcuse labeled this “repressive tolerance”: you must be tolerant of the permanently oppressed (i.e., Marxist victim groups), but can never be tolerant of the permanent oppressor. This is exactly how political correctness works today: tolerance of Leftist ideas, and intolerance of ideas from the Right.

Christianity is thus always the oppressor; and the opposing party – for example, the atheistic organization suing a school district to stop a play based on the Bible – the oppressed.  We might label this “Marcusian tolerance.”


Because some of the Frankfurt School intellectuals were Jewish and ALL were Communists, the Frankfurt School had to flee Nazi Germany, and in 1934 came to the US with the help of Columbia University Leftist educator John Dewey.  They settled in and began to write books, give lectures, acquire students, and develop a following in academia.

The way for the widespread adoption of their ideology had been paved by the existing paleo-progressivism of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, plus the significant pro-Soviet infiltration of the US government and entertainment media during the FDR years.  This included significant deception:  Roosevelt’s constant reference to one of the world’s most infamous murderers as “Uncle Joe”, and glowing reports on the “successes” of the Soviet experiment from people such as John Dewey, John F. Kennedy, and Margaret Sanger who visited there in the 1930s.

During World War II, the Cultural Marxists became established in academia and government, adding to the semi-occupation of the U.S. federal government by Soviet spies and fellow-travelers.

After the war, the influence of the Cultural Marxists continued to grow, but growing alarm over the Soviet influence in our government, led to investigations by the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Army-McCarthy hearings during the late 1940s and 1950s; in a few cases there were also prosecutions of Soviet spies.


After WWII and Stalin’s death, when some of the Soviet atrocities began to be known, the former pro-Soviets combined with the paleo-progressives and Frankfurt School intellectuals to form the New Left, becoming anti-anti-communists: Cultural Marxism had come of age in the US.  The demonstrations and protests in the 1960s for “free speech” and against the war in Viet Nam, the “tune in, turn on, drop out” drug movement, and the great increase in sexual promiscuity especially among the youth: Cultural Marxists were the catalysts for all of this.   Herbert Marcuse became a Leftist celebrity (the chant was “Marx, Mao, and Marcuse”), and Saul Alinsky and his followers ascended to leadership roles.

By the end of the 1960s, the sexual revolution was expanding on all fronts, and the Feminist movement was in full swing:

Betty Friedan’s 1963 book, “The Feminine Mystique”, asserted that the suburban homesteads of American housewives were akin to “comfortable concentration camps.”

Betty Friedan: (1960s-1970s)

Founder of National Organization of Women (NOW) [11]

Concerning monogamy, “We have to destroy that notion in order to build a collective…. [We need] to destroy the notion that people can lean on one person and not be responsible to the entire collective.” 

Bill Ayers: (1960s-present)

Co-Founder of the Weather Underground [12]

And consider the following Feminist litany from a 1969 “consciousness raising” group:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.

“To make revolution” they answered.

“What kind of revolution?” she replied.

“The Cultural Revolution”, they chanted.

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” She demanded.

“By destroying the American family” they answered.

“How do we destroy the family?” She came back.

“By destroying the American Patriarch” they cried exuberantly.

“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.

“By taking away his power”

“How do we do that?”

“By destroying monogamy” they shouted.

“How can we destroy monogamy?”

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality” they resounded. [13]

Kate Millett: (1960s-1970s)

Second Wave Feminist leader

Millett is famous for the slogan: “Smash monogamy!”  [14]

However, Kate’s sister Mallory rejected Marxism, and observed the following:

I’ve known women who fell for this creed in their youth who now, in their fifties and sixties, cry themselves to sleep decades of countless nights grieving for the children they’ll never have and the ones they coldly murdered because they were protecting the empty loveless future they now live with no way of going back. “Where are my children?  Where are my grandchildren?” they cry to me. [15]

Mallory Millett (1960s-1980s)

Sister of Kate, and NOT a Marxist

In addition, Civil Rights leadership changed from the church to a hybrid of Black Power (e.g., Malcolm X) and Marxism in the guise of the Black Liberation Theology of James Cone.  Racial minorities became victim groups, and the New Left shielded them from constructive criticism, as seen in the infamous rejection of the 1965 US Labor Department “Moynihan Report”, which attributed Black underclass poverty to a breakdown in the family; the New Left labeled that as “blaming the victim”.


However, by the 1970s, enough undeniable information from dissidents and similar concerning massive atrocities – at least 100 million deaths — in the Soviet Union and Red China was exposed that even the most hardcore Leftist intellectuals could no longer support 20th century Communism.  A seminal book, perhaps most important, was “Gulag Archipelago” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, which combined massive facts with profound expose of the ideology.

Something was needed to recapture the devotion and commitment to Marxism.  A group of French intellectuals created a new variant by the introduction of Postmodernism, which eschewed logic and objective truth and replaced it with power.  Among the leading intellectuals of this ideology were Jacque Derrida and Michel Foucault.  This new strand of Marxism spread quickly throughout western academia, including the US.

In postmodern thinking there are no absolutes, no objective truth, only subjectivity; each person has their own “truth,” and morality is relative.  Even science is considered to be an ideology, and not dealing with objective truth (which according to Postmodernists, does not exist).

Postmodernism also deals with language deconstruction, which is used to twist the meaning of words to support the various false narratives fundamental to Marxism.

Postmodernism attacks Western Civilization as phallogocentric: that is, it is male-dominated, and uses logic and words as weapons to control the culture.  Thus, postmodernism is at its core, anti-logic; it impacts the culture negatively as follows:

Western Civ. Postmodernism Negative Fallout from Postmodernism
Objective truth Objective truth does not exist Interpretation — rather than facts — is what matters
Logic Logic is a device of the Patriarchy to maintain power Something is “true” if it gets desired results
Dialogue Debate is not acceptable Opposing points of view must be silenced, not debated

Examples of postmodernism include the absence of diversity of thought on our college and university campuses, and the intimidating and sometimes even violent demonstrations to block non-Leftist speakers.


An important application of postmodern thinking entailed the development of “Identity Politics”.  Postmodernists state that human categorization is power, and dialogue between people is only a power dialog; there’s no reality outside of interpretation.  We dialogue to achieve dominance and status, and we are separated into groups.   Furthermore, postmodernism states that individuals should be identified by their “group”, and each group is in competition with others for resources.

A good pre-postmodern example of identity politics took place in the Ukraine. In the 1930s, the Soviets were big on classes and class guilt: so in  Ukraine, they eliminated the “guilty”, defining successful peasants (i.e., the “Kulaks”) as guilty of oppression and theft; Soviets killed all the successful peasants in the 1920s, leading to the Ukrainian wheat famine.  Today’s Leftist racist label of “White privilege” is similar to the Soviet collective guilt in the 1930s, minus of course the physical carnage, but broader in scope.

The postmodernists – since they were Marxists – borrowed the oppressor/oppressed paradigm of the factory owners against the factory workers.  Their identity politics was based upon presumed oppressor/oppressed groups such as White/Black, Male/Female, Straight/Gay, Christian/Islamic, etc.  The supposedly oppressed groups are sometimes referred to as “victim groups”.

Note that one of the features of this paradigm is the assumption that all people within a particular group think and experience life in identical fashion; individuality is not tolerated.  Thus, for example, Black Conservatives are demonized, marginalized and rendered invisible because they do not think or behave as “victims”, and so from a political point of view are very dangerous to the Marxists, because they destroy the paradigm.


A related product of postmodern thinking is the concept of multiculturalism, which as an ideology simply asserts (with no proof) that all cultures are equally valid and to be venerated, except with a bias against White European Christianity, which is to be shamed. Multiculturalism often asserts that the lack of accomplishment of a particular culture can be blamed on oppressor classes, sometimes identified by terms such as “racist”, “homophobic”, “misogynist”, “Islamophobic”, etc.

However, according to multiculturalism, a culture itself cannot be deemed to be deficient; at least not by oppressors such as White males.  Further, members of “oppressed” cultures who offer self-criticism of their culture are labeled “inauthentic” or worse, and are demonized and marginalized. Thus so-called “oppressed” cultures remain insulated from constructive criticism, whether external or internal.

Multiculturalism is essentially the application of Critical Theory and postmodernism to Western culture – characterizing it as essentially evil – and the assignment of all other cultures as oppressed by the West, and thus innocent victims.  Multiculturalism is fundamentally illogical, which is a characteristic of all postmodern thought.


In the 21st century, the various streams of Marxism that have developed since the Communist revolutions of early and mid-20th century have essentially merged into a single entity, which might best be referred to as neo-Marxism.  It combines the following 20th-century entities:

* Cultural Marxism – The Frankfurt School and its disciples

* The New Left – The former pro-Soviet followers, disillusioned by atrocities

* Postmodernism – Developed by French Marxists, and adopted throughout the West

Today neo-Marxism has become synonymous with the political Left and progressivism.  In the US, they essentially control the Democrat party, most of the media and entertainment industry, and nearly all of academia which has become increasingly devoid of free speech.  Many large businesses have adopted progressivism and egalitarian diversity as their cultural business model, and the Christian church and the traditional family have been greatly weakened by multicultural ideology and political correctness.  And identity politics of postmodernism has become the modus operandi of the Democrat party.

Note: the phrase, “politically correct” was first widely used in the Soviet Union to refer to adherence to the Communist party line, as well as in Maoist China, also referring to conformity to the party line.  The use of this phrase relative to neo-Marxism gained public exposure in the late 1980s by its use in Allan Bloom’s “The Closing of the American Mind”, and also by Dinesh D’Souza in his 1991 book, “Illiberal Education”.

A full analysis of the progression of Marxism from Marx in the 19th century to its contemporary manifestations can be found in “The Eight Spectres of Karl Marx in the 21st Century”.

Chapter 2 – Implementation of Political Correctness

It’s vital to achieve an understanding of how political correctness is implemented; what are the goals and objects?  What about its tactics such as propaganda and coercion?  What kind of people are drawn to political correctness, and how does it compare with Christianity?


The ideology inherent in the citations of the founders’ thinking (as discussed in Chapter 1) yield several layers of intent: goals, and objectives to meet the goals, and strategy (i.e., political correctness) to achieve the objectives.  Note that at the root of both the goals and objectives is the acquisition and maintenance of power – both political and cultural.  Further, these goals and objectives are hidden from most people.

Goals – the goal is essentially to create a utopian society which is classless and egalitarian.  Karl Marx expressed the vision this way:

From each according to one’s abilities; to each according to one’s needs.

At the surface, that might seem like a benign vision, but what Marx did not say — but should have — is something like the following: “…enforced by a totalitarian and murderous cadre of elites.”  In the Soviet Union between 1919 and 1959, upwards of 50 million Russian citizens were killed to achieve that goal.  In Mao’s China, the number approaches 100 million; with similar slaughter in Viet Nam, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.  Not benign at all.

Objectives – The primary objective of neo-Marxism and thus political correctness is the destruction of Western Civilization, and that includes at least three major sub-objectives: the destruction of Christianity, the weakening of the nuclear family, and the abolition of free speech.

Cultural Marxism co-founder Georg Lukacs expressed it succinctly in the early 1920s:

“The question is, who will free us from the yoke of Western Civilization?”[16]

And Antonio Gramsci left no doubt about his view of Christianity as the enemy of Cultural Marxism:

The new [Marxist] world must not only move beyond — it must learn to despise the claims and constraints of Christianity.

A review of 20th-century communism exposes how comprehensively these objectives were pursued, with violence as the primary technique.  For example, under Lenin the exceptionally high abortion rates created such a precipitous population decline that Stalin for a period temporarily put a stop to the slaughter[17].  Additionally, divorce was made as simple as possible, and promiscuity was encouraged.

Further, as Cultural Marxism gained ascendancy in the US in the 1960s, the leaders of the movement personally set examples of extreme promiscuity, including orgies and encouraging all to participate in same-sex activity.[18].  They were intentionally setting an example for the larger culture to follow: promiscuity, which targeted the heart of Christianity and the traditional family.

Reminder: the true goals and objectives of neo-Marxism are deliberately hidden, even from most of their supporters.


 “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. [T]here is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks…. The organizer who forgets the significance of personal identification will attempt to answer all objections on the basis of logic and merit. With few exceptions this is a futile procedure.”

Saul Alinsky: (1960s-1970s)

Activist, “Rules for Radicals” author [19]

With some of the foundational concepts of neo-Marxism outlined, and goals and objectives of the ideology understood, we now need to turn to the mechanics of political correctness.

Psychology professor Jordan Peterson of University of Toronto defined what he called “The PC Game” which he characterized as “… a biased compression algorithm, designed to oversimplify the world and artificially buttress emotional well-being …”.

Here are his rules:

  1. Identify an area of human activity
  2. Note a distribution of success
  3. Identify winners and losers
  4. Claim that the losers are losing because they are oppressed by the winners
  5. Claim allegiance with the losers
  6. Feel secure in your comprehensive explanation of the world
  7. Revel in your moral superiority
  8. Target your resentment towards your newly discovered enemies
  9. Repeat. Forever.  Everywhere.

From a Jordan Peterson video.

Political correctness can be looked at as serving two primary functions: propaganda, and coercion.


The propaganda function of political correctness is vital to its success.  There are two important targets: (1) social justice warriors and their enablers – essentially activists, and (2) the wider culture.  The propaganda serves to recruit support, as well as to retain those already on-board with the ideology.  The support from the wider culture results in political power.

An important aspect of the propaganda is the provision of false narratives that instill faux-moral superiority in its followers (see step 7 above).  But it’s just that: fake.  The real objectives are by definition sinister and evil, no matter the clever wrapping.  It’s really a case of unearned moral superiority: how can students at an ivy league school self-righteously claim to identify with the oppressed when they live in North America, attend a prestigious university, and are texting on their smartphone while flying to Aruba at 35,000 feet in the air?

The phrase “virtue signaling” is sometimes used relative to this propaganda; it is defined as: “…the expression or promotion of viewpoints that are especially valued within a social group, especially when this is done primarily to enhance the social standing of the speaker.

This is not to suggest that all Leftists are themselves “bad” people; many fall into “going along to get along”, and are not aware of the underlying goals and objectives.  Some very gifted and charismatic people – politicians, media, clergy — as well as ordinary unsophisticated people have no understanding of the sinister endeavor they are unwittingly supporting.

That is because the propaganda level for political correctness is heavily funded and very skillfully crafted, using state-of-the-art marketing techniques coupled with the street-smart wisdom of people such as political correctness master tactician Saul Alinsky.  His book “Rules for Radicals” continues to be a fundamental textbook for implementing political correctness.  If you have been deceived by the Left’s propaganda, so have most of the rest of the population who support Leftist, Marxist politics; only an elite few really understand its true goals, objectives, and implications.


“Logic is not independent of content.” [20]

“The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.” [21]

 “The more the concept of reason becomes emasculated, the more easily it lends itself to ideological manipulation and to propagation of even the most blatant lies. … Subjective reason conforms to anything.” [22]

Max Horkheimer: (1920s-1960s)

Frankfurt School

It must be kept in mind that the rhetoric used to justify a particular facet of neo-Marxism may have little relation to objective truth or morality.  For neo-Marxists, a thing is “true” if it helps advance to objectives of neo-Marxism and “false” if it does not.  It is the basis for the pseudo-science of the Left: its false narratives are found throughout the social sciences and — in some cases — even the physical sciences.

In the 1970s, Postmodern thought basically accomplished the same goal as Horkheimer by eliminating logic altogether, along with objective truth.  Of course, for the masses, faux “logic” is needed to construct the narratives supporting the various identity or “victim” groups that were defined.

Black conservative author Shelby Steele, in his 2015 book, “Shame.  How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country, describes the false narratives of the Left as “poetic truth”, that which supports an ideology, whose ultimate goals transcend the requirement that this kind of “truth” corresponds to objective reality.

“… “poetic truth” disregards the actual truth in order to assert a larger essential truth that supports one’s ideological position. It makes the actual truth seem secondary or irrelevant. Poetic truths defend the sovereignty of one’s ideological identity by taking license with reality and fact. They work by moral intimidation rather than by reason, so that even to question them is heresy.”

The bottom line is that the propaganda aspect of political correctness markets false narratives to acquire and retain followers, and thus power.  An example is the phrase, “Gay gene”, suggesting that a person is born homosexual.  Yet in 1991 and 2000 Australian studies of many thousand pairs of identical twins, it was found that when one twin was homosexual, the other was homosexual only 11% of the time.  If there was a “Gay gene” that should have resulted in 100% of the other twin being homosexual.  There have been many other studies in recent years arriving at the same conclusion.

Note: objective truth is not a concern to those who use political correctness; whether half-truths or lies, whatever gets the job done.  The goal is the acquisition and maintenance of power, no matter the method or cost, or the abandonment of objective truth.  In other words, Postmodernism at work.

An illustrative example of the contrast between false narratives and objective truth can be seen in the 2018 “debate” between UK Channel 4 interviewer Cathy Newman and University of Toronto Psychology professor Jordan Peterson.  A unique aspect of this encounter is the fact that a kind of dialogue actually occurred, because ordinarily, people who hold Postmodern views do not participate in exchanges of opposing ideas.


Because political correctness is totalitarian, there is a need to silence opposing viewpoints.  In communist regimes of the 20th century, the silencing was straight-forward: either kill or imprison those who disagreed: there was no provision for debate.  However, under neo-Marxism, shaming has been a principal technique: words as weapons, such as “racist”, “misogynous”, “homophobic”, “transphobic”, “Islamophobic”, etc.

More recently – at least on university campuses – neo-Marxism has defined a host of “microaggressions” that are used in shaming. Also, “trigger warnings” are demanded by students and their provocateurs; warnings that something “upsetting” might be uttered during an upcoming lecture or event.  For those fragile students that might be triggered, safe spaces are created, sometimes with soft furniture, pillows, and childhood games to be played, as well as cookies for those with appetite.

In addition, there is also the concept of “privilege”.  If you are “privileged,” political correctness says you must confess that before you can utter commentary on an issue.  Of course, the privileges are themselves dictated by political correctness.  There is such a thing as “White privilege” or “Male privilege”, but not “Black privilege” nor “Female privilege”, etc.  That’s because in identity politics, only the so-called oppressor groups are “privileged”.  Note that today’s “privilege” confessions have an eerie similarity to the formal self-criticism mandated in 20th century totalitarian Marxist regimes such as Mao’s China and the Viet Cong.

Shaming words, safe spaces and privilege confessions all have the same purpose: to demolish opposing points of view, by silencing free speech.   And this is consistent with Postmodernism’s criticism of Western Civilization as “phallogocentric”; in other words, anti-Logos; against spoken truth that creates order out of chaos.  So, Postmodernism rejects both logic and dialogue.


Recently a more sinister form of coercion has been put into law throughout the West: speech codes, enforced by fines and imprisonment. The 21st century West is edging closer to the violent totalitarianism of 20th century Marxism. For example, as of this writing, if you refuse to use one of 31 (or maybe 70) desired pronouns for “non-binary” (i.e., neither male nor female) Transgender people — replacing he/she and him/her — the government in some jurisdictions (for example, see Canada and Bill C-16) will essentially ruin you financially, and possibly imprison you.  This goes beyond “hate speech” (what you can’t say) to “compelled speech” (what you MUST say).

And in some cases, the “aggrieved” person who reports you to the government will receive a financial windfall from your conviction.  In 20th century Marxist regimes, these people were called “paid informants”.


One of the fundamental strategies of political correctness is the use of demonstrations, and these endeavors combine both propaganda and coercion.  In the speeches and the chanted slogans, details of the narrative are proclaimed, fostering anger and resentment towards the established policies, with the goal of deepening the fervor and commitment of the followers via group virtue signaling, as well as creating fear and uncertainty among the non-Left.  Often found in the slogans are references to anarchy: “tear this ‘….’ down, as well as Marxism: “There is on-ly one sol-u-tion, Com-mu-nist rev-o-lu-tion“, etc.  The combination of reprehensible malevolence with woeful ignorance of 20th century totalitarianism is explosive.

The coercion often goes beyond threatening chants to physical intimidation: forming human chains on major highways, occupying buildings or public places, setting fire alarms, blocking doors to lecture halls, shouting down conservative speakers, vandalism, etc. The recent rise of the actions of the Antifa (i.e., anti-Fascist) groups is a perfect example: using a false narrative (“We’re against Fascism”), combined with Fascist-type intimidation and violence.  What is of course bizarre is that Fascism itself is a form of Leftism; Benito Mussolini, Woodrow Wilson, and Adolph Hitler all supported aspects of Fascism.  (See Jonah Goldberg’s 2009 book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change, and Dinesh D’Souza’s 2017 book, The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left).

Note incidentally that Leftist demonstrations are often heavily funded from outside sources such as George Soros, and may include paid demonstrators, with transportation provided for those from out-of-town.

The Right also holds rallies, etc., but the difference is that the coercion element is missing, plus the propaganda elements will tend to be based on objectively true, rational — and politically incorrect — proclamations.

The Donald Trump victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016 unleashed an increasingly hostile and violent reaction from the Left.  And it was no longer just Social Justice Warriors on campuses.  The Left began to assemble gigantic demonstrations around the country to proclaim their demands, and intimidate the opposition. By 2018, even well-known Leftist politicians were advocating physical intimidation against conservatives.

The frightening aspect is that Leftist leaders did not make calls for caution and moderation in their opposition.  In scenes beginning to be reminiscent of the 20th century in Europe, the Left seemed determined to achieve their goals using all possible means; legal or otherwise, peaceful or violent.  In misplaced religious-like fervor, their non-Left opposition was constantly demonized and labeled “evil”.

Yet when accused of advocating “mob rule”, the Left self-righteously denied the obvious.

From an ideological perspective, this situation becomes obvious.  As has been stated elsewhere, the Left is controlled by Postmodern neo-Marxism, whereby logic is rejected as a patriarchal weapon to oppress.  Thus, the Left can create logic-free false narratives that are used to accomplish their goals: whatever gets results.  These narratives indoctrinate their followers, who believe them to the core of their beings.   And no logic also means no dialogue.  Only power is important.  And increasingly, that became mob power, with violence always possible.

For the first time in the history of the USA since the civil war, the survival of the country would seem to be in question.


One of the confusing aspects of political correctness is the contrast between the incoherence of social justice reasoning and the high degree of success, culturally and politically.  Bret Weinstein — the political science professor at Evergreen State University in Washington, and the focal point of unrest and anarchy at that university in 2017 – has an explanation.  He makes an analogy with evolution, natural selection.  Namely, the Left will try a tactic to obtain power, and if it doesn’t work, they’ll move on to the next. The more successful the tactic, the more likely it will continue to be used.  Evolution.  Survival of the fittest techniques.

In terms of the logical or scientific validity of the PC ideology, a particular tactic is without merit. But if it works, keep it; otherwise, abandon it, and try something else.  Thus, the huge success of political correctness is unrelated to the validity of its ideology, but has everything to do with the extraordinary giftedness of its delivery.  This is absolutely consistent with postmodernism being intentionally devoid of logic, and all about power.  And as already stated above, it does not participate in dialogue: Social Justice Warriors don’t debate conservative speakers; they shut them down, sometimes with violence.

A simple example is the treatment of homosexuals under Communism.  Throughout much of the 20th century, homosexual behavior was banned in Communist countries, often through imprisonment or execution.  However, with the introduction of Cultural Marxism and then Postmodernism and identity politics, the Left discovered that the LGBTQ agenda could be used as a wedge to obtain power, such that today there are “gay pride” parades in Cuba and other Marxist countries.  In Paul Kengor’s 2015 book, “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage”, details in this evolutionary process are provided.


If political correctness – perhaps after reading the above – seems somewhat sinister to you, then you are a level-headed, rational person.  But many people – perhaps 50% in the US in 2018 – buy into this neo-Marxist ideology, either intentionally or as a result of propaganda.

Back in the 1950s during the McCarthy era, Soviet communist supporters were divided into three tiers: (1) card-carrying party members, (2) fellow-travelers, and (3) useful idiots.  In today’s PC environment, #1 includes George Soros and other trans-national globalist, progressive elites, #2 includes faculty members in universities especially in the social “sciences”, along with human resource managers in business, and most in the news media and entertainment complex; also, managers in various governmental agencies and probably at least half of the judiciary, all of whom are helping to implement politically correct policies.

For tier #3, there are several categories: (3a) low-information people (such as university students), easily swayed by the incredibly sophisticated propaganda from tiers #1 and #2; and also (3b) politicians and people of all walks of life who “go along to get along” – they just don’t want to be boycotted or called “homophobic”, “Islamophobic”, “misogynist” or “racist”.  This group must of necessity deal with “double think”; they can’t let the powers that be (i.e., the #1’s and #2’s) know they actually don’t buy in.  One note about the low-information people: while they are deceived, many are well-meaning, and have the best interests of the culture at heart.

However, there’s a third version (3c), and they are better classified as “enthusiastic” followers.  University of Toronto Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson performed some preliminary psychometric studies of people who are positively aligned with political correctness, and using surveys with 332 subjects his preliminary results suggest two distinct groups of PC followers with somewhat different psychological profiles: PC-Egalitarians and PC-Authoritarians.

Sample PC-Egalitarian beliefs:

* Unequal outcomes constitute de facto discrimination/oppression

* Government intervention must counteract unequal outcomes (note: this has been massive since the 1960s)

* Oppressed/victim groups must be treated in a mother/infant type of relationship, where the infant can never be criticized or held responsible

* Support oppressed/victim groups and identity politics, ignoring individual differences within these defined groups, and demonizing group members who don’t toe the line (e.g. Black Conservatives).

* Create post-hoc justification for PC-Authoritarian beliefs and actions

* Train PC-Authoritarians to be successful activists

Sample PC-Authoritarian beliefs:

* Censorship for offensive/racist/sexist discriminatory language/ideas, in books (including dictionary), movies and art.

* Punishment for racist, sexist or homophobic slurs, or denial of Holocaust

* Authoritarian justice, whereby – for example – an alleged perpetrator of sexual assault should have to prove his/her innocence; in general, suspects are assumed to be guilty unless proven innocent (see for example the Social Justice Tribunals in Canada)

* Disallow criticism of status and rights of women under Islam because it is racist and disrespectful of multiculturalism.

Thus, the PC-Egalitarians are the theoreticians for and enablers of the PC-Authoritarians.  PC-Authoritarians are often referred to as “Social Justice Warriors”.

Note: See the Social Justice Warriors section which provides a description of the personality types and “lived experiences” that are most strongly associated with PC-Egalitarians and PC-Authoritarians.


When one considers the origins of Postmodern neo-Marxism from a Judeo-Christian perspective, political correctness must be considered as evil.  Evil, because its goal is to use deceptive propaganda (to gain and retain adherents) and coercion (to nullify opposition) to achieve their anti-Christian and anti-family goals.  However, some aspects of political correctness may appear on the surface to be beneficial or at least benign.  Yet those aspects which are truly beneficial would also result from Christianity.

Consider an example of homosexuality via the following Venn diagram:

Note that both Marxism and Christianity support behavior respectful to homosexuals on the part of “straight” people: an area of overlap.  However, in the Marxist-only sector, there are speech codes, prohibition of criticism of the homosexual lifestyle, suppression of publication of negative health effects of homosexual behavior, demonization of those who support transformational counselling, and attempts to silence or twist the expression of Biblical statements on homosexual behavior.

By contrast, in the Christianity-only sector, there is “love the sinner, not the sin” affirmation, the offering of transformational counselling for any who want help, ensuring that knowledge of negative health effects is available, and most importantly prayer for those caught in the lifestyle.  Christianity elevates and redeems; Marxism corrupts and enslaves.


It is of concern that there are some within the Christian faith who speak highly of Gramsci, Critical Theory, and Marxism. It is difficult to understand how this can be, considering the well-known historical animus of Marxism for Christianity.  But that’s not just a contemporary phenomenon. For example, in the 1960s there was a movement in Latin America labeled Liberation Theology. This movement viewed Jesus Christ coming to earth not only for individual salvation, but more importantly to advocate for the oppressed.  They saw the redistribution of wealth from the “haves” to the “have-nots” by governments as supported in scripture, and accomplished by Marxism.

That kind of thinking re-surfaced again in the 1990s, and appears to be growing within Christian intellectual circles.

The problem is that the early Cultural Marxists such as Gramsci understood that the accomplishment of the goals of Marxism required the demolition of the influence of Christianity and the traditional family.  Note that being Italian, Gramsci was intimately familiar with the Roman Catholic church, and knew where to poke the holes.

Note further that there could well be aspects of the “criticism” of Critical Theory that bring up valid issues that need to be addressed.  For example, Capitalism is not perfect. However, one must remember the Venn diagram in the previous section: fix the imperfections within a Judeo-Christian paradigm which focuses on the individual, rather than a Marxist, collectivistic, equity-laden, destructive ideology. Also, keep in mind that the Marxist solution is revolution; total transformation.  Ask yourself, how well did Marxist ideology do in the 20th century?  And where is Marxism flourishing in the 21st?

The fact that today in the West we have entered into essentially a post-Christian culture indicates how successful the neo-Marxist program has been.  It seems the height of illogic for Christian intellectuals to embrace and celebrate the ideological sources of the decline of Christianity.

In addition, without any help from Karl Marx, believing Christians have been at the forefront of all manner of outreach to the poor and marginalized.  Consider the following quote from a church member[23] dissatisfied with a weekend “social justice revival” in 2008 with Sojourner’s Jim Wallis:

“As a long-time member of Vineyard Church of Columbus, and, one who attended all 3 nights of the Sojourners Justice Revival PLUS the Sojo’s Workshop on Justice, plus purchasing and reading most of his books, I can say that not much substantial was said; it was a big political rally, nothing more – promoting Wallis and his agendas and social justice philosophies. I know that quote by Rich that is quoted in the article. It personally made many in this wonderful congregation feel that they weren’t doing enough. When, the track record and favor of the Vineyard in the Central Ohio area is what it is today because of God’s people loving Him wholeheartedly and giving His unconditional love away anytime and anywhere they can. Vineyard Columbus has been doing “social justice” for over 20 years. And, it is its largely conservative evangelical members who built the Community Center by giving generously millions of dollars above and beyond their tithes, who have run a free medical clinic & pantry for over 18 years, who have gone into homeless campsites for over 10 years, who have seen many homeless placed into apartments and off of addictions and into new life with Jesus, who spend thousands of hours each year in community outreach, have run a food pantry with recovery meeting and free meals, who go into low income nursing homes, who go into homeless shelters, prisons, juvenile centers, who offer freely many services such as free legal service to the least, the lost, and the forsaken in our society. How? Not by a “second conversion” as Wallis insists, but out of pure hearts and passion for Jesus Christ. Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, whites, blacks, Africans, Asians, Hispanics, and more serve faithfully side by side – and never worried about whether God was “Democrat or Republican” nor about party affiliations.

The above community outreach activities above undoubtedly took years to develop, and did not arise from Identity Politics or other aspects of neo-Marxism, but rather from the clear teaching of scripture, and the response of believing Christians. Further, international relief groups have sprung out of Christianity, including Salvation Army (1865), World Relief (1944) and World Vision (1950).  These and myriad other groups large and small have sprung from Judeo-Christianity, and flourished for decades, with no connection to Marxist ideology.


One of the manifestations of progressivism among Evangelical intellectuals is the often-uncritical embrace of the language of Postmodernism/neo-Marxism. A clear example of this is use of the term “Social Justice”.

This term may in the past have referred to something right and true, but the concept of Social Justice in its current use is not the benign, compassionate concept it once was. Rather, it flows out of Identity Politics and the Marxist model of privilege vs. victim as the sole driving force for those who are disadvantaged.

Identity Politics demands that all members in a victim group must think and behave as victims, and similar for the privileged: all whites, all men, etc. are uniformly oppressors.  It is vastly oversimplified, not to mention racist.  Among the most damaging features is the prohibition of constructive criticism, either from those belonging to the victim group, or of course from anyone in a privileged group.

Interestingly, Identity Politics is very selective about which “classes” are victims, and which are oppressors.  For example, even though Asians in the West are routinely discriminated against, they are typically considered oppressors, ostensibly because they are often successful.  And similarly, to some degree, Jewish people.  As another example, Islam is usually considered an oppressed religion, while Christianity is an oppressive one, according to Identity Politics.

Victim group members under Social Justice are treated as defenseless infants: everything the victims demand is valid, and needed immediately.  The adoption of this view by a Social Justice Warrior (SJW) may come across as acting out of compassion. Such a position can provide the SJW with a feeling of moral superiority, but if the personal responsibility of the purportedly disadvantaged as well as a host of other critical factors are left out of the Social Justice remedy, then there can never be any lasting improvement.  One must ask how that passes as compassion.

Note that since the assumption of Social Justice is that group identity is all that matters, then the individual is completely defined by group membership.  However, with Intersectionality, things become more complex, and more irrational.  With this concept – essential to Social Justice — people are defined by multiple groups that they” belong” to, and there’s a corresponding “war” within Social Justice about who is most oppressed.  For example, is a young Hispanic, female, lesbian with an adoptive child with Downs Syndrome more or less oppressed than an overweight, elderly Muslim man with Parkinson’s disease and no job?  Add to those categories, IQ, country of residence, and a host of other possible groups.

The point is, you can fractionate differences in oppression all the way down to the individual, which incidentally is what Western Culture (build on Judeo-Christian principles) already determined: it’s NOT the group.  But in Social Justice, one must add the LGBTQ gender variations in the non-CIS arena. And many of these variations have their own unique pronouns; in some jurisdictions – for example, Canada – citizens are required to address people who identify as non-CIS by their desired pronouns. It’s difficult to know the current number of unique non-CIS gender identities, but whatever it is today, this is Social Justice, making sure that we correctly determine who is oppressed by whom, and who is most severely oppressed.  Is this not insanity?  Cultural suicide?

And speaking of gender, in the world of CIS-gendered people (99+%), there is also the Social Justice war on boys and men to contend with.  It would seem that to really support Social Justice today, one must support the concept of “toxic masculinity”.  Today, because of that “war”, many boys and young men have been very negatively impacted. How is this Biblical justice?

There is also the redistributive aspect of Social Justice whereby resources are taken from the privileged and given to the oppressed.  The entity that accomplishes that redistribution is the state, deciding who gets how much from whom.  This would seem to be a kind of justice for some, and injustice for others.

Now it is true that hierarchies do exist in society regardless of political philosophy that result in disadvantaged people at the bottom.  Social Justice blames those inequities on power alone, but in reality, hierarchies of competence are a part of life.  When a cancerous tumor is found requiring surgery, rational people want the most competent surgeon they can find, not the most diverse.

Long before Marxist-based Social Justice came on the scene, Christians had been involved in relieving human suffering.  Consider the “social action” for the good from the Great Awakening (the Wesley’s, Wilberforce, Whitfield, Dickens, and many more) through multiple Christian groups today dealing with human trafficking, and tens of thousands of other contemporary initiatives, dealing with billions of people, and without Marx, all in the name of Jesus Christ, according to the instruction was given in Psalm 82:2-3:

“Vindicate the weak and fatherless. Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy. Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.”

By contrast, Cultural Marxism co-founder Antonio Gramsci wrote in 1915:

“Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.”

The truth is that most evangelicals are unaware that what they see as compassion in action is actually connected to a political ideology that sees Christianity as an oppressor, and in need of elimination. It may be the height of irony, as what freedom can come apart from Christ?

The selective actions and inactions of secular SJWs should give a clue to progressive Evangelicals about the true objectives of their Marxist partners.  For example, what actions have SJWs taken to protest or otherwise deal with the Black-on-Black violence in cities such as Chicago or Detroit?  And what protests or other demonstrations of solidarity have SJWs shown for persecuted Christians around the world?  What about the abuse of women in Islamic cultures?  Or the continuing extreme promiscuity among homosexuals?  SJWs are notoriously absent, although believing Christians are present in all the above, in redemptive ministry.

The point?  The use of the phrase “Social Justice” in conjunction with the activity of believing Christians constitutes deep cognitive dissonance, because the secular Social Justice movement is comprehensively Marxist, the same ideology whose highest objective is the eradication of Christianity and the destruction of the Biblically-defined traditional family.

Consider the following United Nations comment on Social Justice:

“Present-day believers in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice [i.e., Judeo-Christianity!] are neither willing nor desirable companions for the defenders of social justice.”

If there is need for a label containing the word “justice” for Christians to wrap around initiatives to minister in a transformative manner to disadvantaged or marginalized people, then it must be contrasted with the anti-Christian and ultimately enslaving secular Social Justice movement.   Perhaps “Christian Justice” or “Redemptive Justice” could be used.  More importantly, the underlying ideology of Christian Justice must intentionally and cognitively reject all Marxist and Postmodern concepts.  Logic and dialogue must be valued; responsibility more than rights must be emphasized; and objective truth must be prized, obviously Biblical truth, but also dispassionate, non-ideological science.  Further, the errors, illogic, false narratives and ideological coercion of the Postmodernist/neo-Marxist Social Justice movement must be deeply understood, and explicitly confronted, exposed and discredited in both private and public settings.

Tragically and frankly insidiously, Identity Politics that Social Justice promotes is ultimately the agent of enslavement of the people it proports to benefit; enslavement to resentment, self-pity, non-self-criticism, irresponsibility, and close-mindedness to concepts and truths that can emancipate, and provide valid interpersonal enrichment and ultimate meaning in life.

The intent of this section is not to assess blame or to shame any person or organization.  The in-depth information about secular Social Justice, Identity Politics, Postmodernism and their links to Marxism have not been widely known in the West until now.  However, with the advent of the so-called Intellectual Dark Web, going forward it will not be possible to plead ignorance or deception. (Note that the “Dark” refers to the fact that before now, these concepts have not come to light in the culture.)  Interestingly, people associated with the IDW movement (e.g., Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Haidt, Ben Shapiro, Janice Fiamengo, Bret Weinstein, Jonathan Pageau, etc.) come from a variety of backgrounds and beliefs, but are unitedly focused on logic, dialogue, objective truth and responsibility, all concepts which Postmodernism eschews.

It’s time for Evangelicals to find a new consensus around these concepts, and through prayer, the Word of God, openness to new ideas, and dialogue to recast a Christian Justice movement that will set people free and serve as the sane and Biblical alternative to secular and Marxist-based Social Justice.

‘Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ Says the Lord of hosts.  (Zechariah 4:6)

Chapter 3 – Critique of Politically Correct Concepts

There are several concepts related to political correctness which need to be understood and exposed as diabolical.  The characteristic of all of them is that they are part of the plan to destroy Western Culture, and thus conform to the oppressor/oppressed model, where Judeo-Christianity and the traditional family are principal oppressors.

Note: political correctness concerns itself with some favorite subjects that are not addressed in this chapter such as capitalism, climate change, property rights, etc.  These are all important, and are addressed in Chapter 4.


Professor Jordan Peterson assesses Postmodernism as wrong technically, as well as ethically, intellectually, emotionally, and practically.  But he does admit that postmodernists in the 1970s were dealing with a difficult and practical problem: they postulated that any phenomena or text can have nearly an infinite number of interpretations.  Peterson agrees with that postulation, and in fact points out that early in the development of artificial intelligence (AI), perception issues created difficult problems for the developers.

Now, if there are a huge number of interpretations, what can one do?  There’s no way to act in the world.  Because they couldn’t (or wouldn’t) solve that problem, the Postmodernists reverted to Marxism.  Even though they categorically denied the existence of absolute truth, they nonetheless made the assertion that it was true that all human activity is a struggle for power, defined by the classic Marxist oppressor/oppressed model.  However, they adopted the Cultural Marxist concept, and switched from economic terms of classic Marxism – oppressed proletariat vs. the oppressor bourgeois – to a variety of identity groups.

But Peterson points out that there was no need for such an artificial solution. He states that the multiple interpretation problem is solved by considering functional interpretations, of which there are always a very limited number; that our biological framework severely limits the manner in which we interpret the world.  He goes on to say:

“…we tend to only spontaneously manifest interpretations of the world that don’t result in undue suffering, and our demise…. there aren’t very many ways to live properly and carefully for a long period of time in a manner that doesn’t also simultaneously do harm to other people.”

He concludes,

“So, although there are a very large number of interpretations, there are unbelievably severe constraints on the number of functional interpretations there are in the world.”

However, the Postmodernists did not seek functional interpretations; rather, they reverted to Marxism in the form of identity politics, claiming that they have nothing but compassion for the downtrodden.  But as Peterson observes:

“Anybody with more than a cursory knowledge of 20th century history who dares to claim simultaneously that they have compassion for the downtrodden and that they’re Marxists are revealing either their ignorance of history that’s so astounding that it’s actually a form of miracle, or a kind of malevolence that’s so reprehensible that it’s almost unspeakable.  Because we already ran the “equity” experiment over the course of the 20th century, and we already know what the Marxist doctrines have done for oppressed people all around the world, and the answer to that mostly was imprison them, enslave them, work them to death, or execute them, … not commensurate with any measure of compassion.”

The refusal by the Postmodernists to accept functional limitations to interpretation is consistent with their refusal to accept objective truth; instead, each person has their own “truth”.

And there is also the problem of values.  Postmodernists claim that hierarchical value systems are always oppressive against their victims, and that therefore they must be eliminated.  But the problem with that is that without a value system you have nothing to live for.  There’s no value in anything.  It eliminates your responsibility if you don’t have a value system.

Note that the claim of oppression also runs up against fundamental laws of existence, which produce unequal outcomes in both the natural world and in society.

Secondly, Postmodernists do not believe in logic.  They deride it as a tool of oppression. Leading French Postmodernist Jacques Derrida critiqued Western Civilization as “phallogocentric;” that is, the Patriarchy uses logic as a weapon to obtain and maintain power.  So, if there’s no logic, then no dialogue: no attempt to gather together people of good will to achieve a consensus.  Just power.   And for Postmodernists, that power is sought for the oppressed, to be wrested from their oppressors.  Of course, the Postmodernists define the oppressors and the oppressed at the group and not the individual level, just as in the earlier forms of Marxism such as in the Soviet Union and Maoist China.

Hence in contemporary culture, because they don’t believe in dialogue, opposing viewpoints are not tolerated by the Left.  That is seen on today’s university campuses; conservative (i.e., non-Marxist) speakers are routinely prohibited from presenting their thoughts via “heckler’s vetoes”, if not by the university administration.  The Postmodernists construct the victim profiles for identity groups, demonize the “victimizers” as immoral, and use tactics such as “shaming”, with labels including “racist”, “homophobe”, “Islamophobic”, “neo-Nazi”, White supremacist”, “xenophobe”, and “misogynist”.  And they intend it to be zero sum: if you’re not Leftist, then you by definition are an oppressor, probably for ALL victim identity groups.

In addition to shaming however, increasingly, violence is used by the Left, with destruction of property, and so-called “anti-fascist” (Antifa) groups attacking people who oppose the identity viewpoint. What is of course appalling is that violence is an approved postmodern method to “protect” the oppressed victims.  Further, even more appalling is that the shaming and violence are directed at any individuals who belong to one of the victim groups, but who step out of line of the victim (and thus, power) narrative.  See Black Conservatives as an example.

Because Postmodernists reject objective truth, then “whatever works” to obtain and maintain power is implemented.  Narratives are constructed to maximize the support of the people they assign to various victim groups, and to cast the opposition and especially non-compliant “victims” in as bad a light as possible.

An example is the “hands-up, don’t shoot” mantra used by the neo-Marxist postmodern group Black Lives Matter in the aftermath of the Ferguson Missouri unrest in 2014.  In the world of “logic”, it was conclusively proven that this phrase was fictional; it had never been spoken.  Nonetheless, the Postmodernists saw use of this manifestly fictitious phrase as a tactic to increase the feelings of victimization (Blacks) and empathy (Leftist non-Blacks) for the sole purpose of obtaining power.  And if some violence helped the cause, no problem; as long as it increased the power.  Of course, the justification for false narratives is that the Leftists see themselves as the protector of the downtrodden.  So, dispense with logic and truth, give them the power.

However, a big negative is that once that power is obtained, there’s no incentive among the Postmodernists to solve the problems of the “oppressed”, because to solve oppression is to lose that identification, and therefore power.  Thus, there is momentum within Postmodernism to retain perpetual victimization of the oppressed groups, with the oppressors as perpetually privileged oppressors.  That may sound illogical, but Postmodernists reject logic.

Critique:  Consider Jordan Peterson’s critique of postmodern identity classifications:

“I think it’s really tremendously reprehensible for people to be conducting themselves intellectually in a manner that insists that the most important element of any …person … is whatever racial, gender and sex identity happens to be flavor of the month. “

Further, Peterson correctly understands that there are effectively infinite subdivisions or fractionation possible within the identity “game”:

“I think … those category systems are extraordinarily loose and indefinitely multipliable, because … there’s almost an infinite number of ways to categorize any given individual, so how … are you able to tell which group they belong to? And that’s a major problem.  If you’re one-eighth Black, what does that make you, exactly? Are you Black?  Are you White? Are you oppressed?  Are you an oppressor?  Are you ½ as oppressed as someone who is 1/4th Black?  Does it work out arithmetically that way?”

So, as long as the Postmodernists have their way – which is largely the case in most Western countries these days – then there’s no solution.  Peterson nails the illogic (what else do you expect of Postmodernists?) of it all:

“… And then, how do you multiply up your oppressed identities?  And then again who gets to decide exactly which identity you should manifest?  And how do you rank order those identities? How do we equate between them?  What measurement techniques do we use to determine who’s oppressed and who isn’t?  How do we assess equality and on what dimensions are we going to assess equality?  And who’s going to enforce it?  And who’s going to make the decisions?  It’s like, “oh well, we’ll figure that out as we go along.”  Yeah, we certainly will, and the results won’t be pretty, I can tell you that, because the problem is actually unsolvable.”

And further, value hierarchies and power structures are not in reality based solely on oppression; there are also issues of competence, ability, skill, talent, beauty, etc. that are equally or in most cases more important.  Plus, the very laws of existence tend toward inequitable outcomes. The claim of “oppression” is sometimes used as a mask to avoid responsibility.

Peterson concludes:

“… to divide us up all by race and ethnicity and sexual identity and sexual preference and sexual expression and gender identity and all these multiplying forces of group identity seems to be nothing but an invitation to chaos, and that’s exactly what I see looming.  And it needs to come to a stop, and it needs to come to a stop as fast as possible, and one way of doing that is to stop the universities from continuing to indoctrinate young people who really at least at the beginning don’t know any better into playing these absolutely insane and I would say bordering on murderous intellectual games.”

Additional videos critiquing Postmodernism may be found here. And an excellent example of facts and logic encountering Postmodern ideological possession is found in the January 2018 interview of Jordan Peterson by Cathy Newman of UK Channel 4.


It is important to determine exactly what is meant by the phrase “Social Justice”.  If the word “justice” is considered by itself, the customary usage is applied to an individual, as in a criminal being “brought to justice”.  When several people join together to commit a crime, each person is charged separately.  So, in the case of criminal justice, there’s no meaning to the phrase “social justice”: it’s always individual.

Therefore, this special form of justice with the modifier “social” implies a “group” rather than “individual” meaning.  And if one considers the most common usage of the phrase, it seems certain that “social justice” is an aspect of Identity Politics: justice for the oppressed groups, as defined by Postmodernism/neo-Marxism (i.e., the hard Left).

Here’s a description of how “Social Justice” works by conservative spokesperson Ben Shapiro:

“If a guilty man is acquitted because he’s the right race, that is anti-justice.  If an innocent man is convicted because he’s the wrong race, that’s anti-justice.  Social justice however suggests that your group identity, your identity as a person relieves you of individual responsibility to be a decent human being.  So, you get to interrupt lectures if you’re the right race, or you’re the right gender, or the right sexual orientation, you get to do these things without punishment because after all that’s in the nature of social justice, group justice, we don’t hold you responsible for your individual actions.”

Shapiro asks about groups that are disproportionally poor or incarcerated.  It seems that individual justice gets in the way of group justice.   According to the Left, it must be because the system is rigged.  There is no responsibility asked for by the Left within that group.

Psychologist Jordan Peterson notes that many who support “social justice” are people of compassion, but without wisdom.  They act as the mother in a mother-infant relationship: the infant is ALWAYS right, and always needs immediate attention.  In a mother-child relationship on the other hand, the goal is to foster increased responsibility in the child, to be able to ultimately achieve independence.  Social justice emphasizes rights; individual justice emphasizes responsibility.

Another aspect of social justice is that of “equity”.  Here’s Shapiro again:

The Left doesn’t believe in individuals; instead they believe that individual rights get in the way of creating a collectivist utopia.  They think fairness can only be achieved for everyone if all groups end up in the same place.  They want fairness.  Not fairness of opportunity or of rights, but fairness of outcome: cosmic justice.

Of course, to achieve equal outcomes, governmental or other external intervention is required.  The Marxist assumption of oppressor/oppressed is applied, and the oppressors are duly penalized – at the group level!  So, Whites, Males, Christians, and increasingly Asians must be intentionally discriminated against – i.e., treaded UNJUSTLY – because according to Marxism, everyone in the oppressor group must be punished, regardless of whether or not there has been individual culpability.

Another description of equity in relation to justice is provided by non-Marxist sociologist Jonathan Haidt:

Equality of outcome leads to an abomination of justice … Correlation does not imply causation …Disparate outcomes do not imply disparate treatment.

When “social justice” focuses on disparate treatment of individuals, based on category membership, it is a subset of justice.   When “social justice” demands equal outcomes for all groups, without concern for inputs or 3rd variables, it becomes unjust.

Haidt provides an example of the response of the US government in 2014 to disparate rates of student suspensions among various ethnic groups in Minneapolis public schools.  The order from Washington was to decrease the number of suspensions among minority students, and increase the number for non-minority students; in other words, a Leftist government ordering “social justice” at the expense of “individual injustice”.  Of course, ALL groups suffered from this implementation of this order in an ultimate sense.

Note that Shapiro, Peterson and Haidt all use logic in their assessments, but the Postmodernism of the Left opposes logic, blaming it as a tool used by the Patriarchy to achieve and maintain power.

Another perspective to view “social justice” is as a government-controlled wealth redistribution scheme.  It is also based on Postmodern neo-Marxism ideology.  “Liberal Fascism” author Jonah Goldberg suggests that Leftists consider social justice as:

“Good Things” no one needs to argue for, and no one DARES to be against.

Goldberg asks, “What are “good things”? His answer:

Whatever the champions of social justice decide this week.  But first last and always it is the cause of economic redistribution.

Consider Goldberg’s quote from 1974 Nobel Economist Friedrich Hayek:

I have come to feel strongly that the greatest service I can still render to my fellow men would be that I could make speakers and writers among them thoroughly ashamed ever again to employ the term “social justice”.

And consider the following quotes from Postmodern-influenced United Nations:

“Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth.” 

“Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.” 

“Present-day believers in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice [i.e., Judeo-Christianity!] are neither willing nor desirable companions for the defenders of social justice.”

Goldberg concludes:

The Social Justice assumption is that the right people, the anointed few, can impose fairness, propriety, and any other good thing you can think of, and the only institution capable of Social Justice is the state.”

What Goldberg does not say, but which is part of the equation is the beneficiaries of the redistribution of wealth are the identity politics-defined oppressed groups, and the corresponding oppressor groups constitute the source of that wealth.

One more arena of social justice malfeasance is in the arena of speech and thought control.  Great examples of that are the Social Justice Tribunals (SJTs) operating in the various provinces of Canada.   In this situation, a member of an oppressed group – as defined by law (i.e., dictated by Postmodernism/neo-Marxism ideology) — may accuse someone – often a member of an oppressor group – of some kind of discrimination or insult.  The SJTs provide detailed instructions on how to go about making accusations, and submitting them to the SJT.

The accused person is ultimately brought to “trial”, where the “judges” are almost always dedicated Social Justice Warriors.  The stance is essentially that the accused is assumed to be guilty, unless proven innocent (remember the mother-infant comments above?  The infant is ALWAYS right).   The burden of proof is preponderance of evidence, i.e. 51% possibility, and not “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The result of the guilty verdict is generally a hefty fine (in the thousands of dollars) paid to the accuser, and no appeals possible.  Further, if the accused person is acquitted, there is no possibility of a law suit against the accuser for defamation of character, or to recover legal fees.

With this kind of scheme, a person who wishes to make an accusation can “try their luck”, and if it looks like things are not going well, they can simply drop the charge, with no penalty, except of course the legal fees for the accused person that had been accrued defending themselves up to that point, not to mention the concomitant loss of reputation.

So, the SJTs are essentially another example of wealth redistribution under the guise of “social justice”.

Of course, if logic is added to this scenario, these SJTs would hardly seem like the kind of governmental device that would lead to societal peace and camaraderie.  It in fact serves to divide the culture, with people retreating to “safe” behavior in their mode of speech and action, while internally living in fear and resentment.  Shades of post-WWII Eastern Europe.

There are more manifestations of Social Justice than the examples outlined above, but the pattern will be similar: the ideology is Postmodernism with neo-Marxism, identity politics is always a factor, the narratives are intellectually shallow and deceptive, but extraordinarily effective from a propaganda (keeping the “oppressed” on board) and coercion (keeping the oppressors in a defensive mode) point of view, under the force of law.

Critique: Jonah Goldberg concludes:

The underlying point of Social Justice amounts to a sweeping indictment of a free society, suggesting that any perceived unfairness or sorrow or economic want must be addressed by yet another government effort to remedy that unfairness, sorrow or economic want.

This results in increasing punitive coercion by the government, with the accompanying further loss of freedom. The pity of all this is that the so-called government “help” almost never seems to actually solve the problems it purports to address.  Maybe the elites directing the Social Justice would prefer not to lose the sense of victimhood among their supported “oppressed” groups.

There is also the issue of Capitalism, frequently identified as an enemy of Marxism.   If the goal of Social Justice is to raise the standard of living for as many people world-wide as possible, the success of Capitalism over any version of Marxism (including Social Justice) or any other method of organizing societies is demonstrable and immense.  The West has to choose between these two options; one that has raised billions of people out of poverty in the past 100 years, or the ideology (i.e., Marxism) that has resulted in the death of more than 100 million people in that same time span.

A final note.  In some situations, people sometimes talk about striving for “justice”, without using the adjective “social”.  In those cases, the characteristics of that striving need to be carefully examined, as to the underlying assumptions and ideology.  If Postmodernism/neo-Marxism is at the root, then nothing good can result, only evil and destruction.


As described in Chapter two, there are two groups of people that promote social justice in an especially ideologically informed manner: PC-Egalitarians and PC-Authoritarians.  Given below are the personality characteristics associated with each group, based on a preliminary study by University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson:


* Trait agreeableness/Compassion — comes from the mother-infant pair bond type of compassion, altruistic generosity [Note: not mother-child]

* High verbal cognitive ability

* High trait openness

* The person has attended a sensitivity seminar or had the experience related by someone else that made them more sensitive to individual differences

* Often female, educated, Gay

When the PC-Egalitarian observes the PC-Authoritarians’ desire for censorship or punitive justice to reach their goals, the PC-Egalitarians create post-hoc justifications for it, and their higher compassion makes them think, “This must be right – these people are in distress, I must help them”, whether or not the PC-Authoritarian actions are beneficial (i.e., no accountability).


* Trait agreeableness/Compassion — comes from the mother-infant pair bond type of compassion, altruistic generosity [Again, note: not mother-child]

* Low verbal cognitive ability (often with corresponding high profanity usage)

* High interpersonal disgust sensitivity which creates protectiveness for groups that are in distress

* Acquaintance with a clinically diagnosed mood or anxiety disorder, either in themselves or a close family member or friend

* Often non-white, religious, low income, female

All the above for the PC-Authoritarians creates a personality with little tolerance for nuance: things must be zeros or ones, clear cut, with the anxiety/mood disorder creating a kind of general emotional distress for interactions that they have in society.

Critique: The problem with both types of Social Justice Warriors is that they are committed to postmodern ideology rather than objective truth.  Hence for example they are blind to the mother-infant relationship which precludes actual growth and transformation for so-called oppressed groups via positive criticism and the assumption of responsible behavior. And the constant promotion of victimhood serves to enslave the people they are supposed to be helping.


The ascendancy of Cultural Marxism and Postmodernism in the US during the 1960s and 1970s dramatically changed the Democrat party from being essentially racist, pro-union and pro-big government, to supporting Identity Politics, while remaining pro-big government.  The identity politics focused on the various so-called “oppressed” groups, with the stipulation that all members of each group toe-the-line and support the “party line”.  The identity politics thus also became exclusionary, with so-called “oppressor” groups such as White men and Christians unprotected.  In the case of Feminism the class warfare assumed the role of opposition to and demonization of “the patriarchy”.

Identity politics essentially belongs to the collectivist “grand narrative” based upon Marxism, and it is in opposition to the grand narrative of the West, which is based upon the individual.  Psychology professor Jordan Peterson raises the question as to which narrative should be paramount:

In the west, we have reasonably functional, reasonably free, remarkedly productive, stable hierarchies that are open to consideration of the dispossessed that hierarchies generally create.  Our societies are freer and functioning more effectively than any societies anywhere else in the world, and that any societies ever have,….because the fundamental low resolution grand narrative of the west is oriented about the sovereignty of the individual; that all things considered, the best way for me to interact with someone else is individual to individual, and to react to that person as if we’re both part of the process by which things we don’t understand can yet be explored, and by things that are not properly organized in our society can be yet set right.

Thus, Peterson clearly supports the narrative focused on the individual.

Collectivism and Tribalism

Alternative terms for identity politics include “collectivism” (focusing on ideology) and “tribalism” (focusing on behavior).  Peterson expresses deep concerns about the collectivist narrative (i.e., identity politics):

But the collectivist narrative that I regard as politically correct is a strange pastiche of Postmodernism and neo-Marxism, and its fundamental claim is that, no, you’re not essentially an individual, you’re essentially a member of a group.  And that group might be your ethnicity, and it might be your sex, it might be your race, it might be any of the endless numbers of other potential groups that you belong to, because you belong to many of them. And that you should be essentially categorized along with those who are like you on the dimension in that group.  That’s proposition #1.

 Proposition #2 is that the proper way to view the world is as a battleground between groups of different power.  So, you define the groups first, and then you assume that you view the individual from the group context; you view the battle between the groups from the group context, and you view history itself as a consequence of nothing but the power maneuvers between different groups.  That eliminates any consideration of the individual at a very fundamental level.  And also, any idea, for example, of free speech, because if you’re a collectivist at heart in this manner, there is no such thing as free speech. 

The collectivist activists of identity politics thus justify shutting down conservative speakers because they don’t believe in dialogue.  They believe that logic itself is a tool of the non-collectivist to obtain and retain power.  There’s no objective truth, no value structures; just power.

Identity politics can also be viewed from the concept of tribalism.  In reality, people move from infancy to first of all having a relationship with their parents, and then becoming socialized into a tribe (or tribes) as they mature.  However, the responsible person then achieves individuality apart from the tribe(s).  It doesn’t necessarily that they leave a tribe, but that they think for themselves, and yet know when and how to be a “team player.”  And in a healthy situation, they as an individual may need to help modify the tribe, when the tribe’s direction becomes corrupted in some fashion.

Unfortunately, in the case of identity politics, many in a particular group or tribe never achieve individuality and are totally “under the spell” of the group.  That means, sadly, that “responsibility” is not a factor for that person, because the tribe is in control, and not the person.

And note that tribalism isn’t entirely learned behavior; it finds expression even in the animal kingdom.  For example, the research on chimpanzees of Dame Jane Goodall in the 1970s revealed significant tribal behavior.   Chimpanzees will patrol the borders of their territory, and if they encounter a chimpanzee from another tribe, they will attack it, and tear it to shreds.  In general, tribal behavior among humans is a recipe for division, conflict, and mayhem.

Identity Politics and Intersectionality

In addition to collectivism and tribalism, there is another, more complex version of identity politics, which is called “intersectionality”.  It results in the creation of combination identity groups out of the primary groups such as gender, race, sexual preference, religion, etc.  With intersectionality, an Asian, female, lesbian Muslim, and an Asian, female, lesbian, non-Muslim constitute two separate identity groups.  If you add body size distinctions, then those two groups are further subdivided into overweight, non-overweight, and near anorexic groups, and those could be further subdivided into those that speak English, and those that don’t; etc.  Intersectionality is what has created the growing array of non-binary Transgender “genders”, up to 70+ by the end of 2016, each with its unique set of preferred pronouns, and discrimination grievances.

Critique: First of all, Identity Politics is a vast oversimplification of reality.  Should all Blacks – regardless of status in life – be expected and shamed into supporting the party line?  Should all women view “the patriarchy” as evil?  In fact, should ANY women hold that view??  Should all Gays support Leftist policies?  The answer of course is in each case is “no”.   But the Left NEEDS uniformity of thought within each victim group to retain power, but not to undo the supposed oppression.  In fact, to actually solve problems is to lose the need for the group identity, and thus to lose the political power the Left gains from it.

Further, a major problem with Identity Politics is the assumption that people in victim groups are without power because they are oppressed by those in the privileged groups.  In other words, a univariate model, only one cause for their powerlessness.  But real life – outside of ideology – is multivariate; there are many factors contributing to a person being disadvantaged or powerless.  Identity Politics does not permit the concept of “responsibility” to be applied to the victim group.  The elites of the ideology define a mother-infant model, where the “victim” is always innocent and blameless.  This view is devastating for so-called victim groups, because it disallows both overt and self-criticism.  And the corresponding lack of accountability ensures continuance of existing cultural pathologies, which impacts not only those victim groups, but the entire society in which they exist.

Intersectionality is really about power, and not any realistic sense of justice; how can one possibly calculate AT THE GROUP LEVEL who is most oppressed??  It’s another example of the incoherence of Postmodern thinking.  As elsewhere, it’s all about power, based on battles to determine who is more privileged than someone else, or more oppressed, with the Marxist model the sole issue: Univariate causation. Irrationality.

Finally, both classical and neo-Marxism are based on groups or classes; Christianity is based upon the individual: individual freedom, individual responsibility.  The distinction is profound, and the ascendancy of Marxism – classical or cultural — is always accompanied by a loss in freedom.  Only individuals are oppressed; not groups.  Note that Christianity cuts across all “group” lines:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”  (Gal. 3:28)

This true, unenforced diversity can be seen in numerous churches which are situated in communities containing a multitude of cultural and ethnic groups.

Note: For more information of the origins of identity politics and the underlying ideology, see the Postmodernism section.


In this section, it should be understood that the facts discussed and criticism expressed are focused on ideologues on the Left who craft and implement policy which serves to make it more difficult for many in the Black community to fulfill their desires and potential.  There is vast and extraordinarily skillful deception emanating from the Left, and in this sense, the Black community continues to be victimized.  But there is also ample room for hope, as more and more minds are opened to the truth — that which sets us free.

Among the Postmodern identity groups, race has validity that some of the others do not. Between American participation in slavery and nearly 100 years of Jim Crow, there is an undisputed lengthy period of time of real victimization of most Blacks by some Whites in the US.  The appropriate label for that era is unambiguously Racism.  However, it is also true that from the beginning, and increasingly so in the years leading up to the Civil War that there were other Whites who made great efforts to end slavery.

During the Jim Crow era, the treatment of the released Blacks by non-Blacks in America was divided along political party lines, with the Democrat party supporting racial discrimination and intimidation, and the Republican party supporting the assimilation of the released slaves into American society.

In Dinesh D’Souza’s 2016 movie and book, “Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democrat Party”, a great deal of previously not widely-known details are revealed concerning political parties in the US relative to racial issues; the most important being the overt racism of the Democrat party not just during Jim Crow, but from its inception with Andrew Jackson until it was taken over by the New Left in the 1960s and ultimately Postmodernism’s Identity Politics in the 1970s.  It seems that with Identity Politics, the Democrat party at that point became more covert about its racism, but just as potent in its negative results, as will be shown in the following.

Remember LBJ’s famous statement in the 1960s about getting his Great Society program approved?

“I’ll have those [African-Americans] voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”[24] 

It would appear that the first 50 years has validated LBJ’s prediction!  Note that it was also under LBJ that the famous Department of Labor’s Moynihan Report came out (1965), which in part identified the deterioration of the family structure and culture in the Black underclass as a leading cause of poverty.  Even though LBJ was initially enthusiastic about doing something to help out with the family issue, the Leftist ideologues in his administration overruled him, calling it “blaming the victim”, stating that female heads of households were commonplace in Africa, etc.  In other words, Marxist ideology overruled common sense, and no scrutiny was made of family or culture.  Note that the refusal of the Left to deal with dysfunctional family and other cultural issues in the 1960s has continued to this day.  One has to ask “why”?  The possibility has to be considered that the nonsensical obsession by the Left to not deal with these family and cultural problems is that they don’t want solutions; they only want political power.

In the 1970s, as the Postmodern/neo-Marxist ideology was fully adopted by the Left, the result dramatically changed the Democrat party from being essentially racist, pro-union and pro-big government, to supporting Identity Politics, while remaining pro-big government.  The Identity Politics focused on the various so-called “oppressed” groups (including race), with the stipulation that all members of each group toe-the-line and support the “party line”.  Identity Politics thus also became exclusionary, with so-called “oppressor” groups such as White men and Christians, along with Black Conservatives (who don’t toe the line), unprotected.

And Identity Politics created a further problem; the competition among the various victim identity groups for power.  The term sometimes used for this issue is “intersectionality”, when multiple victim groups intersect in individuals.  Who is the most oppressed?  A straight Black, or a gay Black?  And what about a Black, lesbian, Muslim, in a wheelchair, or a Hispanic male who is also ¼ Black, and has a drug using son?  Who is more oppressed?  Identity Politics, like everything in Postmodernism, is all about power, and devoid of logic or dialogue.  Identity Politics is irrational, and the impact along racial lines is damaging to minorities such as the Black community, and in reality, to everyone.

White Supremacy, White Privilege

These two concepts are both related to Identity Politics; the use of the modifier “White” communicates that reality.  However, there are distinctions between the two.

For the first term “supremacy”, the issue of White Supremacists must be considered.  At a cursory glance, it would seem apparent that there are few people in North America who proclaim to be racial supremacists, and any who do identify in that manner are either ignorant, severely broken, or pathologically malevolent, maybe all three.  But as a political or cultural entity, their numbers are miniscule.

If that is the case, why is it that many Blacks claim that they live in a White Supremacist society?  It is likely that it is largely the result of the propaganda emanating from Postmodern neo-Marxism, which uses terminology to achieve the greatest amount of cultural and political power.  After all, according to this ideology, objective truth doesn’t exist, so why not use the most emotionally charged terms to create the greatest sense of victimhood among the largest group of people possible, to maximize the accrual and maintenance of power?

Thus, on the Left side, the Social Justice egalitarians – mostly academics and media people – craft the “poetic truth” of White Supremacy, and many people in the Black community — some who live in dysfunctional conditions with children attending failing schools, and crime everywhere — cannot resist the thought that the comprehensive disadvantage they witness is fundamentally the result of White racism, accepting the unidimensional (i.e., only one cause) Marxist oppressor (Whites) / victim (Blacks) model.

Granted, as stated above, there is ample past historical evidence (slavery, Jim Crow, etc.) to tempt one to embrace that way of thinking today, even though there have been massive changes in Black-White relationships for the better, as well as much assimilation among all races since World War II.  Note that there are many Whites who are also caught up in this Leftist propaganda and who provide further weight to the sense of victimhood.

The tragedy is that, while things are not perfect, it is now Leftist ideology which is the major cause of under-performance in the Black underclass.  Part of that ideology is to smear any attempt among non-Blacks or Conservative Blacks to point out pathologies in the Black culture, declaring those expressions as “racist” (for non-Blacks) or “Uncle Tom” (for Conservative Blacks).  There are additional problems for Blacks as a result of a host of Leftist-supported government interventions, such as easing up on school suspensions, adopting welfare policies favoring single-parent families, resisting school choice, and indoctrinating youth with Feminism’s anti-boy, anti-male ideology in government-run schools.  And in the Black youth culture there is intimidation directed at those who attempt to better themselves as “acting white”.

In the case of “White Privilege”, there is a kernel of objective truth here, but that truth can best be understood by (a) separating it from the Marxist oppressor/oppressed model, and (b) removing the emotion-laden word “privilege” and replacing it with a more generic term such as “advantage”. Thus, a better phrase for analysis might be “majority advantage”.  In a diverse group, whether it’s in a country or a country club, the majority sometimes has an advantage, especially if that majority dictates the overall culture of the geographic or other entity such as a country club.  And if that advantage is intentionally used to discriminate against minority members, then that should rightfully be condemned and opposed.  However, whether or not discrimination is present, there are many factors that lead an individual to success or failure, and “minority disadvantage” can be overcome by diligence, conscientiousness, and responsibility.  Further, often “minority advantage” brings something novel and refreshing to bear on whatever endeavor is being pursued.

Consider the example of students on university campuses.  Today, most students have been indoctrinated into Postmodern neo-Marxist ideology, while a small minority of students occasionally exist who have escaped or otherwise not been susceptible to that indoctrination.  The ideologically minority students face many difficulties that the majority do not, for example in classrooms discussions, interactions with superiors such as teachers and administrators, as well as with social interactions among peers.  These students might be impacted by intentional discrimination on the part of some of the majority entities.  However, whether or not the minority (in this case, non-Marxist) students have been discriminated against, there is a distinct “minority advantage” related to the requirement of added diligence and personal resiliency that accrues to the minority student’s benefit; they can emerge stronger as a result of the opposition they faced.

Finally, in terms of privilege, there is one sense in which all citizens and legal residents have an immense advantage: “American Privilege”.  It’s the reason that essentially all of the immigration is to America, and not Americans emigrating to go elsewhere.

In summary, both of these terms – White Supremacy and White Privilege — are loaded word-weapons of Postmodern neo-Marxist Identity Politics to obtain and retain adherents (propaganda), and to silence and nullify the opposition (coercion) in their quest for cultural and political power.

Leftist Policies that Harm Blacks

Accompanying the Identity Politics are related Postmodern new-Marxist (i.e., Leftist) policies that the victim group must support, or else be the object of shaming, marginalization and ostracization.

Consider the following list of some of these policies that harm Blacks:

Leftist Policy Damage to Black Community
Affirmative Action Sets up recipients for failure, demeaning (note: it may have been needed 30 years ago)
Minimum Wage Drives away businesses, jobs
Lack of School Choice Traps youth in failing public schools, and open to Leftist indoctrination
Feminism anti-male rhetoric Destructive, especially to young Black males
Entertainment media support of negative cultural traits Destructive to youth
Welfare, other government assistance with little incentive to leave Enslavement of the poor on the government plantations
Fostering a sense of victimization in every possible way (e.g. “hands up, don’t shoot”) Hopelessness, resentment, separatism rather than assimilation
Opposition to voter ID laws Demeaning, opens door to fraud
Left’s war on law enforcement Lack of law and order, high crime, drives out business
Leftist paternalism, suggesting that Blacks need White help Demeaning, fosters dependency, resentment
Exemption of Black students from behavior rules Lack of self-discipline, fosters unruly behavior
Illegal immigration Takes jobs from Black community
Anti-Christian, anti-family policies Devastating to the Black community
Early sex education, normalization of LGBTQ behavior Increases promiscuity, increase in AIDS and other STDs
Increasing attacks on Christianity and public Christian expression Reduces influence of the Christian church
Continuation of the “Negro Project” via nearby abortion clinics Weakens families, emotionally devastating to women, fosters promiscuity


In discussing the documentary “Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democrat Party”, filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza makes the following comparison between the Democrat plantations under slavery, and their contemporary urban plantations under progressivism, created and maintained by the Left:

Feature Under Slavery With Contemporary Urban Plantations
Dwellings Ramshackle Tenements, projects
Family Disarray by slaveholders Disarray by Democrat policy, Hollywood influence
Violence By slaveholders By gangs, drug dealers
Provision Meager Food stamps, lack of jobs due to violence, minimum wage
Opportunity No education, imprisoned (some escaped) Poor education, demonization of “acting White”, Democrat-provided victim mentality leading to hopelessness (some escape)

How can today’s extreme victimization of Blacks – especially the underclass – by the Leftist Identity Politics policies be considered anything but racist?  Fine, if there were problems with these policies after two or three years when the Left took control at the end of 1960s, maybe give them a little more time.  But after 50 years – with Black “leadership” in charge of all governmental entities in many of our urban centers – the plight along many indices show catastrophic decline: illiteracy, illegitimate births, aborted pregnancies, crime, infrastructure, business climate, employment.  Yet as mentioned above the Left prohibits criticism of the underlying culture of the underclass, and works diligently with Marxist groups such as Black Lives Matter to decrease effectiveness of law enforcement in the urban areas, ensuring high crime rates, with little interest in the establishment or retention of businesses in these areas, for example by raising minimum wages.  And the Left also adamantly opposes school choice for poor families to get their kids out of failing schools, which might offer some hope.  And for many years the Left has ensured policies which incentivize single-parent households, going back to the time of the rejected Moynihan Report.

No, it appears that the Left – at the elite level – has no incentive to see positive change; they support “hands up, don’t shoot” to enhance a sense of victimization, but demonize groups that support abstinence until married programs, preferring earlier and more inappropriate sex education for small children.  It’s no wonder that anti-family policies emanate from today’s Left; their founders wanted to trash traditional families and smash monogamy (and they led extremely licentious lifestyles to “walk their talk”).

Note that the Black community – whose family structure just prior to the Leftist takeover was not that far behind the general population (and that was under Jim Crow and similar institutional racism) – has unfortunately responded “well” to the Leftist founders’ wishes, with catastrophic results.  In what sense is this NOT racism of the Left, since they took over in the 1960s?

White Guilt and Black Protests

Black Conservative author Shelby Steele published an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Black Protest Has Lost Its Power”.  In it he states that for many years, protest was the means of gaining freedom in the wider culture; the Civil Rights movement after World War II being a prime example.

But what if all the major objectives of protest have been achieved, and essential freedom the result?  Steele brings up the 4,000 black-on-black murders in Chicago in 2016.  He goes on to say:

“We can say that past oppression left us unprepared for freedom. This is certainly true. But it is no consolation. Freedom is just freedom. It is a condition, not an agent of change. It does not develop or uplift those who win it. Freedom holds us accountable no matter the disadvantages we inherit from the past. The tragedy in Chicago—rightly or wrongly—reflects on black America.

“That’s why, in the face of freedom’s unsparing judgmentalism, we reflexively claim that freedom is a lie. We conjure elaborate narratives that give white racism new life in the present: “systemic” and “structural” racism, racist “microaggressions,” “white privilege,” and so on. All these narratives insist that blacks are still victims of racism, and that freedom’s accountability is an injustice.

“We end up giving victimization the charisma of black authenticity. Suffering, poverty and underdevelopment are the things that make you “truly black.” Success and achievement throw your authenticity into question.”

Leading the charge for maintaining that self-defeating sense of victimization is Identity Politics as applied to matters of race.  Steele expands on this thinking in an interview with Mark Levin, entitled “White Guilt is Black Power”.

Rational Discrimination

There’s a mind-game that was circulating in the 1990s, as follows:

Two young black men are walking down a sidewalk in their fairly run-down somewhat crime infested neighborhood.  They’re carrying backpacks, and their jeans are hanging low, with baseball caps askew.  A taxi comes by, and they attempt to hail it, to get a ride.

The taxi slows down, and then continues on its way.

Question #1: Were the two young men discriminated against?

Additional information: The taxi driver was Black.

Question #2: Were the two young men discriminated against?

Additional information: The two young men were late for a Bible Study, and their back packs contained Bibles, and other handouts for the Study.

Question #3: How could the outcome have been different?

The answer to both questions 1 and 2 is yes, they were discriminated against, but the discrimination was rational; the cab drivers, based upon appearances and location, plus their knowledge of the culture of that neighborhood, decided it was too risky to stop for the young men.  It wasn’t that they hated Blacks, nor was racist; they just wanted to finish their workday and arrive safely back home with their family that evening.

But these two young men WERE discriminated against. Yet it was rational.

Now, the non-Black driver would likely at least have been shamed, and perhaps fined or even lost his license.   What about the Black driver?

Black Libertarian Economist Walter E. Williams describes rational discrimination as related to freedom of association:

One of my strong values is freedom of association.  If you believe in freedom of association, you have to accept that people will associate in ways that you find offensive.  And I believe that people have the right to discriminate on any basis they want, so long as they’re not using government.  For example, I don’t believe that a [public] library should be able to discriminate against me, because I’m a taxpayer….

Discrimination for me is just an act of choice.  And we all discriminate …. When I was choosing a wife to marry, I didn’t give every woman an equal opportunity.  I discriminated against Japanese women, Italian women, women with criminal records, women that did not bathe regularly: I discriminated on all kinds of people.

The issue of rational discrimination was discussed in detail in Dinesh D’Souza’s 1996 book, “The End of Racism”; a full discussion is beyond the scope of this section.  Consider some concluding remarks at the end of his lengthy chapter entitled “Rational Discrimination”:

Thus, the puzzle of whites and blacks witnessing the same racial landscape and coming up with radically different interpretations of it is finally resolved: whites are correct in their observation that they do not generally engage in irrational discrimination against blacks, and blacks warranted in their conviction that discrimination against innocent members of their group, whether rational or not, is often painful, dehumanizing, and immoral. Whites are making a rational appeal to group traits, whereas blacks are making an ethical appeal to personal rights. Perhaps the most sensible appraisal of the new and complex face of contemporary racism and discrimination comes from African American historian John Hope Franklin. “There’s still racism manifested everywhere in this country,” Franklin said in a recent interview. “Not all of it is in our heads. A lot of it is in our heads. But blacks ought to help themselves more and stop crying about what they don’t get. There are enormous opportunities that they ought to grasp.” 

Critique: This linked video demonstrates that the political power accrued by application of Identity Politics does not result in improvement in the lives of Black Americans.

A more extensive video entitled, “Identity Politics & The Marxist Lie of White Privilege,” by Jordan B. Peterson provides an in-depth critique of Marxism, Postmodernism and Identity Politics, and then addresses the concept of White Privilege. He states that for society to be sustainable and cohesive, people must be considered and treated as individuals.  To use group racial or ethnic labels such as “White” of “Black” to apply to an individual is inherently racist and reprehensible and fosters the disintegration of society.

A less extensive video dealing with the core issue within Identity Politics of victimhood is given by Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt in a 2016 lecture at Duke University.  This video clip provides insight into the devastation caused by the adoption of victimhood among university students in the various Identity groups on campus.  Clearly that devastation is not limited to university students but affects all who are seduced into the Marxist spirit of victimhood.

Black Conservatives are not Victims

When everything is taken into account, there is no question that Black conservatism provides an alternative to Identity Politics and the problems in the Black underclass, with the emphasis on responsibility and the individual as the antidote.  Yet the Democrat party marginalizes, demonizes and opposes Black conservatives and the non-Leftist policies they propose.  In fact, these people are the best hope for the entire country, because they have suffered, yet have TRANSCENDED victimhood!

Consider quotes from some Black conservative writers concerning the negative effect of progressive policies emanating from Identity Politics on the Black community:

Jason Riley: “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed

In Please Stop Helping Us, Jason L. Riley examines how well-intentioned welfare programs are in fact holding black Americans back. Minimum-wage laws may lift earnings for people who are already employed, but they price a disproportionate number of blacks out of the labor force. Affirmative action in higher education is intended to address past discrimination, but the result is fewer black college graduates than would otherwise exist. And so it goes with everything from soft-on-crime laws, which make black neighborhoods more dangerous, to policies that limit school choice out of a mistaken belief that charter schools and voucher programs harm the traditional public schools that most low-income students attend. (from Amazon description: bold letters added)

Derryck Green – “Where is the Black Church

Under the current societal trappings of “tolerance,” “diversity” and moral relativism, blacks have willingly relinquished the painful but necessary process of self-critique. This behavioral and spiritual deficiency leads black culture to define “authenticity” as comporting oneself with stereotypes that the generations of many of our grandparents and great grandparents sought to avoid and overcome.  In other condescending terms, this “authenticity” is often equated with “acting black.”

John McWhorter – “What’s Holding Blacks Back?

“Victimology, separatism, and anti-intellectualism underlie the general black community’s response to all race-related issues.… Today, these three thought patterns impede black advancement much more than racism; and dysfunctional inner cities, corporate glass ceilings, and black educational underachievement will persist until such thinking disappears. In my experience, trying to show many African-Americans how mistaken and counterproductive these ideas are is like trying to convince a religious person that God does not exist: the sentiments are beyond the reach of rational, civil discourse.”

Shelby Steele – “The Loneliness of the Black Conservative

“Today a public ‘black conservative’ will surely meet a stunning amount of animus, demonization, misunderstanding, and flat-out, undifferentiated contempt. And there is a kind of licensing process involved here in which the black leadership—normally protective even of people like Marion Barry and O. J. Simpson—licenses blacks and whites to have contempt for the black conservative. It is a part of the group’s manipulation of shame to let certain of its members languish outside the perimeter of group protection where even politically correct whites (who normally repress criticism of blacks) can show contempt for them.”

A question may be asked as to the scriptural basis for refutation of the above contemporary views of Black conservatives.  For Christians who support the Democrat party, how does one frame the overt racism from Andrew Jackson to LBJ, or the covert Postmodern racism (at the elite level) of Identity Politics which has created and maintained today’s urban plantation for the Black underclass?

If you’re unfamiliar with the thoughts of Black conservatives, sample videos and recommended books are provided in the Appendix.


In the West, the advent of science and technology and the industrial revolution, coupled with the economic model of Capitalism created wealth such that for the first time in human history it was possible for women in a widespread manner to be freed from their role as family homemaker.  Thus, in the 19th century they began to enter the labor market formerly exclusively the realm of men.

New and complex changes began to take place in the relationship between men and women, and women began to band together in a movement to make their place in this new world; that movement is labeled Feminism.  There continues to be tension involved with the male/female relationship in the West to this current day, due in part to built-in differences between men and women.

There have been three waves of Feminism over the past 180 years:

First wave: 1830’s – 1950’s

* Basic rights: voting, property, legal barriers removed

Second wave: 1960’s -1980’s

* Adding of Cultural Marxism, sexual freedom (the pill/abortion), smash monogamy, smash the patriarchy, Postmodernism and Identity Politics, gender as social construct, man-hating, male privilege

Third wave: 1990’s – present

* Victimhood to extensive granularity (intersectionality), rape culture, slut walks, non-indictment of Muslim oppression of women

Feminism Creation Myth

Feminism has at its roots a mythological feminist paradise; a noble savage mode of living where everything was egalitarian, female dominated – a matriarchal culture.  That was then supposedly thrown over by patriarchal institutions about the time of the beginning of Judaism (i.e., Abraham). Ever since then we’ve been living in an oppressive patriarchal system. Note that there’s no evidence that this matriarchal system ever existed.  It’s the telling of a psychological myth as if it was history.  Bottom line, in the minds of Feminists, Western Civilization has been a brutal patriarchy, and whatever good that was accomplished was done so by oppression and theft, and that the appropriate thing to do is to restructure it from the bottom up.  In other words, revolution.

The second and third waves of Feminism have constituted a direct assault on Judeo-Christian values related to sexual mores and the traditional family, and most of that assault has Marxist ideology at its root.  An important revolutionary change was the freeing of women from Judeo-Christian concepts of sexual restraint. Clearly the most important factor leading to that change was the “pill”; for the first time in human history, women had control over reproduction, independent of men.

Another important change affecting women in the West was the introduction of technology relative to living conditions: electricity, pure water, automobiles, refrigerators, automatic washers and driers, microwaves, etc.; all reducing the time and effort required in the home.  All of this accelerated after World War II, such that for the first time it was feasible for women to enter the workplace in large numbers.  Perhaps the starting point was the necessity for women to take over jobs previously held by men during World War II.

So, in addition to the introduction of Marxist ideology into the culture, the phenomenon of widespread employment of women outside the home created the need for a realignment of male/female relationships.  In the early stages of this process, there was clearly resistance on the part of men, dealing for example with a new form of male/female competition; men were no longer the sole providers, nor women exclusively in the home.

As Postmodernism entered the scene in the late 1970s — and with it, Identity Politics in a Marxist oppressor/oppressed model — the “oppressor” category for women morphed into men-as-oppressors.  By the time that third wave Feminism was fully in place in the early 1990s, the “evil Patriarchy” was a major driving force in Feminism.

The tragedy of 2nd and 3rd wave Feminism is that the vastly oversimplified Marxist paradigm of privileged men oppressing victimized women ignored or demonized other important factors, such as scientific realities related to significant differences between the sexes, substituting those realities with social constructionism; also downplaying the importance of responsibility, competence, and conscientiousness in one’s ability to deal with the obstacles that life brings.

A good example of societal problems created by contemporary Feminism can be seen in higher education.

Feminism on Campus

The anti-male focus of contemporary Feminism can be seen today with special clarity in North American colleges and universities.  Consider the following quote from Canadian anti-Feminist, English Professor Janice Fiamengo of the University of Ottawa:

“If Feminism ever was about equality…. it emphatically no longer is.  In the 21st century, Feminism is about special privileges and advantages for women, and special exemptions from responsibility…I object to an ideology and practice that sets one standard for women (supposedly because they are victims), and one harshly punitive standard for men, supposedly because they are privileged…. The dishonesty and hypocrisy of the Feminist movement deserves to be exposed and denounced every day.”

Fiamengo goes on to detail how “irrationality” (remember, Postmodernism does away with logic) has overtaken radical Feminism.  She says:

“It promotes the idea that women’s feelings are more important than objective reality or the search for truth.  Claiming victimhood trumps fact, argument and debate.  According to Feminist worldview, women must never be made to feel “unsafe” — not just physically, but emotionally and psychologically.  They must never be triggered…., reminded of trauma, or made to think about things that challenge their view of themselves as permanently innocent victims.”  

And she continues:

“In the Feminist world, women are always to be believed, always deferred to, always spoken of in hushed tones and deep sympathy…. [Feminism] has become a potent weapon to intimidate anyone who fails to toe the party line on a wide range of subjects, including abortion, gender difference, boy’s education, the criminal justice system, family law, etc.”

Fiamengo then shifts her focus to the effect of current Feminism on male students (and to a degree, on men in general):

“Men at university are told in no uncertain terms that they are uniquely guilty, prone to violence, and responsible for war, inequality, rape, domestic violence, pedophilia, sexual harassment, hetero-patriarchal capitalistic domination, and all that is wrong in society.”

And that’s just the beginning.  She goes on to cite the many advantages available only to female students, and then contrasts that with the adversarial setting encountered by male students:

 “A young man on the other hand has a very different experience.  He will likely attend a mandatory gender sensitivity and anti-violence workshop at the beginning of his first year, where he will be lectured about his propensity for sexual predation.”

And the young man will need to watch his speech:

“If the young man challenges the Feminist party line, he will often be told that his maleness prevents him from fully understanding certain issues, or even from having the right to speak about them.  Women on the other hand are never told that their femaleness prevents them from understanding or voicing an opinion on issues. A young man will learn that if he wants to be allowed to speak without harsh criticism, he will need to preface many of his comments with an apologetic admission of his male privilege.”

After outlining the comprehensive discrimination against male students, Fiamengo deals with an additional serious issue of injustice against them:

“As a result of the oversensitivity to women’s feelings, and the knee-jerk hostility or at least indifference to men, a host of asymmetrical and unjust policies and practices have been put in place on university campuses, many of which not only sideline men and restrict their right to self-expression, but actually threaten their well-being and livelihoods in profound ways.  Most shockingly perhaps, a zero-tolerance policy for what is called sexual misconduct, of even very trivial kinds like a crude Facebook post, or sexual joke; and a manic expansion of the understanding of what constitutes rape.”

Professor Fiamengo has a YouTube series of videos called The Fiamengo Files, or TFF.  This body of her work constitutes a comprehensive expose of Feminism. In her years as a student, she joined in with the Feminism-of-the-day until at some point she began to be aware of the unreality of it all, especially as it impacted men. She began to understand the ridiculousness and destructiveness of contemporary Feminism, and became transformed into an articulate anti-Feminist.

The anti-male animus of contemporary Feminism is having deep and catastrophic effects among young men.  Consider the reaction that psychology professor Jordan Peterson has to this reality in contemporary Western Culture.

Victim Mentality Disorder

Janice Fiamengo identifies a Victim Mentality Disorder associated with Feminism, whereby vulnerable females are led to believe that they have been harmed in a manner entirely undeserved and for which they bear no responsibility:

* Blaming others (particularly men…) for situations that one has contributed to

* Being unwilling to take responsibility for one’s own actions

* Ascribing non-existent negative intentions to other people – particularly to men

* Believing that other people — particularly men — are generally luckier and happier

* Gaining pleasure from feeling sorry for themselves and eliciting pity from others, and therefore telling exaggerated stories about their victimization and in some cases even harming themselves to support the story.

These women tend to be self-absorbed, and often react with strident accusations of abuse if someone doubts their story, characterizing that doubt as further unjust victimization.

However, while Feminism is especially attractive to troubled females, average white girls also get pulled in by the pervasive hold that Feminism has throughout the culture, certainly over the past 40 years.  Consider Fiamengo’s description of this context of a typical white girl:

The average young woman is typically the beneficiary of school programs to help girls succeed all the way from primary school to post-secondary level, and she is typically taught almost entirely by pro-Feminist teachers, many of them women, who praise her for her insights, her social interactions, and her verbal skills.  She’s told from an early age that she should assert herself, that girls and women’s’ contributions to society are worthy of special praise, and that boys and men have no right to make her feel uncomfortable in any way.

Fiamengo concludes that years-long immersion in mainstream Feminist thought has a two-fold effect:

First, it channels any feelings of dissatisfaction, anxiety, resentment or self-dislike which most young people feel at one time or another into anger at male-dominated society which is seen as actively and eternally biased against women.

And second, it creates a powerful, heady and exhilarating rush of euphoria, deeply pleasurable, at perceiving oneself an innocent victim of social forces beyond one’s control.

Note that the combination of these two effects contributes to the development of the Feminist Victim Mentality Disorder (VMD) even among “normal” young women; especially the belief that any difficulty in a women’s life is caused by a single malevolent source beyond her control (i.e., men), and that she is owed public sympathy and compensation.

Intersectionality in Feminism

However, in the early 1990s, a big problem arose whereby women of color and some in the LGBTQ community began to accuse White females of their “privilege” because they were White.  Over a period of time, with conferences, lecture tours, journal articles, and books, the concept of Intersectionality was defined, which accommodated all women, albeit in a priority order of increasing victimhood, sometimes defined by seriously convoluted calculations as to who was least privileged.

The pitiful reality is that the entire Identity Politics, Marxist oppressor/oppressed model is a vast oversimplification, as already described above.  The truth is that every individual – not group – has their own set of privileges and victimizations, and no ideology on earth can fix take all the injustices in a fair and equitable manner.  Better for each individual to shoulder their own load responsibly, and simultaneously, be of help to others.

Non-indictment of Oppression of Muslim Women

Some of the most blatant examples of the illogic of postmodern Feminism are found in the intersectionality involving Muslim women.  One day, white Feminists are fully participating in a “slut” parade, and the next event, they’re wearing Hijabs in solidarity with their Muslim sister-victims.  Note that there is no pressure put on the Muslim Feminists by the white Feminists to participate in slut parades, nor are there any rallies or demonstrations against Female genital mutilation or other physical and psychological abuse foisted on Muslim women by their Muslim male counterparts.

And in Europe, when there are repeated incidents of sexual abuse of Western women (and children) by migrant Muslim men, there is either essentially silence on the part of Feminism, or perhaps an occasional attempt to invite some of the Muslim migrant men to attend sensitivity training.  Perhaps one of the most egregious and publicly known scandals is the disdain of Feminism for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a true victim of Muslim violence against women, and a champion for rights of women around the world.

Critique: There is much wrong with contemporary Feminism.  It is no longer about “equality” (as in the First Wave), but about special privileges for women, and exemptions from responsibility.  It elevates “feelings” over facts and objective reality.  It posits gender arising from culture, and not biology (see Gender and Social Constructionism).  It also denigrates men (and all things biologically male), and abhors the “patriarchy”.  And in academia, it trains students to be Social Justice Warriors, who then become activists to censor speech that does not conform to Feminist ideology.  And the Marxist revolution that they want has precursors in the 20th century that entailed unimaginable suffering.  Who believes that the Feminist revolution will finally get Marxism “right”?

An excellent analysis of the damage to Western Civilization by 2nd and 3rd wave Feminism is found in the 2001 essay by Kenneth Minogue, entitled “How Civilizations Fall”.

For additional videos dealing with Feminism and related topics, see here.


When Identity Politics elites decided that victimization of groups of people needed to be dealt with in a more comprehensive manner, they invented “intersectionality”.  At the time of the introduction of Identity Politics to the Feminist movement in the late 1970s, the leaders were nearly all White females.

It is important here to reiterate: anti-Feminist University of Ottawa English Professor Janice Fiamengo describes the two-fold effect of mainstream Feminist thought on women:

First, it channels any feelings of dissatisfaction, anxiety, resentment or self-dislike which most young people feel at one time or another into anger at male-dominated society which is seen as actively and eternally biased against women.

And second, it creates a powerful, heady and exhilarating rush of euphoria, deeply pleasurable, at perceiving oneself an innocent victim of social forces beyond one’s control.

However, in the early 1990s, non-White and Lesbian Feminists raised the issue that they were more comprehensive victims than privileged, White, heterosexual women.

Fiamengo comments:

All of these powerfully positive feelings [of innocent victimization] are vulnerable to claims made by women in other identity categories, especially lesbians, black women, aboriginal women, and disabled women. Not only that their suffering is far more severe that that experienced by white heterosexual women, but even worse that the white heterosexual cis-gender woman actually participates in the oppression of these others through her whiteness, her heterosexuality, her able-bodiedness, etc.

This corresponds to the advent of third-wave Feminism, whereby white Feminists were confronted with their blindness to the impact of racism, classism, able-ism, and heterosexism in women’s experience.   Fiamengo states the impact:

Psychologically, this is a shattering accusation, threatening all that the white Feminist holds dear in her self-conception.  Most fundamentally it takes away her moral innocence, and the intense pleasure she has derived from her victimhood.

So, what to do?  After all, the victim claims by the non-white, “other” women were of identical Marxist schema of innocent victim/privileged oppressor. So how could the white Feminist rebut the victim claim of the “others” without at the same time losing their own victimized identity?

This dilemma and its solution are labeled “Intersectionality”.  The resolution involves quite complicated and even incoherent calculations of degrees of victimization and complicity.  Fiamengo explains:

In practice, essentially, white Feminist guilt for white privilege or hetero privilege is acknowledged, even embraced.  Since the deflection of blame is always the end goal of the feminine psychosis, that is achieved in this case by accepting — and then renouncing — privilege through confession and contrition.  Confession involves — as we have often seen — public acknowledgment; the ritual announcement of one’s sources of privilege.  And contrition involves attacks on the externalized source of that privilege, whether it be racist patriarchy, hetero patriarchy, western colonial patriarchy, etc.

Thus, the white Feminist reclaims her temporarily lost moral innocence by focusing with ever greater fury on white, heterosexual, able-bodied, cis-gendered male villainy, and declaring her allegiance with its various victims: the non-western “other”, the sexually marginalized, and so on.  She becomes innocent again by becoming a victim advocate for her brown and lesbian sisters, and even in some cases brothers.


When one considers intersectionality as it fractionates, the concept of Identity Politics becomes more and more cumbersome, as victimization devolves into smaller and smaller groups; eventually with enough fractionation, groups of one person: in other words, the individual.

Start with a simple example: race and gender.  How many races are there in the world?  Some would say 4, while others would identify about 30 subdivisions.  We’ll stay with 4. What about gender?  Well, in the case of Identity Politics, gender is a social construct rather than a binary entity that objective science and the entire history of mankind and all other mammals has exhibited. Thus, in logic- and fact-free Postmodernism, there are at last count 60 or 70 unique pretend genders; just to make computation easier, let’s use 50. If you then compute the number of intersections of race with gender, you would get at least 200 unique identities: 4 races for each pretend gender.

Then let’s add age, because privilege and oppression are age-dependent.  So, using an arbitrary quantity of one year over a span of 50 years, the intersectionality now expands to 1,000 unique identities, each with their own victimization profile.  Then, let’s add language, country of residence, IQ, blood type, eye color, height, weight, and personality profile, each of which holds some position on the privilege/oppression scale.  It turns out when all the intersections are added — because each human being has all of those qualities — we end up with many billions of unique identities.  In other words, hyper-intersectionality ends up with the individual, each with their own particular victim profile.

Therefore, Identity Politics has its own poison pill of hyper-intersectionality, which renders the concept useless from a logic point of view.  However, Postmodernism believes that logic is one of the evil patriarchy’s weapons (in addition to objective facts), so the Left simply picks and chooses the most potent combinations yielding the greatest power, and invents customized victim narratives to maximize the retention of believers, and to bludgeon the naysayers. Whatever works.

Jordan Peterson provides some perspective to the hyper-Intersectionality problem in these comments.

Critique: Intersectionality is recipe for multiple contradictions, but since Feminism is based on Postmodernism, logic and coherence are never a priority.  The attempt to fractionate victimization can go on endlessly.  For example, how can one possibly calculate AT THE GROUP LEVEL who is most oppressed?  Is a man who is 1/4th Black and 50% Hispanic, with a disabled 2-year old child more – or less – oppressed than a 100% Native American woman with a prodigy child and an alcoholic grandfather?  Because, according to intersectionality, one of those two is more privileged than the other, and thus actually oppresses the other with their privilege.  Whichever one that is will need to confess their privilege to the other, and then advocate for their victim status, in order to achieve coveted Postmodern innocence.  How does one build a cohesive society on that kind of paradigm?

Further, the problem that intersectionality is attempting to solve, is itself a fraudulent construct.  The Postmodern/neo-Marxist model of oppressor/oppressed, or privileged/victim is itself incomprehensively over-simplified.  First of all, the so-called “groups” are made up of individuals, and each person has their own combination of victimization and privilege.  Additionally, beyond both of those concepts are issues of competence, conscientiousness, acceptance of responsibility, choices, addictions, suffering, and ultimately death.  To reduce life to a Marxist model of power with its drive to equity is a recipe for totalitarianism of the kind seen in the Marxist regimes of the 20th century; which is to say, mayhem, enslavement, misery, death and destruction on an unimaginable scale.  How can rational people have anything to do with such an ideology, other than oppose, discredit, and dismantle?


Postmodern neo-Marxism has developed a narrative called social construction to account for differences between male and female: the ideology proclaims that most differences other than genitalia and chromosomes are malleable social constructions, mostly disconnected from biology.  But non-ideological science reveals that there are important differences inherent in men and women, transculturally.  For example, large-scale, country-wide studies – ironically, conducted for the most part by Leftists – have shown conclusively that when effectively all societal barriers regarding male and female roles are removed over a time period of multiple generations, the resulting choices by men and women diverge rather than coalesce. For example, in Scandinavia today, women in the nursing profession outnumber men by a ratio of 19 to 1. Similar ratios are found for men outnumbering women in engineering by a similar large ratio in these countries.

Personality studies also provide insight into the differences.  For example, some of the most illustrative research performs analysis not only on the “Big 5” (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness), but also address subordinate aspects of personality, ranging is some studies from two for each of the Big 5 to as many as 15 subcategories.  In general, cross-culturally, women score higher than men in Agreeableness and Neuroticism, while men score higher than women in Extraversion and Openness.  However, while the differences are real, they are not overwhelmingly so: Agreeableness is found more in women than men at a 60-40% ratio.    And further, some men score higher in Agreeableness than the average women, and some women score higher in Extroversion than the average men.

To demonstrate the relationship, consider the following diagram:

The blue curve represents men, and the red women.  If we consider the trait Agreeableness, then the further right on the graph, the more agreeable one is; the further left, the more disagreeable.  Note that at the left extremity, there is only blue, which means that the most disagreeable people in a population are all men.  It is noted that the personality trait most related to prison incarceration is low agreeableness, especially when combined with low conscientiousness.  This helps explains why 95% of the prison population is male.

The point is that there are real, biologically-determined differences between men and women, but also overlap.

However, there’s a more complex aspect to social constructionism when it comes to definitions of gender outside of the male and female categories.  This has come about with the “mainstreaming” of what was formerly labeled mental illness: the transgender array of “genders”.  The lexicon of terminology assigns the prefix “cis” to the “normal” genders of male and female; the remainder of genders thus are labeled “non-cis”.  So according to the ideology, a biological male who identifies as a man or a biological female who identifies as a woman is called cisgender; otherwise, the appropriate term is transgender.  However, if one posits that there are only two genders – male and female – then that is termed “gender binary”.

An aspect of these constructed genders is that some (but not all) transgender people want to be addressed with a new set of pronouns to be used instead of “he”, “she” etc. These created pronouns attempt to provide a delineation of uniqueness to each flavor of non-binary (i.e., neither male nor female) people who have created their own gender categories (via intersectionality) with accompanying pronouns such as “zie”, “zim”, “zir”, “sie”, “sie”, “hir”, “ey”, “em”, “eir”, “ve”, “ver”, “vis”, etc. They state that these pronouns define their identity, and demand that others use these pronouns when addressing them.  In fact, in some jurisdictions such as Ontario in Canada (and as of 2017, the entire country) and New York State, to refuse to use these desired pronouns is a criminal offense, resulting in a substantial fine, as much as $250,000.

Note that there’s apparently no limit on new categories, including for example non-human categories sometimes referred to as “otherkins”: people who self-identify as animals, elves, fairies, etc.  Note that objectivity and rationality won’t work to dispel this nonsense, because “objectivity” and “rationality” are code words for oppression to the postmodern social justice warriors; they claim that it’s just another power game.

From a social and cultural standpoint, it is uncertain how this socially constructed scheme of a proliferation of genders will play out, because how can every citizen be expected to memorize 70 or maybe eventually several hundred pronouns, so that they won’t be offensive when they might be conversing with a non-cis non-binary transgender people?  A good term for this Postmodern neo-Marxist “solution” of the problem of transgendered people is “ideological insanity.”  Further, it is highly likely that most transgender people wish to be simply addressed as “he” or “she” of their dysphoric cis identity, yet the activists proclaim that they represent all transgender people.

Critique: The Scandinavian studies as well as human personality research, along with actual objectivity and rationality devastates the social constructionist theory of gender; it’s biology, pure and simple. Additionally, one’s subjective sense of one’s gender does not define a person’s true identity; human identity is a much more complex issue.

In the case of transgender people, in spite of all the unworkable and unscientific aspects of social constructionism, these people suffer from extreme personal contradictions, and regardless of ideology and strident activism, they deserve utmost sympathy.  The tragedy is the extreme resistance on the part of the activists to allow scientifically researched and clinically proven therapeutic procedures which have a high success rate in restoration of cis-normative genders.


Postmodern neo-Marxism ideology with respect to gender assumes that it is socially constructed and determined essentially by how a person “feels”; such feelings in the past were referred to as a “mental illness”.  Interestingly, terms for pathology actually still exist even in ideologically dominated “professional” organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association (APA).  Their technical term for people not comfortable in identifying with their biological sex is “Gender Dysphoria”, although in some cases “Gender Identity Disorder” is also used.  The difference between the two is that “dysphoria” indicates and unease or dissatisfaction, whereas “disorder” indicates pathology.

In the past there has been progress in understanding the origin of GD/GID, and there have been methodologies developed to aid in re-orienting people suffering from the disorder to identification with their biological sex.  GD/GID often arises from early childhood environmental issues which place susceptible children at risk, such as for example parents who themselves deal with certain mental disorders.

However, clinicians such as Drs. Kenneth Zucker and Susan Bradley, formerly of the Child Youth and Family Gender Identity Clinic in Toronto have found considerable success in helping youth finding relief from their gender dysphoria.  Consider first of all their assessment of the sources of the dysphoria, in this example for that of boys:

A composite measure of maternal psychopathology correlated quite strongly with Child Behavior Checklist indices of behavior problems in boys with GID.

The rate of maternal psychopathology is high by any standard and includes depression and bipolar disorder.

The boy, who is highly sensitive to maternal signals, perceives the mother’s feelings of depression and anger.  Because of his own insecurity, he is all the more threatened by his mother’s anger or hostility, which he perceives as directed at him. His worry about the loss of his mother intensifies his conflict over his own anger, resulting in high levels of arousal or anxiety. The father’s own difficulty with affect regulation and inner sense of inadequacy usually produces withdrawal rather than approach.

The parents have difficulty resolving the conflicts they experience in their own marital relations, and fail to provide support to each other. This produces an intensified sense of conflict and hostility.

In this situation, the boy becomes increasingly unsure about his own self-value because of the mother’s withdrawal or anger and the father’s failure to intercede. This anxiety and insecurity intensify, as does his anger. These men (fathers) are often easily threatened and feel inadequate themselves. These qualities appear to make it very difficult for them to connect with sons who display non-masculine behavior. Withdrawing from their feminine sons, they often deal with their conflicts by overwork or distancing themselves from their families. The fathers’ difficulty expressing feelings, and their inner sense of inadequacy are the roots of this emotional withdrawal.

With understanding of some of the root causes of the disorder, then Zucker and Bradley provide some insight into their treatment:

The fantasy solution [i.e., “identifying” as the opposite sex] provides relief but at a cost. They are unhappy children who are using their cross-gender behaviors to deal with their distress.

Treatment goal is to develop same sex skills and friendships.

In general, we concur with those who believe that the earlier treatment begins, the better. …It has been our experience that a sizable number of children and their families can achieve a great deal of change.

In these cases, the gender identity disorder resolves fully, and nothing in the children’s behavior or fantasy suggest that gender identity issues remain problematic. … All things considered, however, we take the position that in such cases clinicians should be optimistic, not nihilistic, about the possibility of helping the children to become more secure in their gender identity.

Yet even with that understanding, Postmodern neo-Marxist ideology resists dealing with causation and reparation and assumes that the child’s feelings are the priority.  This intervention is a tragic factor, considering the high suicide rate among people struggling with GD/GID.  Sadly, the ideologues take measures to block therapy which may in some cases be of benefit, and further advocate other measures to irreversibly trap youth in the dysphoric state via surgery and powerful medication.

So, the question needs to be asked: why did PC activists fire Dr. Zucker, and close his clinic in 2016, after decades of providing successful therapy to hundreds of patients?  The answer?  Because PC Gender Theory defies objective science to state that transgender people were “born that way.” Thus, any attempts to achieve change threatens their theory; plus, any successful transformations might tend to make transgender people feel badly.  The only solution is “equal outcomes”; thus, they wish to force any child that has even fleeting cross-sex feelings to become permanent transgender people, whether or not the child or the family desires that outcome.  In some states, they’ll even remove the suffering child from his parents, in order to ensure that they are never cured.   Moral high ground?

And at a deeper level, Postmodern neo-Marxists need all the victims they can collect and ideologically enslave, to meet their long-range goal of cultural transformation.

Critique: An excellent description of the transgender issue was provided in a 2015 essay by Dr. Paul McHugh, formerly Psychiatrist in Chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, which terminated providing sex-change surgery in the 1970s.  His opening statement summarizes his viewpoint, after working with patients dealing with GD/GID for over 40 years:

The idea that one’s sex is a feeling, not a fact, has permeated our culture and is leaving casualties in its wake.  Gender dysphoria should be treated with psychotherapy, not surgery.

His comment about sex-change surgery:

At Johns Hopkins, after pioneering sex-change surgery, we demonstrated that the practice brought no important benefits.  As a result, we stopped offering that form of treatment in the 1970s.

And here’s his assessment of the context of transgender issues:

In fact, gender dysphoria—the official psychiatric term for feeling oneself to be of the opposite sex—belongs in the family of similarly disordered assumptions about the body, such as anorexia nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder. Its treatment should not be directed at the body as with surgery and hormones any more than one treats obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction. The treatment should strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it. With youngsters, this is best done in family therapy.

And in terms of his assessment of the ideological or “meme” aspect, he does not hold back:

The larger issue is the meme itself. The idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture and is reflected everywhere in the media, the theater, the classroom, and in many medical clinics. It has taken on cult-like features: its own special lingo, internet chat rooms providing slick answers to new recruits, and clubs for easy access to dresses and styles supporting the sex change. It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges.

Regardless of the controversy over GD/GID, objective science vs. feelings, Gender dysphoria is actually a serious and troubling disorder, and anyone afflicted with this problem deserves the utmost sympathy and compassion, but also deserves the best treatment that modern medicine can offer, devoid of ideological concerns.

Additional videos discussing GD/GID diagnosis and treatment and the negative impact of ideology over science can be found here.


Privilege is a concept associated with the oppressor/oppressed Identity Politics model of postmodernism.  The idea is that if a person belongs to an oppressor group, then that person is “privileged”, and must confess that privilege before speaking about issues.  Further, the “privilege” concept does not allow people in oppressor classes to offer any thoughts on oppressed classes, because they do not have the “lived experience” of the oppressed.  Two of the most common uses of this concept are “White Privilege” and “Male Privilege.”

Of course, if the word “privilege” is removed from the neo-Marxist lexicon, there is obviously a kind of advantage that comes to a person from being a member of any category that is a majority. For example, right-handed people are more numerous than left-handed.  But that doesn’t indicate that right-handed people oppress left-handed people.  Further, every individual exists in a multitude of categories; some as a majority, and others as a minority.  Sensible people simply recognize that as a fact of life and adjust and cope; they certainly don’t select one or several of the categories where they are in the minority, and instead of adapting, choose to self-identify as victims, and live in resentment.

Critique: The “privilege” concept is a weapon in the political correctness arsenal to limit free speech, under the assumption that oppressors have nothing of value to say about those they oppress.  But of course, the whole Identity Politics oppressor/victim model is intellectually and pragmatically a vast oversimplification.  Some identifiable “class” defined by Marxists that a person might belong to is only a small fraction of the totality of that person, and in no way a priori should prevent them from expressing opinions on the presumed oppressed, or anything else.  The value of what a person says should be judged on the content of their speech, and not on ad hominin attacks based on which supposed “class” they belong to.


As with Privilege, the concepts of Microaggressions, Trigger Warnings, and Safe Spaces are all part of Postmodern Identity Politics, and their application is strictly focused on victim groups, and in opposition to privileged groups.  Thus, for example, evangelical students on university campuses are by definition “oppressors”, even though they are among the most persecuted and discriminated against students on campus.  There are no speech codes “protecting” this particular group, and often their student organizations are disallowed because of their adherence to Biblical principles.

This discrimination was defined by Frankfurt School luminary Herbert Marcuse, in his 1965 essay “A Critique of Pure Tolerance”.  In it, Marcuse posits that in the West, there is subtle domination caused by the traditional “tolerance” of the “majority”, and this needs to be addressed is a revolutionary manner:

“…a new kind of tolerance is therefore needed: tolerance of the Left, subversion, and revolutionary violence, combined with intolerance of the Right, of existing institutions of civil society, and of any opposition to socialism.”[25]

He further claimed that:

“…freedom of speech is not a good in itself because it allows for the propagation of error…. Revolutionary minorities hold the truth and the majority has to be liberated from error by being re-educated in the truth by this minority.”[26]

Note that microaggressions, trigger warnings, and safe spaces all are aspects of the regulation of speech according to the dictates of Identity Politics, based on the ideas of Herbert Marcuse:

Microaggressions Often subtle forms of speech which might make a member of a victim group feel uncomfortable
Trigger warnings Prior to an event such as a class lecture or speech where there might be upsetting ideas expressed to members of victim groups, advanced warning must be issued
Safe spaces Geographic locations where members of victim groups may retreat to, where strict speech codes are enforced (sometimes entire universities).


Of all the forms of Postmodern neo-Marxism’s Identity Politics, microaggressions might be the most subtle, irrational forms of victimization; as Janice Fiamengo suggests, the “ultimate symbol of manufactured outrage.”  A 2010 book by Derald Wing Sue, “Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation” details a host of microaggressions that according to the author marginalized people encounter.  As the racial/ethnic Identity Politics website unityfirst.com reviews, “In his book, Dr. Sue presents the first ever analysis of the unintended slights that take their toll on the people of color, women, gay/lesbian, transgendered and other groups.

Fiamengo cites sample “microaggressions”:

* Use of the word “Illegals” is microaggressive; “Undocumented people” is the “correct” label

* Any Objection to Gay marriage

* Relatives at holiday asking Lesbian niece if she met any nice boys at college

* Teacher to Black: “Don’t you think your reaction was offensive as well?”

* A T-shirt that says, “Cool story, Babe; Now make me a sandwich.”

However, consider similar statements that are not considered microaggressions, because the supposed marginalized people are the ones making the statements:

* One woman saying to another, “That extra weight looks good on you”.

* A woman calling a successful White man, “privileged”

One would think that identifying a woman as marginalized would itself be a microaggression, but then logic is simply not a part of Postmodernism; it’s all about power.

The illogic of the microaggression movement in terms of who can be microaggressed against, and who cannot, does not seem to diminish its growth. However, it must be remembered that the important aspects of Identity Politics of the rejection of objective truth and logic, and the quest for power are all fundamental characteristics of Postmodernism.

The tragedy is that the people who feel victimized by microaggressions are trapped in a never-ending cycle of self-marginalization.  Unintentional statements causing mild discomfort or insensitivity are a part of life, and instead of adopting a victim mentality, the person on the receiving end could learn to transcend such statements, and lead positive, fruitful lives, rather than descending into constant resentment and hostility.  The microaggression movement of Identity Politics is another manner in which Postmodernism enslaves its followers.

Safe Spaces

The “Safe Space” aspect of Identity Politics consists of the establishment of zones of totalitarian speech codes in colleges and universities where only Postmodern neo-Marxist ideologically approved thinking and speaking is allowed. Viewpoints distressing or hurtful to the marginalized are prohibited.  Of course, the definition of which people are marginalized is strictly defined by the Identity Politics victim groups.

Thus, for example, on most North American university campuses, Conservative or other non-progressive speakers are either not allowed, or else allowed to express their views only in free speech zones; the remainder of the campus is “safe” from non-progressive thought.

Yet that safety is not comprehensive.  For people who are not part of a victim group, the campus is anything but safe. For example, students supporting pro-life concepts relative to abortion are ordinarily either banned, or else treated despicably.  Student organizations which involve Christians who hold Biblically based views on Gay marriage are often disbanded or otherwise treated miserably.

The problem is that life is not “safe”.  Instead of marginalized students being taught to seek safety, why not teach them to be strong, to deal in an adult and confident manner with concepts and speech that they disagree with, and to formulate their own viewpoints, and express them?  Safe spaces are another example of destructive ideology.

Trigger Warnings

Formerly hallowed literature has been discovered by the Postmodern neo-Marxists to be filled with hidden messages of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other Identity Politics victim narratives.  Because of that, the campus ideologues feel that students must be warned in advance about any possible texts covered in class which might trigger an adverse reaction such as fear, worry, or shame.  And trigger warnings are also provided when non-progressive speakers come to campus.  In a sense, trigger warnings are a method used to preserve safe spaces for the delicate sensitivities of young students.

The problem is, these texts of spoken words are not real threats; and the students need to learn how to deal with exposure to things that are unpleasant.  They need to face unpleasantness, not run away from it.

There is also the use of trigger warnings to attempt to keep students from hearing speech critical of Postmodern neo-Marxism ideology, and all of its subcategories such as Feminism, Social Constructionism, Gender Studies Identity Politics, and even Communism.   This is obvious self-preservation for the ideologues, because the entire Postmodern neo-Marxist edifice collapses once demonstrable facts and logic are brought to bear on the ideology.  A glimpse of that collapse can be seen in the January 2018 interview of Jordan Peterson by Channel 4’s Cathy Newman.

Critique: The linked video provides a typical example of SJW activists interrupting a lecture by a conservative speaker.  In this case, there are essentially two words uttered by the demonstrators: “shame”, and “safety”.  “Shame”, because the activists know that the speaker will be using facts and logic to deconstruct their false ideology. Thus, they attempt to characterize the speaker and the attendees behavior as shameful; nothing more shameful than dispelling cherished lies with truth!

And “safety”, because the event is disrupting the safe space that the university has so jealously established to shield their students from logic and truth, so that they can be comprehensively indoctrinated with Postmodern concepts with no competition. The intensity with which one of the demonstrators yells “SAFETY!!” sadly shows the depth of his embrace of a patently false narrative.

The last thing students need is protection from free speech.  They need to be encouraged to listen, think, formulate their thoughts, and enter into dialogue to refine their thinking, and even sometimes change their conclusions.

All three of these Postmodern neo-Marxist techniques are at their core devices to limit free speech, and the tragedy is that the ideologues have used them in an increasingly successful manner to attack Western Civilization.


Multiculturalism is part of the Postmodern/neo-Marxist ideology that declares that all cultures are equally valid and to be venerated and protected, except for Western Culture, which is declared to be evil.  It is thus essentially the application of Marxist Critical Theory to Western Culture.  The assertion that all other cultures are equal results in moral relativism; what is considered moral in one culture might be immoral in another, excluding Western Culture.

Note that the elevation of cultures above the Judeo-Christianity of the West serves to undermine the preeminence of Judeo-Christianity in the West, whereas prior to the introduction of political correctness, the concept was that people of other cultures who came to the West were to assimilate into the original Judeo-Christian culture.

Critique: The position that all cultures are equal is only tenable by massive language deconstruction and ignorance of facts (see Postmodernism).  Each culture has its own strengths and weaknesses, and these often change over time.  And there are some cultures – such as Islam’s Shariah – which are simply incompatible with Western culture.


The words “diverse” and “inclusive” both have generic meanings, but in charged terms of political correctness they deal with the same issue: ensuring that various Identity Politics victim groups are sufficiently represented in an organization or other collection of people such as geographic entity.  Furthermore, the diversity is always among victim groups, not within them. In this section, “diversity” and “inclusivity” are considered to be dealing with identical concepts, from different perspectives.

So, for example, political correctness will never attempt to ensure that there are enough Christians represented in an organization, because they are considered to be an oppressor or privileged group.  And there will never be an attempt to ensure that there are enough Black Conservatives in a diversity scheme dealing with race.

Further, under political correctness, “diversity” is always considered to be a good thing.  There’s a slogan sometimes expressed: “Diversity is our strength.”  However, there is little evidence that diversity is automatically beneficial.  It all depends on the ability of a new group to assimilate with the predominant culture.  In countries such as India where diversity is profound, they have all they can do to keep the diverse groups from acting in violence towards one another.

Further, diversity viewed from the point of view of immigration has important considerations.  For example, in the US, the change in policy in 1965 to move away from immigration of people of European descent to people from third-world countries has had great impact on the demographics within the US, with the desire on the part of the Left to increase their likely voter base by bringing in people who are accustomed to big government, socialist-like entitlements, and lack of democracy.

Finally, diversity is a concept used by Identity Politics to serve as a measure of discrimination and oppression.  In an organization, at every level, if the demographic makeup of the employees does not conform to that of the surrounding population, then that level is deemed by identity politics to be inequitable and corrupt, even if the employment is based on skill levels and history of accomplishment of candidate employees.  And as stated above, the diversity is only dealing with the Leftist agreed-upon victim groups, never any group is considered privileged.

Critique: Diversity as a general concept might be helpful or detrimental to the country, or to an organization.  A fundamental issue is always the ability of a particular diverse group to be compatible with the overall culture, be it a country or an organization.  Relative to hiring of employees, when diversity becomes more important than competence and productivity, then the business or organization suffers.  In other words, diversity is not necessarily beneficial.  Note: paradoxically there is one area where political correctness is in extreme opposition to diversity: the diversity of opinion.

Note that Postmodern neo-Marxism eschews value hierarchies, to the detriment of the culture wherever it is in control.

For a further discussion of the negative impact of Diversity/Inclusivity in our culture, consider the Spring 2018 speech by Heather MacDonald at Hillsdale College.


The concept of Equity mandates that equal outcomes for any human endeavor across groups must be accomplished; otherwise the endeavor is assumed to be corrupt.  For example, consider a business with a hierarchical structure, from the CEO at the top, to the lowest level employees.  In between those extremes are various levels of responsibility and compensation.  “Equity” dictates that at every level, the demographics of the employees must match that of the locality where the business is situated.  Sometimes, the equity is mandated by governmental bodies; other times, by the organizations themselves.  The human resources departments are usually tasked with the accomplishment of the equity, and when there is governmental oversight, the companies will often require the services of lawyers, and probably even the choice of lawyers assigned must be equitable.

One problem is the question of which identity groups to be demographically considered: should it be race?  Ethnicity? Gender? Sexual preference? Religion? Age? Height?  Weight?  Appearance?  And there are also subcategories.  For example, if the determining group is “race”, how is that dealt with?  Is it a “they all look alike” rationale?  Or is it more sophisticated?  For example, among legal immigrant groups in the US, Nigerians come near the top in terms of wealth, education, and productivity.  So, is it equitable to the descendants from slaves or immigrants from the West Indies to be in the same group with Nigerians?  Then the hiring – while being equitable by race – will not be equitable for the sub-groups.

But the problem is that a business or organization has not ordinarily been formed to achieve “social justice”.  They are looking for value, not group balance:  who – regardless of group – is best suited for a job, considering intelligence, conscientiousness, and productivity.

And there is another important issue: preference.  Consider the equity concept that there should be equal representation between men and women, since demographically the divide between the sexes is close to 50%.  In Scandinavia –  where “gender equity” is very prominent in the cultural and political realms — large country-wide studies have shown that female nurses outnumber male by 20 to 1.  And conversely, in STEM occupations such as engineering, men outnumber women by the same ratio.  What this means is that biology is ruling: women are more inclined to nursing, and men to STEM.  So, efforts to achieve gender equity in such settings would seem to be anti-scientific, foolish and counterproductive.

The track record of Marxist regimes in the 20th century who applied radical equity by lethal force should be a lesson to today’s Social Justice advocates.

Critique:  Consider the following comments by University of Toronto Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson, describing the major points discussed in a lecture he gave dealing with equity:

This is a talk I gave in Calgary, Alberta on Mar 25, 2017, for a political action group, Generation Screwed. I wrote it out, and read it, which I rarely do, because I was developing a new argument, and wanted to ensure I made it properly. During the talk, I discuss the increasingly widespread demands for so-called “equity,” or equality of outcome. This is the most dangerous idea that the postmodern neo-Marxists have yet championed. Equity cannot be attained, even if it was desirable, because there is no limit to the ways in which people can be categorized. Race, sex, gender identity, and sexual proclivity — the current contenders for primacy of identity among the radical activist leftists — are no more valid as categories of human beings than attractiveness, personality, political belief, intelligence, health status, or economic class. Thus, the demand for equity can never be met. The equity authoritarians must be stopped. Now. There are few doctrines as dangerous to the rights of individual citizens or to social institutions. Learn the arguments. Push back. Now.

Note that these days, Human Resource departments in corporations and academia are deeply infiltrated by Leftist influence.

Additional videos dealing with Equity may be found here.


Hierarchies are a fundamental aspect of existence; they are found in every conceivable venue, from biological systems, to corporate organization charts, computer systems, ethics, morality, etc.  Hierarchies are often represented pictorially as a pyramid structure.  In terms of human culture and politics, Postmodernism assumes that all hierarchies are solely related to power, thus rejecting value structures and hierarchies of competence.

Jordan Peterson comments:

The Postmodernists are the logical conclusion of the Nietzschean dilemma.  God is dead.  The value structure [in the West, from Christian thought] is dead.  The specter arises of ALL value structures collapsing.…  They only exist for the purpose of exclusion; they have no intrinsic value [according to Postmodernism].

Peterson postulates the result, if the collapse were actually “real”:

Well, if all value structures have collapsed, then there’s nothing do, because in order to do something, some things have to be more value than others, because why do it? And so, people who are ensconced in the Postmodern tradition are undermined by their own philosophy.  

Well, “fortunately” for the Postmodern neo-Marxists, they have deconstructed not only value hierarchies but logic itself.  As mentioned elsewhere, Postmodernist luminary Jacques Derrida critiqued Western Civilization as Phallogocentric: referring to the privileging of the masculine (phallus) in the construction of meaning. Logocentrism means using language and logic to assign meaning in the world.

Thus, choosing to actually use the language of the Patriarch Karl Marx and his “logic” of communitarianism, they find something to do after all: basically, assault Western Civilization via Identity Politics and allies such as Feminism and Gender theory.

It’s important to understand that in the non-Postmodern neo-Marxist world of reality, value hierarchies have not collapsed, and in fact are extremely important, and should be promoted.  Without them, you fall into egalitarian equity.  But the only way to establish equity is with totalitarianism of the worst kind.  If there’s a flat egalitarian society, there’s nothing to strive for, there’s no “up”.  Who wants that? In the egalitarian regimes over the past 100 years, the only way in which there was equity was that everyone was poor and miserable.

Ask yourself the question.  If you require brain surgery in order to survive, will you seek out a surgeon to meets as many diverse oppressed canards as possible?  Race, gender, sexual orientation, age, body size, etc.?  Or might you look for the best of the best?  If you choose the latter, then you believe in hierarchies of competence.

Now it must be understood that competence hierarchies will tend to locate many more people at or near the bottom than further up the pyramid, and those people need a voice.  Jesus Christ summed it up in the statement, “The poor you will always have with you.” (Mark 14:7).  Regardless of what political/cultural model you prefer, this is an important problem to deal with.

Price’s Law and the Pareto Distribution

There are two mathematically-based laws of existence dealing with hierarchies that may be applied to human endeavor as well as processes in the natural world:

Price’s Law: This states that the square root of total number of people in a domain do 50% of the work.  For example, if you have 25 employees, 5 of them will do 50% of the work.  If your company grows to 100 employees, 90% of them will do 50% of the work.  In other words, competence grows linearly, while incompetence grows exponentially.

Note that this law seems to apply to any creative process.  For example, a relatively small number of recording artists sell a disproportionate number of recordings, according to Price’s Law.  The same with authors.  The same with a sales force; with investment managers, etc.

Pareto Distribution: This states that 80% of the output is produced from 20% of the actions.  Price’s Law is a kind of Pareto Distribution, applied to human creative activity.  However, the Pareto Distribution has even wider application, not only including human behavior, but is also found in physical processes.

Here’s a list from a Wikipedia posting of diverse processes that follow the Pareto Distribution:

* The sizes of human settlements (few cities, many hamlets/villages)

* File size distribution of Internet traffic which uses the TCP protocol (many smaller files, few larger ones)

* Hard disk drive error rates

* Clusters of Bose–Einstein condensate near absolute zero

* The values of oil reserves in oil fields (a few large fields, many small fields)

* The length distribution in jobs assigned supercomputers (a few large ones, many small ones)

* The standardized price returns on individual stocks

* Sizes of sand particles

* Severity of large casualty losses for certain lines of business such as general liability, commercial auto, and workers compensation.

It should also be noted that Price and Pareto relative to human behavior produce similar results, regardless of cultural or political processes in place.

Thus, the explanation for the preponderance of people at the bottom, note that it is NOT related to Capitalism or any other “ism”; it is a fundamental law of existence.


Peterson notes the devolution into tribalism (i.e., Identity Politics) as a bad solution for people at the bottom of the hierarchy:

This is not about whether empathy is useful or not, or that people on the conservative side are not empathetic…. But that [also] doesn’t mean that the collectivist view is the correct one for the overall grand narrative, namely that everything is a power struggle among competing groups, dealing with different forms of tyranny with respect to group affiliation.  To the extent that this collectivist narrative is played out is not a pretty picture, as is seen on university campuses.  This leads to tribalism, and it is not good.

Finally, a comment on “dominance” hierarchies, based solely on power.  Studies of leadership among Chimpanzees indicate that the strongest, most brutal male Chimps do not last long at the top; they are taken out by several subordinates who are not quite as brutal.  The Chimps that last at the top do have physical strength, but also tend to be pro-social, treat females well, and pay attention to young Chimps.

In other words, comprehensive competency rises to the top.

Critique: The grand narrative that created Western Civilization is focused on the individual rather than the group.  And accompanying that focus are hierarchies which provide meaning to life, but also result in some who are dispossessed.  However, the overall societal structure which includes a great degree of freedom is better equipped to deal with needed change to deal with the dispossessed than any other structure, past or present.

Unfortunately, the alternative narrative of collectivism has gained great ascendancy in the West, and its emphasis is on the group rather than the individual, and that has a tendency to move people in the direction of tribalism, where everyone in each group supposedly thinks and acts alike, and where the various groups struggle with one another for power.

That is because of the Postmodern neo-Marxist ideology has rejected overriding objective of value hierarchies which pertain to all individuals, regardless of tribe. What else is there to do but contend for power?

From Peterson:

With respect to free speech, if you’re a collectivist at heart, there no room for debate.  In the individualist sense, free speech is vital to fix problems and to navigate through differing opinions.  For the collectivist, when you speak, you’re simply participating in the power game for your group, and there’s nothing else that you can do, because that’s all there is.

In conclusion:

* Hierarchies are found throughout existence, both man-made and otherwise

* Hierarchies of competence and value are central to the grand narrative of Western Civilization, as well as focus on the primacy of the individual

* Postmodern neo-Marxism posits that all hierarchies of value collapse (because of the deconstruction of language), and that people must be separated into groups on the basis of power, under the Marxist model of privileged (powerful) and oppressed (powerless)

* Hierarchies of competence are considered valuable by Western Civilization, even though those at the lower end of competence are disadvantaged

Both Western Civilization and Postmodern neo-Marxism have solutions for the disadvantaged, but the Postmodern solution of equity has been a colossal and deadly failure in the past and present.  On the other hand, individuals in the West have often collaborated across many human categories of difference to create wealth, beauty, compassion-in-action, and generosity in great measure, to improve the lives of many; and have even rectified prior bad behavior, sometimes at great cost.


Over the past 20 years, there has been increasing use of a psychological test to supposedly determine the degree of unconscious racial bias in white people. While overtly expressed racial attitudes of whites have changed radically for the better over the past 30-40 years, the status of Blacks in a variety of categories such as employment and income has continued to lag far behind most of the rest of the culture.

For the neo-Marxist postmodernists, the cause of these deficiencies is interpreted in terms of the oppressor/oppressed model; thus, the lag in the stats of Blacks can only have one cause: White racism.  And if that racism is no longer visible and apparent, it must be subtle and subconscious – but still real, and the expected source of the oppression and cultural/economic lag.

The Banaji (Harvard) and Greenwald (Washington Univ.) Implicit Association Test (IAT) became the perfect tool that would uncover this subtle and subconscious component of White Privilege.  However, after two decades of its use – now widespread – even its creators now admit that its predictive value is missing.  Importantly, the test/retest results are dismal.  You might be a non-Racist on a day, and then two weeks later be a Racist. The reliability factor in the IAT is about 0.55, which is dismal.  Test of IQ and Big Five personality traits come out close to 0.9, both very accurate.

A very thorough article examining the value of the IAT was published in New York Magazine in early 2017, “Psychology’s Favorite Tool for Measuring Racism Isn’t Up to the Job”.  Its conclusions underscore the fallibility of this test to accurately determine unconscious racial bias.  And yet thousands of Whites in all kinds of organizations have been sent to retraining to eliminate their subconscious racism. However, there is some indication that this kind of retraining has the effect of increasing rather than decreasing racial attitudes.

Critique: The fundamental problem with the IAT is that it is nested within the neo-Marxist postmodern oppressor/oppressed model, when in actuality the lag in Black achievement has a multitude of causes, mostly unrelated to White racism. Near the top of the causes is Leftist racism (see the belittling of Blacks in the Left’s opposition to voter-IDs as one of many examples), and multiculturalism, which prohibits critique of Black culture, and the debilitating sense of victimhood,

Additional videos dealing with Unconscious Bias Training may be found here.


Refers to destructive criticism of all aspects of traditional, Judeo-Christian-based culture, including family, sexual mores, religion, capitalism, patriotism, authority, morality, tradition, and similar.  It was originated by the Frankfurt School, and began to infiltrate and influence Western Culture after World War II.  Critical Theory doesn’t propose remedial measures; its intention is to destroy.  And Critical Theory was not just something proclaimed by a few Cultural Marxists back in the mid-20th century.

It continues to this day, especially on college and university campuses, under the guise of Postmodernism and neo-Marxism.  Often, first-year university students returning home for Thanksgiving blithely inform their parents that essentially everything they believed in was wrong and evil.  Critical Theory is well-crafted and devastating to the unprepared youth.

Consider the following elements of Critical Theory:

* The West was built on oppression and pillage of others, since the beginning with the Greeks and Romans. Actually, there are no benign cultures, except for those that are now extinct.  All cultures have strengths and weaknesses, good and bad aspects, aggressiveness and felicity.  It turns out that the culture of the West that has evolved over the centuries has created the most goodness for the most people of any culture, and has even on its own modified past weaknesses to correct error such as elimination of slavery.

* The culture of the West is corrupt, as expressed in literature and the arts.  It contains assumptions of racism, sexism, misogynism and classism. There will always be multiple classes in culture, even in the supposed “classless” cultures genocidally forced on people by Marxism.  Western Culture has maximized the ability of individuals to move from one class to another.  The postmodern criticism of Western literature and arts is fatally flawed because it is based on ideology and not on universal, objective values.  Further, the blindness of Critical Theory to drastic flaws in other cultures renders its critique of the west meaningless.  The deconstruction of literature and art undertaken by the Left concerning ethnocentricity, misogyny and sexuality are ideological rather than objectively logical, and are thus false critiques, not to be taken seriously, except to be condemned as dangerous propaganda.

* The West has exploited the world economically in an imperialist fashion. Western capitalism has elevated the living conditions of all humanity far beyond what has been contributed by any other culture.  When other cultures adopt the Western economic system and find means to control fraudulent and criminal behavior, poverty and debt decreases, and prosperity increases.

* The West’s emphasis on the individual over the collective using capitalism has created great inequities, and victimized other cultures. In fact, the Left’s obsession with victimhood is a hideous and evil form of control of their so-called victim groups.  Since this victim mentality is a primary source of control, the Left has no incentive to actually solve problems that plague certain subcultures.  In terms of class-consciousness prevailing over individualism, the track record of such cultures in the 20th century is horrific: they created massive misery, suffering and death.  Western culture and individualism provide freedom, but also mandates responsibility. And when irresponsibility is encountered, incentives are provided for people to change, and to abandon their self-inflicted victimization.

Critique: To criticize to improve is of course a good thing, but Critical Theory has a malevolent goal: the destruction of Western Civilization.  See Chapter 1. It is especially prevalent in the humanities and social science, and produces an output of students whose view of their heritage has been significantly distorted.  Finally, note that Critical Theory is only applied to Western Culture.  The Left scrupulously avoids criticism of non-Western cultures such as those produced by Islamic Shariah, Hinduism, and other non-Western cultures.


The thrust of this Primer is to describe and expose the ideology that has been a lethal threat to Western Civilization over the past 50 years: neo-Marxism, including Postmodernism.  Part of the strategy to oppose and defeat this curse is to remind ourselves of the foundations of Western Civilization.  What is it that the neo-Marxists are so focused on destroying?

Undoubtedly the most fundamental target is Judeo-Christianity, both in its theoretical framework as well as in its practice. Of primary importance relative to culture and politics in Judeo-Christianity are the concepts of the individual, objective truth, logic, dialogue, and free speech. Additionally, there is the concept of the flawed nature of the individual, and the need to provide checks and balances within the culture to optimize the realization of the potential for good for the individual.  And the concept of flawed-ness itself rests upon an objective, transcendent moral order which defines good and evil.

Much of the philosophical underpinnings of Western Civilization can be understood in the Christian concept of the Logos.  In the New Testament Gospel of John, the first words are:

“In the beginning was the Word [i.e., Logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.”

Later on, the statement is made:

“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Clearly the Logos is identified in the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world.

Note that the “All things came into being through him…” phrase refers to the origins of everything, outlined in Genesis 1: “In the beginning, God created…”.  As the Genesis 1 narrative continues, it is seen that as Logos speaks, order is created where chaos previously existed.  For example, the metaphor used several time states, “…the evening [chaos] and the morning [order]…” indicates that the Logos transforms chaos into habitable order.

That same principle can be found everywhere, even with humans: spoken truth – the Logos — is transformative for the good of everyone.  Other words associated with Logos include “logic” and “dialogue”.  Without logic, chaos is inevitable.  And because humans are fallible, dialogue is needed to achieve the greatest good.

Marxism and Postmodernism are the enemies of the Logos.

Consider St. John again, this time in instruction to Christ followers:

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ [i.e., the Logos] has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.”

Critique: The many quotes in from neo-Marxist founders given in Chapters 1 and 2 demonstrate that their primary target was the Logos.  The ongoing chaos resulting from Marxism over the past 100 years could not possibly be clearer in demonstrating the validity of St. John’s statements.

Consider the following from W. B. Yeats (in The Second Coming, 1919):

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

The falconer is the Logos – Jesus Christ — and the falcon is Western culture as Marxism impacts in a widening manner.  Almost every phrase in the above poem is evidenced in today’s onslaught of neo-Marxism, and their “long march through the culture” is almost complete. Yet as individuals follow the Logos – first of all, in their own lives, then with their families and acquaintances – and, further, understand the principalities and powers (see Ephesians 6:12) that are at work in our culture, then the combination of personal wholeness and the recognition of the spiritual dynamics will create a Logos-based movement which will have the potential of restoring the habitable order that has eroded in the West, especially over the past 50 years.   There is every reason to think that a revitalized, Gospel-proclaiming Christianity would or at least should be at the forefront of this movement.

Chapter 4 – Critique of Politically Correct Activity

Given in the following is a discussion of how some important cultural and political issues are influenced and acted upon by political correctness.


This is clearly an important area of concern in many dimensions, but in this article the focus is on the political correctness aspects.  First of all, it should be noted that homosexuality under 20th century communism was originally NOT a protected lifestyle; it was Postmodern/neo-Marxism that transformed it into a victim group, with perhaps the first major victory being the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the America Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1973.  However, this was not accomplished via rational debate and organizational consensus.  Rather it was Saul Alinsky tactics: a physical takeover of the annual meeting of the APA, and the use of a fraudulent “study” to force the change.  In the years since then, each “advance” in the agenda has contained similar features: fraudulent “science”, coupled with various forms of intimidation.

Consider the abstract of a 2015 research paper dealing with the so-called scientific consensus that homosexuality is a normal expression of sexuality, rather than a mental disorder:

The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have suggested for many years now that there is significant empirical evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation as opposed to a mental disorder. This paper summarizes and analyzes that purported scientific evidence and explains that much (if not all) of the evidence is irrelevant and does not support the homosexuality-is-not-a-mental-disorder claim. As a result of their deficiencies and arbitrariness, the credibility those two groups that are typically deemed authoritative and trustworthy is called into question.

The point is that the claim that homosexuality is not a mental disorder is made by cultural and political power, not by objective medical science.

As noted above, homosexuality was not always accepted in Marxist-controlled countries.  In the early years of the Soviet Union, it was banned.  The same was true with Cuba, where early on they were tortured and executed.  However, starting in the 1990s a gradual change took place in Cuba and other Marxist countries, such that now there are Gay Pride parades and general promotion of the LGBTQ agenda, with no criminal sanctions against the lifestyles.  Indeed, the adoption of Gay marriage seems to be the final dagger into the traditional family; with the 2015 Supreme Court decision, now “anything goes.”  Today, political correctness relative to homosexuality is so firmly established that not only government but businesses as well abide by the rules; see the corporate sponsorships in the next Gay Pride parade in your town.

Additionally, in the medical profession there is now great intimidation in the form of loss of job to prevent “leaking” of information about negative health effects of the homosexual lifestyle.  Consider the case of Urologist Dr. Paul Church, banned from practicing at Boston-area hospitals because he circulated warnings about health problems arising from homosexual behavior.   Dr. Church stated:

Behaviors common within the homosexual community are unhealthy and high risk for a host of serious medical consequences, including STDs, HIV and AIDS, anal cancer, hepatitis, parasitic intestinal infections, and psychiatric disorders.

Life expectancy is significantly decreased as a result of HIV/AIDS, complications from the other health problems, and suicide.

The point is that the prohibition within the medical community to make public potential negative health problems from homosexual behavior is made by cultural and political power, not by objective medical science.

In the counseling profession, in many states it is impossible for a prospective psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to become certified to practice unless they provide politically correct answers to all questions on the qualifying exams for licensing, even if they profoundly disagree with some of their answers.  And laws are frequently being passed to forbid the counselling for change of minors who have undesired homosexual attractions.

To view the defense of contemporary reparative therapy for minors who struggle with unwanted homosexual attractions, consider this video.

The point is that the decision to prohibit counselling for change for people struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction is made by cultural and political power, not by objective medical science.

Critique: Homosexuality as an approved lifestyle – protected from all criticism — is the ultimate weapon of political correctness against Christianity and the family, as well as free speech.  The “science” supporting the lifestyle is logically worthless (i.e., Postmodern), but culturally and politically powerful.  And the intimidation of dissenters is exceedingly well crafted and executed.

Note.  Regardless of the false narratives of the Left, people who identify with any non- “straight” sexual orientation — homosexual, gay, lesbian – or who identify with any non-CIS gender, should be treated with respect, even if certain lifestyles might be offensive.  On the other hand, cultural and governmental “rules” that attempt to suppress free speech concerning dissent on these matters should be diligently opposed.  Postmodern neo-Marxism does not believe in dialogue, but respectful communication on such matters is vital.


People who deal with gender dysphoria have a difficult life, and deserve sympathy.  Often their condition resulted from painful, destructive early childhood experiences. Having said that, it does not mean that we should remain blind to the negative impact of political correctness, both to these troubled people, and to the culture at large.  The Social Justice Warriors have declared “Transgender” people as a victim group, and have applied some of the most unscientific and irrational ideology to be found anywhere within Postmodern/neo-Marxism.

As discussed in the Gender and Social Constructionism section, they have taken the position that biology has nothing to do with human sexuality and gender: everything is subjective.  A person can decide for themselves what gender they’d like to be, how to dress to express that feeling, with permission to change to a different gender whenever desired.  Further, they have allowed the subjectivity to adopt any one of 70 or more possible “non-binary” genders, as well as “otherkin” identities such as fairies, bears, wolves and snakes.  This utter nonsense and gender constructionism is being codified into law in several states in the US, as well as in Canada.

There are several important issues related to people who deal with gender confusion problems.

Bathroom/Locker room Bills: The implementation of these laws expose a hierarchy in Marxist victim groups.  In this case, the Transgender class trumps both women and children, and secondarily the male husbands and fathers related to those children, although being male they are deemed to be oppressors by neo-Marxist ideology.

Desired pronouns: Personality research demonstrates that a person’s identity is a composite of many factors, of which your conception of yourself is only one small component.  There are social negotiations that play a large role, as well as functional realities: what roles you play in society, for example.  So, a demand to use some obscure “invented” word to be addressed by out of “respect” is illogical and unworkable, and not in the Transgender person’s best interest.

Teaching gender constructionism: School curricula should be closely examined concerning the treatment of gender from a social constructionist point of view.  At a minimum, opposing – i.e., rational and objective – points of view must be presented sympathetically, if not exclusively.


Bathroom Bills: the only rational solution is that laws regulating the privacy of undressing areas should be based solely on anatomy and not subjective feelings.  The possible discomfort of a tiny minority of people suffering from gender confusion if this solution is implemented is extraordinarily outweighed by the threat posed to women and children is the case of anatomical men being allowed in the bathrooms, dressing rooms and showers designed for women and girls, if this solution is not implemented.

Desired pronouns: The entire concept is nonsense, and damaging to vulnerable people suffering with gender confusion issues.  Politicians who support incorporating mandated speech into law should be voted out of office, and any existing “mandated speech” laws should be repealed.

Teaching gender constructionism: A starting point should be an effort to get Women’s Studies departments defunded and abolished in public universities (because they focus only on indoctrination and transforming their students into SJWs); and private universities should be encouraged to do the same, as a strategy to increase enrollment from people who want their college-aged family members educated, and not indoctrinated.  Additionally, curricula in public – and private – pre-K through 12 schools should be scrutinized to expose all Postmodern/neo-Marxist ideology being used to indoctrinate students.

Needless to say, all of the above remedies will likely result in strenuous pushback from social justice ideologues, so resistance to Leftist agenda comes at a cost, but lack of resistance results in a much more severe cost.


Abortion has a long association with Marxism.  Soon after the 1917 Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union became the first country to legalize it.  Accompanying abortion in the USSR was the extreme simplification of divorce.  Over the first 20 years, both abortions and divorces skyrocketed.  However, as WWII approached, Stalin became alarmed at the population decrease taking place, and thus banned abortions.  However, after Stalin’s death, Khrushchev rescinded the ban, and abortions once again skyrocketed, such that 3 out of 4 pregnancies ended with abortions.

The Marxist support of abortion – except when pragmatic matters such as population decline dictated otherwise – has been based on several factors: (1) Eugenics, eliminating undesirables, (2) diluting family strength and discipline, and promoting promiscuity by creating consequence-free sexual behavior, and (3) attacking Christianity, where the pro-life resistance is found.

Critique: The abortion experiences in the USSR and later in China served the purposes of weakening the family, and in the case of Russia, Christianity as well. The same objectives are in play today with political correctness, with the “woman’s right to choose” as the mantra. Of course, political correctness – because it is based upon Postmodernism/neo-Marxism and its rejection of objective truth — demonizes the proclamation of the plain fact that infanticide is taking place, and that women are actually choosing emotional and spiritual pain, and a life filled with regret. Very troubling is the significant targeting of minority women for abortion, suggesting that the postmodern/neo-Marxists of today are solidly in support of the Eugenics ideology of the 19th and 20th centuries.


The initial target of the Cultural Marxists was academia.  The Frankfurt School was actually a Socialist Think Tank located within Frankfurt University in Germany.  When they fled Hitler in the 1930’s, they were brought to the US and Columbia University by so-called education expert John Dewey, but he was actually a believer in Marxism.  The spread of the work of the Frankfurt School people was accomplished through the US university system, where they developed students, wrote books, gave lectures, and developed followers, reaching the overall culture in the 1960s, ultimately joining forces with the former pro-Soviet sympathizers to form the New Left.

They gradually took over the Social Sciences, and began to gain prominent positions is the corresponding professional societies, accomplishing for example the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973.  In the 1970s, the influence of Postmodernism was imported to the US from French Marxist philosophers such as Jacques Derrida. And Michel Foucault.  Derrida imported his beliefs to the English Department at Yale University, and the resulting Identity Politics and the accompanying identity “disciplines” (e.g., Women’s Studies, Black Studies, LGBTQ Studies, etc.) spread like wildfire throughout North American universities.

By the late 1980s the culture was being increasingly impacted by what became known as “political correctness”.  Meanwhile their accumulation of power in academia was becoming dominant, impacting the training of teachers, the writing of text books, and the development of education standards; as well as infiltrating university administration, including human resource departments.

The culmination of this infiltration in terms of pre-K through 12 education in the US came with the stealth imposition of Common Core starting around 2010.  Both the curriculum content and methodology were established for neo-Marxist indoctrination, with no dissenting points of view provided.  Students were to be taught how to follow directions, and not how to think.  Great literary classics were replaced by EPA edicts, and students spent more time writing and less time reading than in the past.  The sex education aspects of Common Core were overly explicit and age-inappropriate.  A second-grade homework assignment at a school in the mid-West was classic neo-Marxism: “Tell how the state is like your family, only better.”

In addition, there has been an increasing anti-boy/anti-male component in pre-K through 12 education.  In the public schools, the underlying Feminist ideology sees logic and dialogue as tools of the evil Patriarchy to maintain power over perpetually innocent women.  The distinctions between male and female are intentionally blurred, and social constructionism rather than biological determinism is the underlying ideological presupposition.  Even though social constructionism is essentially disproven, nevertheless children are encouraged to discover their own gender identity. Note also that the built-in interests and personality trends of boys are shamed and discouraged in favor of more feminine characteristics.  It is an adversarial and damaging environment for them.

With such an unbalanced ideology controlling the thoughts and actions of the education establishment, the curriculum and accompanying operational procedures and regulations exist to in effect “cure” boys of their evil maleness.

In colleges and universities in North America, for the most part, Postmodernism/neo-Marxism is the only ideology tolerated, especially in the Humanities and Social Sciences.  Viewpoints opposing politically correct ideology are routinely prohibited, either by the school administration and faculty, or sometimes by bellicose mobs of students and outsiders (such as Antifa), attempting to silence anyone expressing politically incorrect views. This latter option is sometimes referred to as “heckler’s veto”.

Leftist Research Funded by Leftist Money

And import aspect of the nearly universal control of universities by the progressive Left in the West is manifest in “research” projects which are actually advocacy endeavors to support Leftist ideology.  This occurs most often in the Humanities and Social Sciences.


Lack of Academic Freedom on University Campus

In November of 2017, an event took place on campus whereby the inner workings of the politically correct machinery became exposed to the world.  The incident, occasionally labeled “The Lindsay Shepherd Affair”, took place at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, whereby a Communication Arts graduate student, while teaching first and second year university students, showed approximately five minutes of a YouTube video involving University of Toronto Psychology professor Jordan Peterson expressing his views on the proposed (by Canadian Bill C-16) legislation that would mandate the use of desired pronouns by non-cis transgendered people – replacements for “him/her”, “he/she” in the “cis” case – under the penalty of violation of the human rights code.  The segment of the video that Lindsay Shephard showed to her students included some statements from Prof. Peterson, and also from University of Toronto Prof. Nicholas Matte, and advocate for the pronoun-compelled speech.

Lindsay Shephard has related that she felt the discussion in her class that day was lively and differing points of view were expressed.  However, subsequently, the Professor of the class for which she was teaching the tutorial contacted her about the video use, stating that she would need to be examined by a secret committee, consisting of this professor, her own major professor, and the WLU administrator in charge of policing discriminatory behavior and hate speech on campus.

The meeting took place, similarly to thousands of secret tribunals on campuses throughout North American where a student has behaved in a politically incorrect fashion.

But uniquely, Lindsay Shepherd secretly recorded the meeting, using her laptop computer on the table in front of her.  The three politically correct inquisitors were aware of the computer but not the recording, until later when Shepherd released the recording of the entire meeting to the media.

Ms. Shepherd’s notorious recording gives great insight into the thinking of faculty and administrators who are ideologically possessed with Postmodern/neo-Marxism.  A few important politically correct complaints include the following (Lindsay Shepherd, to her credit, disagreed with them):

* The raising of such controversial issues created an “un-safe space” learning environment for some of the students, who were considered “too young”.

* She characterized Peterson’s comments as one point of view, but failed to condemn his thoughts.

* One professor said that failing to condemn Peterson’s ideas was like not condemning Adolph Hitler.

Once the recording became known, there was a huge reaction, mostly heaping condemnation on the university for egregiously punishing a Teaching Assistant for in effect advocating free speech for her students.  Ultimately, the university president issued a mild apology.  However, an independent investigation was undertaken, which ultimately exonerated Lindsay Shephard.  From The Globe and Mail, December 18, 2017:

Wilfrid Laurier University has completely exonerated Lindsay Shepherd, after a report from an independent investigator found that no student ever complained formally or informally about a video the teaching assistant screened in class earlier this fall.

It doesn’t take much imagination to reflect on the thousands of similar incidents taking place on campuses where no recording is made and exposed, and where free speech is suppressed and other politically correct coercive measures are enforced to ensure conformity to politically correct thinking and behavior.

The question must be asked: is there any hope for North American colleges and universities?

Links to a group of videos dealing with the Lindsay Shepherd affair can be found in the appendix.

Critique: With or without Common Core, pre-K through 12 public education is dominated by politically correct thought, and higher education as well. In the case of universities, the activism is growing increasingly confrontational, with most administrators obeying the activists, who were trained and encouraged by their Postmodern/neo-Marxist sympathizing humanities’ faculty.  Very unfortunately, in many cases Christian higher education has been strongly influenced by Postmodern/neo-Marxism, and should not be automatically considered free from political correctness.


Common Core is the culmination of 40+ years of outcomes-based “education”, combined with one size fits all dumbing down standards, huge data-mining, 50% less classic literature, and 50% more “informational” texts such as Obama Executive Orders and EPA edicts.  Common Core does not teach critical thinking, but rather constitutes mostly parroting of partisan Postmodern/neo-Marxist ideology.

In English, context that might make a student feel bad (i.e., “privileged information”) is often prohibited.  Thus, the Gettysburg address MUST be taught without mentioning WHO gave it, or its Civil War historical context.  So, texts must be “vacuum texts”, without privileged context.  Also, the amount of writing is raised, while the amount of reading lowered.  Sadly, informational texts (as contrasted with classic texts) often contain Leftist propaganda, with no opposing views.  And there is also exaltation of the state: Consider a 3rd grade assignment in WI: “Write how the State is just like a family, only better”.

Math MUST be taught using graphic symbology, with stacking forbidden; even technically trained parents have difficulty.  Also, accelerated teaching for superior students is forbidden – everyone must be at the same level (i.e., “communal”). Th teaching is only to the tests, and there is mega-testing with all results sent to the Federal government, and made available down the road. There is also the use of “pair groups” to get a common answer to a problem.  Even the correct answer disagreeing with the rest in the group is considered “wrong”!

Common Core has plenty of sex.  The National Sexuality Education Standards are fully integrated.  Every day in every subject, teachers are mandated to use positive examples of LGBTQ.  There is also much explicit sex in what remains of “classic” literature.  There is very explicit pre-puberty sex education, as well as sexual expression without morality.  For example, a middle-school poster lists the ways to show affection between people: talking, holding hands, performing various sex acts; with no distinction made on the poster: it implies that all are equivalent.  Even 2nd graders taught to affirm same-sex “families”.  Students are also taught that gender is a social construct.  Note that parents will not be able to pull their kids out, as in past.

Common Core was developed by five people, all non-educators, behind closed doors.  Two leftist lobby groups: National Governors Association (NGA) and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) own the copyrights to it all.  States forced to adopt it sight unseen. This was funded by Bill and Melinda Gates ($2.5 billion).  There’s a lot of Crony Capitalism ($$$’s for a few); for example, it requires all newer laptop computers with Microsoft apps, all new Common Core-compliant textbooks, tests.  Note: one book publishing company has been buying out all others

It goes on and on.  New schools will need pharmacies and clinics, with provision of “morning-after” pills without parental consent.  There will be the ability to whisk 12-year-olds off to abortion clinics without parental notification.

Critique: Common Core developed in secrecy, with no debate, no laws to repeal, no accountability.  There was a committee of about 30 people to sign off on the package before it was launched; only two of those were educators.  They were the only two to vote “no” on moving forward with Common Core, and they have been active since it was launched, attempting to derail it in state after state. Note that 46 states “adopted” it in 2009/2010 by accepting Federal $$’s as part of “Race to the Top”, but they adopted it before standards written, and they cannot easily back out.  Finally, Common Core entails income redistribution from rich states to poor states.

The bottom line is that Common Core is a giant takeover of public education to indoctrinate American youth in Postmodern/neo-Marxist ideology, with the long-range goal of the fundamental transformation of the country into a totalitarian, socialist state.


Among the basic original tenets of the writings of Marx and Engels were the disdain for Capitalism and private property as evil, and needing to be done away with, for the sake of humanity.  The Industrial Revolution of the early to mid-19th century was beset with horrible and well-documented treatment of workers, including children; the mills and mines are rightly notorious. Marx sought redress; what he could not foresee is the profound success of Capitalism in the generation of wealth, the elevation of the status of workers as a class to create a robust middle class in the West and West-influenced countries, and the increasing eradication of poverty world-wide, in the 21st century.

Nevertheless today, even with general prosperity, there is still a great gap between the wealthy and those who exist at the bottom of the pyramids of success; hierarchies wherein a few are very wealthy – Operation Wall Street called them “one-percenters” – and many at the bottom who essentially have nothing.  From Marx until today, the blame has been placed by the Left on Capitalism.

But is that a fair accusation?  There are a pair of scientific principles that deal with productivity; they demonstrate that existence itself creates inequity in a wide range of circumstances: Price’s Law, and the Pareto distribution.  The laws both demonstrate that as the number of entities (in the case of human endeavors, “individuals”) increase linearly, their product (i.e., end result) increases exponentially; that is, in a business, a small fraction (e.g., 20%) of the employees accomplish the majority (e.g., 80%) of the work.  So, for example, the “one-percenters” of Leftist narratives are successful because of natural forces, not because of greed, oppression or privilege.  Walk on a beach: among the pebbles, there are only a few really big ones. They are outliers on “size distribution”. Examples are everywhere.

The point?  The inequities in outcome in terms of wealth are not the result of Capitalism; rather, they are consistent with a fundamental law of existence.

The Ukraine wheat famine in the early 1930s came about because doctrinaire Leninists accused the successful farmers (“Kulaks”) of being socially unfriendly elements, standing in the way of collectivization of the farms.  All the productive people (i.e., the 20-percenters) were either summarily shot or sent to Siberia with neither food nor place to live; they died by the thousands.  The collective farms were left with resentful, unproductive people, and in 1932-33, 6-7 million Ukrainians died of starvation. Such atrocities of the Left, all too common, are most often conveniently ignored.

Similar horror stories of the elimination of the 20% at the top are found, among others, with Pol Pot and the Cambodians; the best method to obtain a Marxist, classless society is to kill all the successful people.

Since the Pareto Distribution is a self-organizing principle, the only method for disabling it and redistributing its wealth to try to achieve “equity” is by artificial and totalitarian action on the part of the State.  Of course, that action cripples the Capitalistic production of the 20%, and the equity will be uniform poverty, with the exception of the corrupt “thugs” running that state, who will be immensely wealthy. A current example is the tragedy and destruction of Venezuela.

This of course does not relieve a modern culture or political system of the responsibility and ethical requirement to deal with those who are at the bottom of the hierarchies.  But the remedies must themselves avoid Marxist ideology and embrace Judeo-Christian-based governmental and cultural constructs, if they are to succeed.  No Marxist system has ever succeeded in producing wealth. The disasters around the world for all countries following Marxism should cause sane people to look in other directions, which include responsibility and hierarchies of competence to solve the problems of the poor and disadvantaged.

Inaction is not an option.  Rational and humane answers to the Pareto-described problems of disadvantaged people at the bottom of hierarchies must be addressed and solved.  It seems very likely that Capitalism and private property will both be integral to such remedies.  In fact, over the past 20 years or so, the globalization of Capitalism has created wealth on an unprecedented scale, such that extreme poverty is being eradicated at an accelerating pace.  Note that in the US, this spread of Capitalism has taken place at the expense of the working class, with their jobs being replaced by foreign, lower-compensated workforces.  However, there appear to be some correctives to that loss.  Hopefully a balance will be reached.

Bottom line, the Marxist opposition to Capitalism has been totally discredited by the devastation that has taken place in the past 100 years in Marxist-controlled countries vs. the accumulation of wealth and the raising of the standard of living of everyone in non-Marxist, pro-Capitalist countries.

Additional videos dealing with various aspects of Capitalism may be found here.


The Soviet Union is unquestionably the best example of Socialism we have. It is by far the largest, deepest and longest, conceived and carried out by an enormous State. Now, an objection might be raised that the USSR was communist, not socialist, but that’s not true.  Marx himself predicted that it might take up to four hundred years to move from Socialism to Communism.  According to Marx, when true Communism arrived, the state would wither away; it (according to the theory) would no longer be needed.  Note further that the acronym USSR is Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

But establishing Socialism always requires a revolution; these happened in many countries during the 20th century; the two biggest are Russia and China.  Here are some characteristics of the revolution, according to Yuri Maltsev, a former economic advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev:

* Revolution will eliminate private property.  No longer will man have the means of exploiting another man.

* Bourgeoisie will fight, so revolution will be violent.

* A dictatorship of the proletariat will follow to weed out remaining capitalist elements.

Clearly, Capitalism and private property are the enemy to be eradicated root and branch.  Since the dissolution of the USSR, much information about the revolution there has become available, with of course earlier revelations from dissidents such as Nobel-laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and his must-read book Gulag Archipelago. The conclusion is that with 50 or so million deaths, the Soviet Union under Socialism was a colossal murderous disaster. And there is ample information about other Socialist regimes; it has failed everywhere, usually with great human tragedy.

A definition of Socialism might include the following:

* The means of production, distribution and labor should be owned and controlled by the community (i.e., the state) as a whole

* The group knows what is best for the individual

* The individual exists for the greater good, not for his or her own interests

* Collectivism is the appropriate grand narrative (vs. individualism)

* All criticism of The State must be suppressed

Note that there are some terms combining socialism and democracy: “Democratic Socialism,” and “Social Democracy.”  The first term should be fairly unambiguous, since both Lenin and Stalin referred to their ideology as “Democratic Socialism.”

The term Social Democrat would seem to refer to governments that retain a degree of Capitalism and private property, while simultaneously characterized by high levels of taxation, large government bureaucracies and government-controlled programs such as medical care and welfare.  For example, governments in the European Union could be classified as Social Democratic, as would the policies that are espoused in the US by politicians such as Bernie Sanders.

It should be noted that movements towards increasingly large government involvement is often not the optimal solution.  Consider this analysis by economist Thomas Sowell[27]:

“Solutions” can be a society’s biggest problem – and especially governmental “solutions” – because government is essentially a categorical institution in an incremental world.  When many desirable things compete for a share of inherently limited resources, individuals making decisions for themselves can make incremental trade-off, giving up a certain amount if X to get a certain amount of Y – and at some point, putting a stop to a particular trade-off, when they feel a need to conserve their dwindling supply of X and are approaching a more adequate supply of Y.

Government decisions, however tend to be categorical: Things are either legal or illegal, and people are either eligible or ineligible for benefits provided by the government.

Thus, at a practical level, the less governmental involvement, the better it is for society.

However, there is currently in the US a growing political movement towards some more strident form of Socialism closer to Democratic Socialism.  For example, there are increasing uses of violence against cultural and political opponents, as well as corresponding attempts to silence speech which is critical of Leftist policies.  Common in the rhetoric of some are explicit calls for “revolution”, in other words, “true” Socialism.

One of the ironies of the movement towards Socialism is its claim that Capitalism and non-socialistic governmental policies are “racist”, yet historically in the 20th century, it was the Marxist, Socialist, Progressive movements that most strongly supported Eugenics, elimination of undesirables, and disparaging characterizations of certain ethnic groups.  Marx and Engels declared that cleansing the population of certain undesirable groups was necessary, and Marxists such as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and similar followed the prescription. Stalin moved ethnic populations wholesale and by force.

Ultimately, the sad and inescapable conclusion must be drawn that all Socialist regimes have been murderous, dismal failures.  What is especially galling is for contemporary Leftists to state that the failures happened because it wasn’t “true Socialism,” or if those expressing that idea had been in charge, it would have worked.

Additional critiques of Socialism may be found here.


In the lexicon of the Left in recent times, a new end-of-conversation epithet has begun to rival the traditional big-four terms of “racist”, “misogynist”, “homophobic”, and “Islamophobic”: it is “Fascist”.  If one expresses opposition to any tenet of Progressivism or Postmodern neo-Marxism, or espouses alternative points of view, this is the label de jour.  And it’s often more than just a label; it can be a call for action.  For example, if a conservative speaker is scheduled to appear on university campus, there is usually an uproar from the Left, and quite often the event is either cancelled, or if held, is interrupted by demonstrations, setting off fire alarms, and even violence.  Central to the opposition will be the characterization of the speaker as a “fascist,” or espousing “fascist ideas”.

Is this a valid characterization?  Are conservatives and other non-progressives such as libertarians simultaneously fascists?  What about some notable non-Leftist speakers on the university circuit? Should Jordan Peterson, Janice Fiamengo, Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Christina Hoff Sommers and David Crowder be considered fascists?

The obvious question to be asked is, what IS a fascist?  What is Fascism?  And there’s a related question: what’s the difference between a Fascist and a Nazi?  Are they the same?  If not, how different?

Two recent books shed light on this question:

Jonah Goldberg – Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change (2009)

Dinesh D’Souza – The Big Lie – Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left (2017)

What these writers show in great detail is that Fascism is a Leftist ideology, derived from Marxism, and Socialist in nature.  The two most well-known Fascist regimes were from World War II: Mussolini’s Fascist Italy, and Hitler’s Nazi Germany.

The “Big Lie” in the title to D’Souza’s book is that Fascism and Nazism are Right-wing ideologies.  This self-serving, false narrative of the Left became necessary as the information about the Holocaust and the colossal immorality of the genocide began to emerge following World War II.  What is bizarre is that the term “Nazi” is a contraction for “National Socialist Workers Party”; it’s socialist, which is Leftist, not Rightist.  Similarly, in Italy, Mussolini was a socialist, a believer in collectivism, except, unlike Communism, it was a Nationalist version of socialism.   Note that the term “fascist” refers to a tightly bound group of sticks, representing the collectivist nature of the ideology.  Further, most socialist/communist countries have had a strong Nationalist flavor.  Plus, serious inter-ideology antagonisms are found elsewhere; for example, the Sunni-Shia conflict in Islam has been going on for centuries.  Or the battles fought between Catholics and Protestants after the Reformation. So, the fact that Hitler didn’t like communists, doesn’t magically move socialist Germany into the conservative Right-wing, pro-democracy, small-government, non-collectivist camp!

Same in Italy.  Arguably the two most prominent Marxists in Italy in the 1920s were fascist Mussolini and communist Antonio Gramsci.  Mussolini imprisoned Gramsci because he was leading the rival Italian communist party, not because Mussolini had converted into being a conservative Right-winger.  Yet, that what today’s Progressives teach.

It should be noted that both Hitler and Mussolini got some of their ideas from US Progressives, including Woodrow Wilson and FDR.  Note for example that Hitler’s Nuremberg laws demonizing the Jews and other – according to Hitler – “undesirables” obtained their inspiration and even some cases wording from US Jim Crow laws.

Some of the tenets that both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had in common that came from US progressivism include:

* centralized government

* racism

* eugenics

* state-sanctioned violence

* enforced cultural uniformity

Among those leading the construction of the “Big Lie” were Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse, both Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School, who fled to America in the mid-1930s.  They were both German Communists, and also Jewish.  Thus, they were 2-fold enemies of Hitler. in part because of the anti-Semitism of the Nazi’s, but also because Hitler wanted complete control, and there was no room in his Germany for another version of socialism.  Even though Hitler for a time teamed with Stalin and the Soviet Union, he wanted no competition in Germany from Communists, or any other entity, such as believing Christians.

Once safely in America, Marcuse and Adorno attempted to promote their Frankfurt School ideology of Cultural Marxism in the 1930s, without much initial success.  However, during World War II, Marcuse was brought into the US government as an expert on Nazism and anti-Semitism, one of many Marxists brought into the US government at this time.  After the war, Marcuse and Adorno came up with a revisionist idea to redefine Nazism as a Right-wing ideology, to serve as a contrast to Marxism.

First came Adorno’s important book in 1950 entitled, “The Authoritarian Personality.  In it, he framed an outline of the kind of personality that would be susceptible to Nazism, deriving an “F-Scale” to determine if a person possessed such Fascist proclivities.  Among the factors Adorno cited were basically a profile of a traditional conservative who supported free-market Capitalism, believes in God/Christianity, and also sexual restraint.

Marcuse carried the sexual aspects further, in 1955 publishing “Eros and Civilization”, which among other things emphasized the importance of the elimination of sexual restraints, to avoid becoming an authoritative person and thus a Fascist.  While one might recoil at the sheer immoral nonsense he was proclaiming, it must be admitted that he would find a very appreciative audience among the youth.

Marcuse’s contribution to the sexual revolution of the 1960s was immense, but equally important was his contribution to the Fascism-as-Right-wing myth.  No wonder D’Souza used the term “Big Lie” in his title to identify this Leftist slight-of-hand, supposedly “scholarly” explanation for the emergence of Nazism and Fascism.

Dinesh D’Souza has identified the original architect of Fascism, not as some early conservative, authoritarian, sexually repressed Christian man, but as Giovanni Gentile, a Marxist-Socialist.  D’Souza states:

Now, remember, Gentile was a man of the left. He was a committed socialist. For Gentile, fascism is a form of socialism—indeed, its most workable form. While the socialism of Marx mobilizes people on the basis of class, fascism mobilizes people by appealing to their national identity as well as their class. Fascists are socialists with a national identity. German Fascists in the 1930s were called Nazis—basically a contraction of the term “national socialist.”

For Gentile, all private action should be oriented to serve society; there is no distinction between the private interest and the public interest. Correctly understood, the two are identical. And who is the administrative arm of the society? It’s none other than the state. Consequently, to submit to society is to submit to the state—not just in economic matters, but in all matters. Since everything is political, the state gets to tell everyone how to think and what to do.

The point is that while the Left attempts to affix the labels “Fascist” or “Nazi” to Conservatives, Fascist philosophy and practice entailed huge, totalitarian governmental control of human behavior: all for the “state”.  This is the polar opposite to Right-wing Conservatism, which emphasizes individual rights and freedoms, supports free-market Capitalism, and seeks to work with as small a government as possible.

Note that both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had organized groups of ideology enforcers: the Nazi “Brownshirts” (later on, the “SS”) and Mussolini’s “Black shirts”.  Violence and death were always near. Today we have similar Leftist ideology enforcers, taking a 21st century approach, organizing ideology-focused “marches” and other demonstrations, often in opposition to narrative-based rather than fact-based “enemies”.

Today’s most notorious group “Antifa” adopts the false narrative of “anti-Fascist” in their name.  Their intimidation and violence tactics bear resemblance to the Fascist enforcers in Germany and Italy in the 1920s and 1930s.  On university campuses and occasionally other locations, an important component of their efforts is to prevent all speech which opposes their ideology.  Similar to the Black and Brown shirts, violence and the threat of violence are often nearby.

And if not Antifa thugs, then groups such as Social Justice Warriors make use of chants, noise-makers, and general disruption of events that they deem to be offensive; they adamantly opposed free speech, with great passion and faux moral indignation.

Critique: It is clear that in the 21st century, supporters of Postmodern neo-Marxism such as Antifa and Social Justice Warriors employ tactics similar to the Nazi’s and Fascists in Germany and Italy, while using the epithet of “Fascist” and “neo-Nazi” to attempt to shame and intimidate anyone who disagrees with their ideology.  Sadly, in most cases, universities and local law enforcement act in support of the protestors, rather than protecting free speech.

To be clear, it is the Left.  In the US, the Democrat party, the Postmodern neo-Marxists on campus, and in the entertainment and news media that are today’s Fascists, dealing in intimidation, name-calling, “fake” news, “fake” history, as well as governmental entities sometimes exceeding their constitutional limitations to achieve Leftist ideological goals.

For additional videos dealing with this subject, see the Appendix section entitled Contemporary Fascism.

A final comment on the “Right”.  There are some people in the West who strongly oppose Postmodern neo-Marxism, but who are not committed to conservative concepts of free speech, the rule of law, and constitutional principles.  Some have referred to them as “alt-Right”, “neo-Nazi”, “White Supremacists”, and similar.  However, those who advocate intimidation, racism, lawlessness and violence are strongly condemned by the actual Right.  Further, currently, this movement has little traction, but it certainly needs to be monitored.  And since they do not share much in common with the true “Right”, some label other than “alt-Right” needs to be found, because the Left uses this term as a word-weapon similar to “Fascist” against the legitimate Right.


From a politically correct standpoint, the only “religion” that is restricted in the public square is Christianity.  And this is consistent with the primary objective to destroy the influence of Christianity.  The Postmodern/neo-Marxists make use of multiculturalism to say that we must avoid offending non-Christians, but they do not apply that to other religions, relative to the issues of the public square.

Critique: The US Constitution does not protect freedom “from” religion (as the Left argue), but freedom “of” religion.  And that includes being able to pray in the name of Jesus at a public event such as a high school graduation.


The antidote to Postmodern/neo-Marxist ideology — and policies implemented within the culture to instantiate its theories — is free speech.  It is no mystery why the most severe weapons within political correctness are those which attempt to shut down debate and eliminate opposing points of view, because this ideology is riddled with false narratives, postmodern thinking, and outcome-based “logic”, all of which can be exposed and discredited by knowledgeable spoken truth.

Free speech is undoubtedly the most valuable tenet of Western Civilization; it is based on the Biblical concept of the Logos, and is under relentless assault from the Left.  This assault is especially on display on university campuses, where speech contrary to the politically correct dogma is routinely forbidden, or if permitted, generally physically attacked by Social Justice Warriors, using fire alarms, noise machines, yelling of profanities, locking doors, interrupting speakers, forming human chains, etc., all to avoid the expression of dissent to Postmodern/neo-Marxist ideology.

Note that what is desperately needed is dialogue; with people on all sides willing to express their points of view, and hear others.  And in speaking, it is better to speak “badly” rather than not speak.  By then receiving feedback – criticism, affirmation, etc. – one can refine one’s thinking and improve subsequent speech.  Criticism is NOT hate, even though sometimes delivered in a hateful manner.

In recent decades, there has been increased governmental intrusion into free speech by creating laws prohibiting certain types of speech considered to be “hate speech”.  This is problematic.  If someone harbors hateful thoughts and is allowed to express them, then it is possible for others to criticize and hopefully correct.  If that speech is prohibited, then the hateful thoughts go underground and unchallenged, and thus uncorrected.

Certainly, one should not be allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, nor to explicitly advocate violence, but censoring speech that simply upsets other people carries significant risks to society, the greatest of which is the descent into totalitarianism.

Critique: Restrictions on free speech have been the hallmark of all totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, and thus those restrictions must be strenuously and effectively opposed; and there is a great deal of change desperately needed in academia to re-open the free exchange of ideas that once was the hallmark of education.


The topic of “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” has been a “hot” topic during the first two decades of the 21st millennium.  The basic concern is the rising amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) that are found in today’s world — land, sea and air — are directly related to a rise in world temperatures.

However, even though the levels of CO2 continue to rise, the world temperatures have not significantly elevated as predicted by computer models; in fact, they’ve remained essentially constant for close to two decades.  As a result, those who have apparently been most alarmed have re-named the phenomena as “climate change” (CC), rather than anthropomorphic (i.e., man-made) global warming (AGW).

Back in the early days of computer modeling, one researcher was heard to say in a seminar, “With enough adjustable parameters, you can draw an elephant.”  With that in mind, let’s consider three possible explanations for the current views on AGW/CC:

  1. The computer models used are accurate, and the predictions of catastrophic temperature elevations real
  2. The computer models are inaccurate, scientists made mistakes, and there’s no risk of catastrophic temperature elevations
  3. The computer models are inaccurate and there’s no risk, but they are promoted as accurate because of ideology

It seems that one can find adamant advocates for both #1 and 2, with the phrase “very likely” used for both extremes.  But it is clear that #3 is the only logical explanation, namely that climate alarmism is a primarily a political rather than environmental movement.  Details concerning the rejection of the validity of #1 is beyond the scope of the Primer, but the Appendix provides ample resources documenting that reality. The decision of the propagandists supporting #1 to re-brand their political movement is an admission that the alarmism was unwarranted.  However, it is important to understand the politics of AGW/CC.

One aspect of climate that we can all agree on is that the CO2 percentage in the world atmosphere is on the increase.  The question thus arises, “So what?”  Consider the views of Patrick Moore and his veneration of CO2 as a beneficial greenhouse gas.  Moore grew up on Vancouver Island, was one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, and unlike Al Gore, he has a PhD in Ecology; that discipline is an important aspect of the controversy.

Clearly the earth’s carbon is found in three domains: land, (including plants and animals), sea, and the atmosphere.  And further it is understood that the CO2 form of carbon is essential to life, the earth’s vegetation.  And it also related to fossil fuels, the world’s most important source of energy.  Thus, attempting to reduce atmospheric CO2 is accompanied by tangible risks, and might have devastating consequences for 3rd-world countries attempting to move out of poverty: they need food and energy.

It was not that long ago that Rahm Emanuel in the early days of the Obama administration stated the now-famous words: “Never let a crisis go to waste.”  In the decade or so prior to that expression, there had begun to be concerns about AGW/CC, and some computer models in fact did predict catastrophic trends related to CO2 atmospheric increase.  However, the vetting of those models as well of the vetting of the source data were undoubtedly at that time not accomplished in a rigorous sense.

However, alarm produced by the predictions DID gain the attention of people in the political and commercial sectors.  In the commercial arena, the alarm created a new platform for accruing wealth, and in the political, a rationale for gaining power. Needless to say, part of the wealth would come not only from new technology and corporate enhancement, but also from governmental and foundation funding within the AGW/CC-related STEM fields of endeavor.  There are always going to be new schemes around.  However, profit alone can’t explain the hegemony of the AGW/CC movement, although it is clearly a component.  After all, greed is always nearby.

Nevertheless, the primary cause of the AGW/CC phenomena is the acquisition of political power. If one considers the politics concerning the support of AGW/CC initiatives, the Left is uniformly on board, while the conservative position tends towards “denial”, tempered by possible retribution if one is too vocal about their objections.  Al Gore correctly points at the Koch brothers as supporting denial, but he does not also inform his listeners of the long string of Leftist donors who support the AGW/CC cause, at figures much larger than the denier component.

So, if it is Leftist politics that is at the root of the AGW/CC phenomena, then it should be possible to associate the activism of the Left relative to AGW/CC with the core principles of Postmodern neo-Marxism, undertaking a power grab. For example:

Anti-objective truth/logic: Look at all the falsification of data.  Every year of so, more is revealed.  Two scandals even in 2017: February and July. And Climategate back in 2009 or so.

Dialogue is not tolerated: Sophisticated heckler’s veto’s for “climate deniers”.  It’s way too costly to exercise free speech, and possibly lose your job, or at least funding.

Identity politics: On the oppressor side are fossil fuel energy producers, as well as companies and people who use fossil fuels.  On the oppressed side are “scientists,” “intellectuals,” and media people, who must all agree on impending catastrophe, or be demonized, marginalized, and rendered invisible.  Additionally, all other people are assumed to be in the oppressed group, unless they turn out to be “deniers”.

Power is key: the UN and other multi-national bodies, the “Paris Agreement”, etc.  Big, powerful players.  The Globalization lobby sees this as a huge opportunity.  And lots of people are getting wealthy in various dimensions of the “Climate” industry.

Finally, it is clear that the AGW/CC phenomena is closely synchronized with the Sustainable Development movement undertaken by the United Nations, and implemented with Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030.  See more details here.

As an added note however: The discrediting of AGW/CC as a political rather than scientific movement does not at all relieve the world of the need to prudently deal with the environment.  It is mandatory that nature be protected, especially from pollution and unfettered development.  Countries, corporations and individuals who irresponsibly pollute must be held accountable, and their despoiling practices prohibited.  And balance must be achieved between over-development and the need for agricultural and energy needs.  This EPA’s and DEP’s should not be disbanded; rather, they must be de-politicized.  And overall world policies on environment should be pursued, but de-coupled from Postmodern neo-Marxist agendas.


What do freshly painted bicycle lanes, micro apartments, borderless immigration, climate change, abortion-on-demand, and Common Core all have in common?  The answer? They are all elements of the UN Agenda 2030, ratified by essentially all the nations in the world.  How so?  Well, the key word is “sustainable”.

What could be more worthwhile than seeking for that which is sustainable, and avoiding that which is not?  Certainly a “feel good” word, but what does it mean in terms of the list of observations above?

What Agenda 2030 amounts to is coordinated effort by all the nations on earth to be guided by world-wide principles, as designed by a group of “globalists” who have envisioned a world implied by the lyrics of john Lennon’s song, “Imagine”. These globalists first assembled UN Agenda 21, which began the sustainability movement in the early 1990s, from the ground up.  They dealt in a clandestine manner with local and regional governments to achieve their goals, dealing especially with land use: zoning, permits, where development is allowed, where it is forbidden.

Agenda 2030 is essentially Agenda 21 on steroids, and works from the top down.  The UN is at the top, followed by grouping of nations under a common set of goals – for example, the European Union – and then at the single nation level, where the goals are implemented throughout the country, directed from the top level of the government.

Agenda 21

Before looking at details of Agenda 2030, we need to first consider what took place with Agenda 21, a program of the United Nations entitled “Sustainable Development Agenda 21”, unveiled in 1992, and “adopted” by 178 nations. This is actually a comprehensive political ideology, reaching into a country’s government at every level.

Rosa Koire, author of the 2011 book, “Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21, states the following in a 2013 speech in Denmark concerning United Nations Sustainable Development:

It is the action plan to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all means of production, all construction, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world.

Ms. Koire served as a land use expert witness in the San Francisco Bay area when she encountered organizations connected to Agenda 21 in a stealthful manner.  One of the important aspects of their approach was to build so-called community support for their projects, by recruiting people beforehand to buy into initiatives, and then bring them into a lightly advertised community meeting run by well-trained “consensus builders” who are skilled at manipulating unsuspecting residents using a dialectical method to deconstruct and/or re-cast traditional views such as private property ownership.

At its most basic level this method generally includes two exaggerated extremes, where a “thesis” is usually proposed as a departure from the norm which would be too extreme for the listener, while the antithesis is usually a caricature of the existing consensus. In this way, a false tension is established which creates the felt need for resolution. The speaker then proposes a “synthesis” which is actually a departure from the now supposedly discredited traditional position, but thankfully to the listener not as far as the thesis position. Hence the listener is often moved to the synthesis position, and feels good about this change.  And it gives the false impression that a community consensus has been achieved.

This kind of mind-manipulation has been happening throughout the US for several decades to move the population into the sustainability mindset.  Combine this with the wholesale infiltration of sustainable development into the educational system from pre-K to post-graduate, and a cultural consensus in favor of sustainable development seems to have been achieved.  In the case of Millennials, the indoctrination is so complete, and dissenting objective truth and logic so skillfully marginalized, demonized and rendered invisible, that the appeal is made to their emotions, with the resulting reaction to opposing (and rational) points of view of moral indignation and disgust.

Tom DeWeese, in his 2016 American Policy Center Report explains how the architects of this ideology pursue “Sustainable Development”:

In short, Sustainable Development is the process by which America is being reorganized around a central principle of state collectivism using the environment as bait.

One of the best ways to understand what Sustainable Development actually is can be found by discovering what is NOT sustainable.

 According to the UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report, items for our everyday lives that are NOT sustainable include: Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment (capitalism, free markets).

According to DeWeese, the three legs of Agenda 21 that intersect are social equity, economic prosperity and environmental integrity:

Social Equity All people should benefit equally from available resources, collective is favored over individual rights, elimination of borders is desirable to allow migration from other nations, private property is evil, unelected social planners organize and control everything
Economic Prosperity Government control of corporations similar to the Fascist model of Mussolini in first half of 20th century, redefining free trade to be centralized global trade, heavy regulations destroying some business and artificially bolstering other “sustainable” business that would never make it under free market capitalism, controlled economies dictating the availability and quality of products
Environmental Integrity Humans are nothing special, environment always comes first, great restrictions on private property, social planners control resources and consumption


The “collective” or “communitarian” aspect of Agenda 21 is seen everywhere as it is deployed.  There is a very fundamental change demanded: from individual freedom to collective conformity.  Instead of each human dealing with their own destiny, with personal growth, development of skills, envisioning plans for the future, and pursuing those goals, there is conformity to the state: no private property, everything rented or leased, ability to travel restricted, everything in one’s life monitored by the state.

Perhaps the greatest “evil” according to the Sustainability advocates is free market capitalism, because it results in personal winners and losers, according to the Pareto principle.  Thus, at any point in time, some people and corporations will be wealthy, and many others near poverty.  While this is a real problem, the fundamental question is what kind or political/social configuration provides the greatest possibility for humans reaching their full potential, accepting the reality of inequity in all of life.

On the Sustainable side, individual potential is sacrificed for conformity to top-down totalitarian control.  One must ask: where has this ever succeeded without violence and nearly total poverty?

As far as the option of free market capitalism is concerned, it is clear that it must be subjected to important regulations, to deal with potential pathologies.  For example, it must be carried out within a rule-based legal system.  Further, the society must be given incentives to deal with those who are disadvantaged and/or living in poverty.  Additionally, capitalism works at its best within a society where transcendent spiritual values as found in Judeo-Christianity are pursued and valued by many.

A few sample visible aspects of Agenda 21 are the following:

* Great emphasis on adding bicycle lanes throughout communities, even if they are almost never used

* Building of “stack and pack” micro apartment complexes throughout large cities, and near public transportation stations

* Leasable bicycles deposited within urban areas for people to use

* Installation of residential “smart meters” to keep track of personal energy and water consumption in essentially real-time mode

What is not yet as visible are goals such as:

* Emptying rural areas of people, and relocating them into cities

* Rezoning rural areas to eliminate private ownership

* Moving agriculture from personal ownership to large, multinational corporate entities

* Transferring political power from elected officials to non-elected boards, commissions, NGOs and giant multi-national corporate entities

* Overtaking education from pre-K to post-graduate with sustainable development concepts

* Consolidation of data collection and other private information across multiple domains (education, health, internet usage, cell phone usage, etc.) to ultimately monitor all humans

Rosa Koire concludes:

United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development is the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world.

Of course, beyond public relations are the actions being implemented around the world in an accelerating rate to achieve the Agenda 21 goals.

Agenda 2030

It is instructive to consider the stated goals of Agenda 2030, but to do so, the statements need to be translated from devious “sustainability-talk” to objective truth.  Here is a “translation” from Agenda 2030 Translator: How to Read the UN’s New Sustainable Development Goals:

Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere

Translation: Centralized banks, IMF, World Bank, Fed to control all finances

Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

Translation: GMO [Genetically Modified Organisms]

Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

Translation: Mass vaccination, Codex Alimentarius

Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

Translation: UN propaganda, brainwashing through compulsory education from cradle to grave

Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Translation: Population control through forced “Family Planning”

Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

Translation: Privatize all water sources, don’t forget to add fluoride

Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

Translation: Smart grid with smart meters on everything, peak pricing

Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

Translation: TPP, free trade zones that favor megacorporate interests

Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

Translation: Toll roads, push public transit, remove free travel, environmental restrictions

Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries

Translation: Even more regional government bureaucracy

Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Translation: Big brother big data surveillance state

Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

Translation: Forced austerity

Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

Translation: Cap and Trade, carbon taxes/credits, footprint taxes (aka Al Gore’s wet dream)

Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

Translation: Environmental restrictions, control all oceans including mineral rights from ocean floors

Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

Translation: More environmental restrictions, more controlling resources and mineral rights

Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

Translation: More UN “peacekeeping” missions (ex 1, ex 2), remove 2nd Amendment in USA

Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

Translation: Remove national sovereignty worldwide

(the above used by permission)

A more exhaustive “translation” of the goals has been provided in an article  entitled, The United Nations 2030 Agenda decoded – It’s a blueprint for the global enslavement of humanity under the boot of corporate masters.

Critiquing the full details of Agenda 2030 is beyond the scope of the Primer, but a useful document containing the thoughts of several of the leading critics of sustainable development as defined by the UN is entitled: “The U.N. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: A Critique.”  Consider the Amazon description for this book:

This publication is a series of critical commentary regarding the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which includes specific goals. These goals are part the draft resolution which was referred to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015, titled, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. Author and commentator Patrick Wood, author of “Technocracy Rising”, comments regarding “soft” or “reflexive law” to explain how sustainable development is being implemented. Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center, and Mary Baker of “Citizen Ninga” activist training fame, offer a compelling critiques of “Agenda 2030” and its goals.

 U.N. Agenda 2030 is an international wealth redistribution scheme to transfer wealth from “rich” nations to poor nations. Unlike U.N. Agenda 21, which was installed worldwide at the local level, this new scheme seeks to transform the economic structure of the world from a priced-based system or capitalism, to a socialist carbon-based currency system, using strict conservation rationing system, or technocracy.

Critique: One way of looking at UN Sustainable Development and the agendas is that this is the realization of the socialist utopia that has been mentioned several times in this Primer.  In a disturbing sense, it has commonalities to the 20th century socialist experiments which resulted in unprecedented death, and abject misery for survivors.

Given below are some characteristics of the agendas, with the rationale for their existence.  Note that the characteristics are those that political correctness supports.

Sustainability Characteristic Rationale for the Sustainability Advocates
Totalitarian The denial of individual liberty, and social re-engineering violate nascent human nature, and require brute force to instantiate
Rejection of Judeo-Christian thought Going back to Marx and Rousseau, Judeo-Christianity, the Logos, a transcendent deity with a moral order have always been the enemy of totalitarian schemes.
Replacement of the individual with the collective Whatever is best for the state, not the individual
Driving people off their home lands and emptying rural areas Easier to control people by technology when all clustered into cities
High priority on surveillance Control is a paramount necessity: food rationing, water and energy consumption, where you are located at every second, what you are doing, how you are doing it, with whom
Denigration of private property Everything needs to be owned by the state, helps to convert population into essentially nihilistic, purposeless robots
Demonization of free market capitalism It’s mandatory to remove the incentive of acquiring wealth via capitalism for totalitarianism to work
Redistribution of wealth Everyone is equal, no need to acquire wealth, everyone will get their fair (meager) share
Dumbed-down education This is actually indoctrination, which is being delivered by Common Core, and basically all humanities and social science “education” in colleges and universities, creates new generations of easily pliable youth, devoid of knowledge of history, objective truth, and logic
Thought control Freedom of speech and thought are enemies, there can be no dissent allowed
Climate-change hoax Needed as a catalyst to diminish the strength of capitalist-oriented countries, and to consolidate power over fuel production and consumption at the level of world governance
Support of thuggery, violent regimes The leaders are already good at totalitarianism, and the residents already depressed and dispirited
Sophisticated propaganda To keep the believers in line, and coerce the opposition into submission, objective truth and logic are the enemy
Equity (i.e., everyone equally poor) Everyone gets a trophy made of recyclable tissue paper
Rationing of goods and services With the demolition of free market capitalism, no means to generate wealth, and with elevation of the environment over humans, not enough food and materials to have abundance
Ugly stack and pack living in the cities The more people crammed into tiny fully surveillance-equipped spaces, the better the control
Narrowing of roadways with additional bike lanes and leasable bikes Need to separate people from personal autos, to conserve energy, but also to reduce travel to remote areas which lack sophisticated surveillance infrastructure
Promotion of abortion and LGBTQ initiatives Great support for lowering world population, especially of people (e.g., certain racial groups) considered undesirable, plus fostering grievance mentality to promote reliance on the state as protector, as opposed to a morally upright society
Demonization of boys and men Radical feminization of males in society diminishes the potential for testosteronistic pushback
Borderless immigration Destruction of concept of the nation-state vital, plus a method of destroying national identity, especially when Judeo-Christianity is historically and important component of that identity


What seems to be working quite well for the UN elites supporting is the increasing hegemony of politically correct thought, with the march through the institutions of Western culture essentially complete. What is different from the 20th century is the pervasive increase in technocracy, which makes propaganda and coercion much more effective.

There are a number of articles, booklets and pamphlets that can provide details of Sustainable Development and the UN Agendas 21 and 2030, as follows:

Agenda 21 – Sustainable Development – American Policy Center

American Policy Center provides a brief overview of Agenda 21, in one easy lesson. This 6-page article is a good place to start in gaining understanding of scope, goals and methodology.

Special Report – Agenda 21 and How To Stop It (2017)

An extensive description of the various facets of Agenda 21. That this report is dated 2017 underscores the truth that Agenda 21 hasn’t been replaced by Agenda 2030. In fact, at the local and regional level, it continues to be a fundamental component of the UN’s effort to implement their collectivist utopia throughout the world.

UN Agenda 2030 – A Recipe for Global Socialism – Alex Newman

Journalist Alex Newman provides an overview of UN Agenda 2030 and Sustainability Development, demonstrating that it is a road map to global socialism and corporatism/fascism. He mentions the unsavory world “leaders” that buy into Agenda 2030, while crushing human rights in their own countries. This article is an excellent introduction to Agenda 2030.

Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 – For the People and Their Government Officials

A 16-page pamphlet from Freedom Advocates, exposing details about UN Agenda 21 and sustainable development. From their website, “Freedom Advocates promotes the unalienable rights as expressed in the American Declaration of Independence. Today many laws and policies implement Agenda 21/Sustainable Development which ignore and violate unalienable rights.” Concerning UN Agenda 21 and 2030: “Sustainability Agendas push words and programs that sound good, but are not. Here is a pamphlet for you and/or your elected representatives that explains things.”

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals SDGs are Undermining Democracy – Quartz Africa

This article is written by someone who to a degree buys into Sustainable Development, but is disturbed by the incorporation of undemocratic regimes and other corrupt aspects into the unfolding of the agendas.

In addition to this book, there is a large collection of videos in YouTube which deal with various aspects of both Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030; some examples are provided in the Appendix.







(not yet available)

Diana West from American Betrayal to Red Thread

(not yet available)

Vladimir Bukovsky and the Failure to Prosecute the Soviet Regime

(not yet available)

Chapter 5 – Political Correctness in Real-Life Scenarios

In this chapter, the understanding gained in earlier chapters is applied to several real-life scenarios.  How can a recognition of the goals, objectives and tactics, as well as the underlying ideology be of help?


To recap Chapter 1, the historical evolution of contemporary Political Correctness can be traced from the Frankfurt School and the Cultural Marxists, who combined with the paleo-Progressives already established in the United States when the Frankfurt School arrived from Germany in the mid-1930s.

Before and during World War II, as the Cultural Marxists were being established in academia and government, there was also the semi-occupation of the U.S. federal government by Soviet spies and fellow-travelers.

After the war, the influence of the Cultural Marxists continued to grow, but there was growing alarm over the Soviet influence in our government, leading to the investigations by the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Army-McCarthy hearings during the late 1940s and 1950s; in a few cases there were also prosecutions of Soviet spies.

By the 1960s, the Cultural Marxism began to penetrate into the general culture, with the former pro-Soviets joining forces to form the New Left, sometimes referred to as neo-Marxism.  The sexual revolution was one manifestation of that infiltration, along with 2nd-wave Feminism, both affiliated with the Left. Also, the transformation of the Civil Rights movement from the Christian church into more Marxist directions took place, with the Black Power and Liberation Theology as two important indicators.

However, by the 1970s, enough undeniable information from dissidents and similar concerning massive atrocities – at least 100 million deaths — in the Soviet Union and Red China was revealed that even the most hardcore Leftist intellectuals could no longer support 20th century Communism.  Most important perhaps was the smuggled magnum opus “Gulag Archipelago” by Nobel laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn, which combined massive, detailed research with profound expose of the ideology.

Something was needed to recapture the devotion and commitment to Marxism.  A group of French intellectuals created a new variant by the introduction of Postmodernism, which eschewed logic and objective truth and replaced them with power.  This ideology replaced the Marxist model of the oppressive Bourgeois (i.e., factory owners) victimizing the Proletariat (i.e., workers) with the various cultural victim groups being oppressed by privileged oppressors, the most comprehensive of the oppressors being white, male, able-bodied, heterosexual, and Christian.  Today this has morphed to Identity Politics.

By the end of the 1970s, these victim groups were in business—especially in academia—and Political Correctness was the tactic used to both secure and wield power.  By the end of the 1980s, the phrase “politically correct” began to appear; the politics entailed group rather than individual identity, based on Postmodernism/neo-Marxism ideology.

Fast forward to today, and Political Correctness has significant control of culture everywhere in the West.  In the US, nearly all of academia and a significant portion of news and entertainment media are controlled by this ideology, although there is occasional push-back from conservative and classical (i.e., non-Marxist) liberal entities.

In Chapter 2 of this Primer, the mechanism of Political Correctness is outlined, with both the propaganda (to acquire and retain victim adherents and advocates) and coercive (to bully and silence the opposition) elements.

In Chapter 3, some of the major elements of Political Correctness ideology are defined, and in Chapter 4 a number of important activities that take place because of the ideology are discussed. It is important to note that in all of the actions of Political Correctness, the underlying ideology best referred to as Postmodernism/neo-Marxism is explicitly anti-Christian, anti-traditional family, and anti-Logos (including the rejection of objective truth, logic, dialogue, and individual responsibility).  Further, both the propaganda and coercive components of Political Correctness are composed of essentially false narratives, and include heavy use of cultural shaming (e.g., name-calling: “racist”, “homophobic”, “Islamophobic”, etc.), as well as increased suppression of free speech via regulations, intimidation and violence.

Shelby Steele, Black Conservative author of the 2015 book, “Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country”, refers to the false narratives that the Left employs to maintain a mindset of victimization as follows:

“… “poetic truth” disregards the actual truth in order to assert a larger essential truth that supports one’s ideological position. It makes the actual truth seem secondary or irrelevant. Poetic truths defend the sovereignty of one’s ideological identity by taking license with reality and fact. They work by moral intimidation rather than by reason, so that even to question them is heresy.”


Below are some real-life examples of people dealing with feelings of victimization. The question in each case concerns the source of that feeling.  Is it associated with an externally crafted narrative based upon Postmodern ideology (i.e., Identity Politics), or is it direct and unassociated with ideology?  Perhaps a combination of both?

Note that even if the sense of victimization is essentially the result of manipulation and ideology, it is nevertheless real, and needs to be dealt with in a sensitive and authentic manner.

A major problem with Identity Politics is the assumption that people in victim groups are without power because they are oppressed by those in the privileged groups.  In other words, it is a simplistic, univariate model, only one cause.  But real life – outside of ideology – is multivariate; there are many factors contributing to a person being disadvantaged or powerless.  Identity Politics does not permit the concept of “responsibility” to be applied to the victim group, nor the idea of competency to the privileged group.  The elites of the ideology define a mother-infant model, where the “victim” is always innocent and blameless, and requires immediate attention.  Thus, in reality it is very demeaning to the people in the victim group.

A further problem with Identity Politics is that there is an assumption made that all members of each victim group think and behave in the same manner; and in fact, there is considerable demonization, marginalization and rejection of those in any group who dispute their victim status.   See Black Conservatives as an example.

This is not to deny that there is victimization. In truth, all human beings are innocent victims in some respects, and privileged oppressors in others; life is beset with both undeserved and deserved suffering, and on the other hand none of us can claim pure innocence for ourselves in all dimensions of our lives.

There is another aspect to victimization that should not be overlooked; namely, that the response to the perception of being a victim is usually resentment: resentment that one has been mistreated, discriminated against; or perhaps that others have more money, opportunities, etc.

The problem with that kind of resentment is that everyone in the West is living in the lap of luxury.  Even the poorest of the poor have access to resources that are only found in the West.  That’s why there is great interest in emigration from other countries to the West, and not to developing countries, for example.

The resentment expressed by Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) on university campuses is especially incongruous. Among the most pampered, wealthy (by world standards), privileged people that ever existed in all of history (i.e., university students, with their parents mortgaging their future to pay the bills, from money obtained through Capitalism), and yet, the SJW students are universally angry: they don’t say, “thanks”.

Here are some examples:


This is an extremely sensitive and, in many cases, a grievous matter where the entity (i.e., the church) that purports to provide mercy, grace, altruistic love, and salvation, has instead behaved in a manner that has caused deep wounds.

In this case, there’s a third entity that must be taken into consideration: the pronouncements of the Word of God relative to homosexuality.  It’s a very delicate and sensitive matter to be a representative of the Word when dealing with this particular issue.

A person who considers oneself gay often senses that identity at the core of one’s being.  However, a question needs to be asked: why is being gay the determining factor in their identity?  Part of the answer is that Identity Politics, which is today’s cultural norm, assumes that all people with same-sex attraction (SSA) are to be identified as gay, and thereby according to ideology achieve an innocent victim status, oppressed by heterosexuals, especially by Christians (the latter, because of Biblical prohibition of homosexuality).

But why go with the cultural flow? There are other ways to look at identity.  For example, a person might say that she is a Christ follower, is studying to be a STEM professional, but also struggles with SSA.  So, who is she? A student? Christian? Engineer?  Or gay?  Or simply an un-labeled, complex, unique person?  And these questions apply to both the conflicted persons themselves, as well as the congregates in the “church” who interact with them.

The bottom line is that churches need to be very concerned about how they interact with people dealing with SSA.  Because this is such a sensitive and potentially divisive issue, there needs to be awareness within the church, such that people who deal with SSA and reach out to the church will not come away wounded.  Yet the outreach must be accomplished in a manner that does not compromise Biblical teaching.  Not easy.

Important considerations in such cases are to remember that people who deal with SSA are typically wrestling with a deep spiritual/psychological dissonance within themselves. It must be realized that the cultural context of Identity Politics has an overwhelming and negative influence on anyone dealing with SSA by entrenching those who struggle with the belief that there is no alternative to what may in fact be a fleeting tendency, depending on the severity of the circumstances which led to the confusion in the first place. It is based on the lie that people cannot transform themselves by the power of God at work.

That is not to say that there is any formula to bringing people out of a gay orientation, but simply, to point to the essential truths outlined in Scripture, and let the living Logos have sway in the person who humbly submits to the transformative work of the Holy Spirit.  Needless to say, the Postmodern/neo-Marxist LGBTQ advocates strongly oppose such actions, launching campaigns in various states to ban transformation counseling to minors who struggle with unwanted SSA, and wish to find help.

Many Christians including some in leadership do not have sufficient training, sensitivity and understanding to deal with people in their midst who deal with SSA, but given the cultural climate, it is of utmost importance that this be made a priority, not only in dealing with LGBTQ people, but with any who have felt sidelined or ostracized for being different.  And as part of that training, it is essential that an understanding of the negative influence of Identity Politics and the underlying Postmodern/neo-Marxist ideology be provided.


Some of the thoughts in the section above are applicable here as well, especially the cultural context of Identity Politics, whereby learned sensitivities have been inculcated over the past 40 years.

There is no doubt that there are some young women who have experienced dreadful trauma in their early lives, not brought on by the culture, but by other broken people.  Such young women deserve utmost sympathy and protection.  It is not surprising that such people are especially susceptible to the Feminist narrative, whether or not Feminism is of benefit to them.

However, even young women who have not had such life-impacting experiences often find Feminism to be attractive.  Consider these quotes by anti-Feminist Janice Fiamengo relative to young women that have been drawn by the prevailing culture, rather than personal trauma:

The average young woman is typically the beneficiary of school programs to help girls succeed all the way from primary school to post-secondary level, and she is typically taught almost entirely by pro-Feminist teachers, many of them women, who praise her for her insights, her social interactions, and her verbal skills.  She’s told from an early age that she should assert herself, that girls and women’s’ contributions to society are worthy of special praise, and that boys and men have no right to make her feel uncomfortable in any way.

Fiamengo concludes that years-long immersion (perhaps “indoctrination” is a better word) in mainstream Feminist thought has a two-fold effect:

First, it channels any feelings of dissatisfaction, anxiety, resentment or self-dislike which most young people feel at one time or another into anger at male-dominated society which is seen as actively and eternally biased against women.

And second, it creates a powerful, heady and exhilarating rush of euphoria, deeply pleasurable, at perceiving oneself an innocent victim of social forces beyond one’s control.

That’s not to say that there isn’t occasional discrimination experienced by those in this second group; certainly, all of humanity at times undergoes unjust suffering.  But these days, the dominant influence of contemporary Feminism with anti-male animus at the center of its ideology has stacked the cards against boys and men, rather than girls and women.

There is also third group of young women who are drawn to certain aspects of Feminism, but not the entire agenda.  For example, some may resonate with under-representation of women in certain fields, or lack of female CEO’s, for example. However, there may be perfectly understandable reasons why such seeming inequities occur, with Feminist doctrine not involved.  For example, consider Psychology professor Jordan Peterson’s description of why virtually all top-flight female lawyers exit the profession in their 30s.  Note that since Feminism is based upon Postmodernism and its negative view of objective facts and logic, then one must question whether it has anything of lasting value to say on such issues.

The point is that women in this third group have no need to adopt anything from Feminism.  If there is an issue that Feminism supports and is actually reasonable — for example, some kind of anti-discrimination concern — there is no need to involve an anti-male, hyper-victimization, hyper-innocence ideology.  Just fix the problem; if Feminist ideology is involved, it will only bring in all its negativity.

It’s difficult to go further with this example without understanding more background details, but it is very likely that the young woman’s real pain and frustration is strongly coupled with hypersensitivity caused by 2nd and 3rd-wave Feminism.  By this time in our culture, any actual systemic discrimination of women is almost assuredly against the law, or at least subjected to significant public shaming.


This is not as clear-cut an example, because Identity Politics has not been as thoroughly established for Asians as it has for women, Blacks, Hispanics, and LGBTQ-identified people.  In fact, according to some in the Social Justice Warrior world, Asians are considered to be “privileged” because they are very successful in academia and the business world, especially STEM.  So, there’s definitely SJW ambivalence.

Additionally, Asians are routinely discriminated against in admission to university, to meet diversity quotas which provide preferential admission for Blacks and Hispanics.  Note that Whites are often similarly discriminated against.  An essay by an Asian-American author Matthew Salesses indicates that there is also plenty of social discrimination against Asians, in a manner perhaps not seen as much for other non-Whites, especially these days.

Here’s a brief expression from Salesses:

The truth is, racism toward Asians is treated differently in America than racism toward other ethnic groups. This is a truth all Asian Americans know. While the same racist may hold back terms he sees as off-limits toward other minorities, he will often not hesitate to call an Asian person a chink, as Jeremy Lin was referred to, or talk about that Asian person as if he must know karate, or call him Bruce Lee, or consider him weak or effeminate, or so on.

Asians are clearly excluded from the Identity Politics paradigm.

A good example of discrimination against Asians in universities was provided by a June 2018 opinion piece in the New York Times entitled “Harvard Is Wrong that Asians Have Terrible Personalities”, whereby the following anti-Asian policy on admissions was exposed:

Earlier this month, we learned that a review of more than 160,000 individual student files contained in six years of Harvard’s admissions data found that Asians outperformed all other racial groups on every measure of academic achievement: grades, SAT scores and the most AP exams passed. They had more extracurricular activities than their white counterparts. They were rated by interviewers who had met them as virtually on par with their white counterparts in their personal qualities. Yet Harvard admissions officers, many of whom had never met these applicants, scored them collectively as the worst of all groups in the one area — personality — that was subjective enough to be readily manipulable to serve Harvard’s institutional interests.

What is affirmative action for some, is racial discrimination for others.  Harvard used the phony “personality” area to restrict the acceptance of Asian students, so that other more vocal (and thus powerful) identity groups would not create embarrassing public problems for the university.  What other explanation can there be?

Salesses also discusses in some depth his struggles to come to terms with his “otherness”; he was adopted from a Korean mother, and grew up in an affluent section of Connecticut.  It is a fascinating read as he comes to terms with his Korean-ness, but the point for this section is that Asians in America deal with a lot of racism, yet they have not been adopted by the Left as a valid victim.  The observation here is that Identity Politics deals with winners and losers.  If you are a loser (i.e., a victim), according to the ideology it’s because you have been oppressed by the winners, not because of their effort, competency, or good moral character.  No, Postmodernism is about power, and the winners are assumed to have overpowered the losers.

In this example, then, the Asian person would seem to be in a complicated struggle for identity, and he is accused of being a privileged victimizer (because he is Asian) while experiencing ongoing racial unpleasantness; whereas he sees his White counterparts as not having to deal with these issues.  Of course, what they have in common is that Identity Politics see them both as privileged.

The point as in the above is that life is difficult, and there is unjust suffering for us all.  But there is also hope, especially for those who become Christ followers, to move beyond resentment and self-pity to the high calling of speaking the truth – the Logos – to a significantly lost world.


By way of introduction, it is clear that there is an especially potent grievance mantra promoted by Identity Politics in the case of race, and there is ample historical and some contemporary evidence to support the victim concept for Blacks.

Having said that, in this example, the first question is what is meant by “acute power differential”?  This terminology apparently arises from “Oppression Theory” of Identity Politics, whereby “powered” and “non-powered” groups are paired along lines of so-called oppression.  The critical fallacy here is that the theory assumes that the non-powered find themselves in that position because of the malevolent exercise of power by the powered group to ensure dominance.

In Identity Politics, no consideration is made for cultural differences affecting productivity, nor individual, personal characteristics of diligence or perseverance.  Further, no attention is given to the disabling effect that a sense of victimization has on many (but not all) people in the “non-powered” group, producing a sense of depression, apathy and hopelessness.  Thus, the Postmodern ideology blinds people to fundamental origins of non-powered-ness, and further cannot explain the minority of people in these non-powered groups (such as Black Conservatives) that lead full and successful lives.

And there are additional complications: (1) the true history of some very important aspects of the Black-White relationship in the U.S. relative to political ideology (for example, Democrat vs. Republican) is not well-known, but from the civil war to the present, there continues to be oppression of Blacks by the “Left”, except today it’s paradoxically Identity Politics itself which enslaves; (2) there is a subset of the Black population who identify as conservative, and who would not be able to identify at all with the concept of acute power differential.

Black Conservatives constitute a diverse group, but they are united in two respects: (1) they have transcended victimhood relative to white racism, and (2) they see Leftist policies as contemporary victimizers of Blacks.  The problem is that the Left controls academia and the media for the most part, so that Black Conservatives are rendered largely invisible, especially within the Black community (where there are many derogatory terms directed at them).

Further, it should be noted that among all U.S. immigrant “groups”, those of Nigerian descent are the most successful and prosperous, eclipsing even Asians.  And while not African, there are many immigrants from India who are highly successful, especially in STEM fields.  Any residual cultural bias against people of color might be an occasional irritant, but certainly does not result in a focus on victimization accompanied by resentment for both Nigerians and those from India.

In terms of Black Conservatives – who are descendants of American slavery — these people live without resentment due to victimization; yet most others in the Black community have never heard of them, other than perhaps recent Presidential candidate and current head of HUD, Dr. Ben Carson. People such as Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Star Parker, Mason Weaver, Shelby Steele, Deneen Borelli, Stacy Washington, David Webb, Jesse Lee Peterson, Carol Swain, Larry Elder, Jason Riley, Ken Blackwell, Alveda King, Derryck Green, Allen West, Candace Owens, and other participants at Project 21; all highly successful, articulate, and not victims as proclaimed by Identity Politics, but who understand that there are intentional victimizers of the Black community; namely, the Postmodern/neo-Marxist Left.

Consider the following 2001 quote from Black Libertarian John McWhorter:

“Victimology, separatism, and anti-intellectualism underlie the general black community’s response to all race-related issues.… Today, these three thought patterns impede black advancement much more than racism; and dysfunctional inner cities, corporate glass ceilings, and black educational underachievement will persist until such thinking disappears. In my experience, trying to show many African-Americans how mistaken and counterproductive these ideas are is like trying to convince a religious person that God does not exist: the sentiments are beyond the reach of rational, civil discourse.”


By “does poorly”, it is meant both lack of interest in studies, and occasional suspensions for poor behavior.

This boy represents a generation or more of underperforming boys who attend public schools wherever Postmodern Feminism is in control.  The gap in performance between boys and girls is growing at an alarming rate, with fewer and fewer boys deciding to go on to college or university.  Of course, if they do, they are subjected to even greater discrimination, which may explain some of the decline.

In this example, the difference between the two environments – the church, and the school – are contrasted; how the boy is treated in each environment is dependent on the underlying ideology.  The fundamental difference has to do with the Logos; in the case of the church, the Logos corresponds to Jesus Christ, at once the One who was at the beginning of creation, and also the One who suffered and died for mankind’s sin, and was resurrected to eternal life. Such an environment values each boy as an individual made in the image of God, with great life potential as he follows Biblical teaching on a whole range of life’s issues. And it also constructs a protective and counter-Leftist cultural hedge.  It is an environment which is beneficial and supportive for both boys and girls

On the other hand, in the public schools, the underlying Feminist ideology is anti-Logos; they see logic and dialogue as tools of the evil Patriarchy to maintain power over perpetually innocent women.  There is no room in this ideology for either “great” men, or “evil” women.  It is an environment which intentionally blurs the distinction between male and female, and teaches that gender is socially constructed rather than biologically determined, encouraging boys and girls to discover their own gender identity, even though social constructionism is objectively and logically untrue. But additionally, for boys, their built-in interests and personality trends are shamed and discouraged in favor of more feminine characteristics.  It is an adversarial and damaging environment for them.

With such an unbalanced ideology controlling the thoughts and actions of the education establishment, then the curriculum and accompanying operational procedures and regulations exist to in effect “cure” boys of their evil maleness.

Christina Hoff Summers of AEI maintains that there is a war against boys in our educational system.  She quotes psychologist Michael Thompson who says that in elementary schools, girls are the “gold standard”, boys are treated as “defective girls”.  Summers quotes statistics demonstrating that boys lag far behind girls in reading, awards, and college preparation, but far out distance them in receiving disciplinary action for behavior.

She proposes four initiatives that might be followed to rescue the situation:

  1. Turn boys into readers by assigning material that they would be interested in. Note: this would mean assigning different material for boys and girls.
  2. Inspire the male imagination. As with reading, so with writing: allow boys to write about concepts that they find interesting and captivating.
  3. Zero out “Zero Tolerance”. Boys are getting suspended in number far larger than girls, starting in pre-school, where the ratio is 5 to 1. Give second chances. Let boys be boys.
  4. Bring back recess. Boys especially need to be able to “run off steam”. And bring back games requiring skill and a bit of minor contact, such as “dodge ball”, and “red rover”.

The Postmodern Feminist movement has created generations of “defective” boys, who turn into emasculated men, confessing their privilege and hoping they’ll be able to speak their minds without hysterical criticism by Leftist females.

In our example, it is clear that the church and the boy’s parent must become educated concerning what their son is being subjected to in the Feminist-dominated public school.  If possible, he should be removed from the school, and placed in a conservative Christian school, or even home-schooled, if possible.

If not possible, then the parents must become as activated as possible, to advocate for their son — and boys in general — in the school, as well as the school district hierarchy.  And in the home, they must endeavor to masculine-ize their son through reading, writing, and listening, as well as bonding with the father, as much as possible.  Clearly this home-medicine is prescribed even for families where the son is NOT involved in an affirming church group.  In fact, step one would be to locate a church for their son which (1) has a strong youth group, and (2) understands the destructive nature of Postmodern Feminism, which dominates public schools, and increasingly much of the culture.

In a recent conversation between Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia, the discussion was about how to dismantle the hold that Postmodernism has on Feminism.  Paglia concluded that “men need to stand up”, but Peterson countered that men are unable to deal with “insane women”.  He suggested that it is sane women that must stand up to their insane sisters.  Whatever approach is followed, until the hold of Postmodern Feminism is broken in Western culture, people on a case by case basis must battle for the boys, to confront the educational establishment to cease discriminating against boys.


In 2015, students at several west coast schools were interviewed on the street about what they thought of various gender designations that people might choose to identify with.  In all cases shown, the students were either supportive of the designations or unsure about them, but none expressed support for coincidence of biological sex with gender.  Transcripts of these videos can be found here.

Clearly these videos do not represent a valid scientific analysis, but the response of the students who were featured clearly aligned with the Postmodern neo-Marxist dogma on social constructionism and gender currently taught in nearly all North American schools, from pre-K through graduate school.

So, what is going on?

One aspect seems certain: the tolerance for another person’s feelings of identity as expressed in these videos seems widespread, and on many campuses, it is often the only expression offered, with other responses considered hate speech or perhaps a microaggression.  Further, it did not appear that the students were responding in a politically correct manner because of a fear of retribution; they seemed sincere in their expression of support for the identities being discussed, regardless of their orientation.

This tolerance might at first glance be considered to be compassionate: “If that’s the way you feel, well good for you”, etc.  However, compassion must be accompanied by wisdom.  When a 1-year-old complains, they are always right, and need attention immediately; no reasonable person criticizes an infant.  But the issues discussed in the interviews were concerning adults, not infants.  In that case, issues of responsibility, objective truth, and openness to constructive criticism are all vital.  Yet feelings and the corresponding expressions of support seemed to be the only factors considered.   What if the factor of pathology was also inherent in the identities; should that be of concern?  Should it be addressed?

It is also important to understand the ideology behind these expressions of support.  At the fundamental level, the ideology is Postmodernism neo-Marxism with its rejection of logic (gender and biological sex are only loosely connected) and dialogue (the students are not provided alternative viewpoints), and the corresponding emphasis on feelings (“I feel like a fairy today”) and power (identity politics and victimhood must always rule).

Note also that proponents of the ideology can be segmented into two tiers: the PC Authoritarians (often referred to as Social Justice Warriors) and the PC Egalitarians (those who craft and propagandize the ideology, such as Humanities academics).  In these interviews, we’re likely hearing from SJWs and those who have internalized (i.e., have been indoctrinated into) their ideology.  It is important to note that regardless of indoctrination there are valid alternative narratives based on objective science and common-sense observations about issues of gender by people who are not ideologically possessed.

Finally, concerning ideology, it should also be noted that from a power perspective, the Postmodern neo-Marxists apparently have decided that it is in their best interests to maintain as many victim groups as possible in the effort to overthrow the evil Patriarchy which is Judeo-Christian-based Western Civilization.  Unfortunately, as with other victim groups, in the case of people dealing with gender-related issues there is pressure to remain a victim. This does great harm to people within those groups; they are often disadvantaged, and need valid paths to become un-disadvantaged, not to remain perpetual victims.

For the sake of discussion, the focus of the interviews is divided into (1) those dealing with the similarities and differences between men and women, and (2) those addressing identities disconnected from genetics and biology.

Male and Female

A discussion of the important differences between male and female is found in the Gender and Social Constructionism section.  Even if one considers simply the personality trait differences, it can be seen that they are real and important.

Thus, when students were asked whether or not there were differences, to the extent that they answered some form of “no”, they were objectively wrong.  And because these trait differences are found to be consistent cross-culturally, they are related to biology and not socially constructed.

Gender Identity Pathology

With regard to gender identity, what was not expressed by any of the responders in the videos was the possibility of pathology.  See the section on Gender Identity Disorder for details.  In summary, ideology has mainstreamed a disorder into a supposedly valid mode of identity, as opposed to promoting objectively valid therapy to seek for restoration of the mind and soul with biological realty.

Note that in the interviews above, no hint was provided by the students interviewed that the various identities discussed had any relation to pathology, although there were a couple times where a student admitted they slightly disagreed with a less-than-6-ft Caucasian man in his 20s who claimed he identified as a 6ft 5in Asian 7-year-old woman.

What is needed?

The fundamental question can be raised is: how should one respond to a person who declares their identity with some status other than what they are.  How to be compassionate, without sacrificing truth that might be an agent of change for the better?

The first part of the answer is that one must reject political correctness, and treat the other person as an individual, not the member of a victim group oppressed by the Patriarchy.  The other person should be treated as someone who can provide unique information; thus, it is vital to commit to being a listener.

If the person wishes to enter into dialogue, there are two important issues to pursue: (1) does the person want to change, and (2) are they steeped in Postmodern neo-Marxist thought?  If the answer to #1 is “no”, then kindness, and leaving the door open for future dialogue are both important, as well as affirming the person as an individual without affirming the chosen non-normative identity.  If #2 is true, then the discussion could turn to exposing the many fatal flaws in the ideology and communicating that there are non-ideological, proven methods of change for those who wish to do so.


Most students today have been steeped in Postmodern neo-Marxist ideology since pre-K, and have never been exposed to non-ideological, objectively true narratives on these issues, such as those expressed relative to GD/GID by true, seasoned experts such as Dr. Paul McHugh or Dr. Kenneth Zucker.  Students are in desperate need of learning about the intellectual, cultural and political environment deeply influenced by ideology in which they have been raised, and that there are rational, life-changing, positive alternatives to Postmodern neo-Marxism, and its destructive influence on Western culture, and its massive murderous and genocidal impact around the world over the past 100 years.


Clearly it is not possible to undertake an in-depth psychoanalysis of the above examples, based on a single one-phrase expression of perceived victimization.  Thus, the examples serve as a device to illuminate the manner in which Postmodern/neo-Marxist victim mantras, designed to gain and retain cultural and political power, negatively impact individuals as well as the overall culture.  Clearly both the ideologically defined victims and victimizers are impacted, as well as people on the sidelines who might wish to otherwise offer help.

There is no attempt herein to minimize the real pain expressed and lived out by the individuals cited in the above examples.  It would be very difficult to know how to respond to them, and it is clear that God calls and equips some to provide pastoral care for such people.  Nevertheless, the Postmodern/neo-Marxist context which essentially controls much of our culture, and with only a few exceptions all of academia, creates a hypersensitivity to victimization; and that is transcended with great difficulty, and if not, enslaves its targets.

As a culture, things are not perfect, and more sensitivity is needed, but in all directions: to Blacks, but also whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc.; also, sensitivity to girls and women, but also boys and men.  And to those dealing with various forms of sexual and gender dysphoria: sensitivity, and wise counsel, resisting the wisdom of the world (i.e., Postmodern/neo-Marxism), but informed by the Word of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit as He directs.

Chapter 6 – Conclusions


In late June of 2017, Jordan Peterson stated the following:

Postmodernism is wrong: technically wrong, apart from also being ethically, morally, intellectually, emotionally, and practically wrong.

Hopefully this Primer provides the reader detailed explanations on various aspects of political correctness that fully support and illuminate Peterson’s statement.  And in Chapter 5, we examined some examples which provide a glimpse of what people think and feel within the context of the living out of the ideology; in the case of millennials, their entire life.

Not only that, but the reality is that there are many in our culture – especially in the youth – who know only one worldview, completely encapsulated by Political Correctness, and thus Postmodern/neo-Marxist ideology.  Further, when whispers of dissent occasionally arise, they are labeled as hate speech, and/or demonized with pejorative labels, such as “racist”, “misogynist”, “homophobic”, neo-Nazi, and White-supremacist.  Organizations such as Antifa are recruited to physically intimidate and deal in violence to prohibit the expression of objective truth about the ideology, such as is found in this Primer.

Hence there should be no illusions about easy changes of lifelong modes of thinking.  By the same token, the urgency to provide both the cultural truth and the Christian Gospel Truth could not be greater.  While at its depth, the cultural divide is spiritual in nature as informed in Ephesians 6:12, it is also a cognitive divide which can be penetrated with both the spiritual and philosophical/ideological truth.

So, we must understand that it’s much better to be speaking the truth, than to be intimidated into silence.  The battle is no less than to save Western Civilization from a descent into Marxist totalitarianism and corresponding enslavement.


It must be kept in mind that even though political correctness is filled with false narratives and illogical assertions, some of the focus is on people who are troubled – political correctness labels them as victims of oppression.  However, setting aside that labeling, there are people who are suffering, and that suffering is being exploited by the Left.  For example, for many in the LGBTQ “class”, the personality issues they are dealing with are unwanted: they would give anything to be set free. But because of unyielding pressure from the Left, they are greatly disinclined to express that desire.

Similarly, there are important issues dealing with race, ethnicity, religion and gender, and we have to be able to strip away the neo-Marxist assessments and remedies, and fashion and implement Christian-based approaches.  A good example — in the case of abortion — are the many crises pregnancy organizations created by Christians that have undoubtedly saved millions of lives.

Certainly, we must firmly and intelligently push back against the devastation wrought by neo-Marxism.  At the same time, we must continue to be sensitive and act compassionately to those who are in need of help.  This is to be Christ-like.


University of Toronto Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson has been an out-spoken opponent of neo-Marxism and postmodernism, and a strong and articulate advocate for free speech.  While he considers himself to be a “classical liberal”, he finds himself strongly aligned with contemporary conservatives.

In a 2017 speech at Carlton Place, a suburb of Ottawa, he discussed twelve tenets that conservatives should be able to embrace in the ongoing battle for the survival of Western Culture:

  1. The fundamental assumptions of Western civilization are valid.
  2. Peaceful social being is preferable to isolation and to war. In consequence, it justly and rightly demands some sacrifice of individual impulse and idiosyncrasy.
  3. Hierarchies of competence are desirable and should be promoted.
  4. Borders are reasonable. Likewise, limits on immigration are reasonable. Furthermore, it should not be assumed that citizens of societies that have not evolved functional individual-rights predicated polities will hold values in keeping with such polities.
  5. People should be paid so that they are able and willing to perform socially useful and desirable duties.
  6. Citizens have the inalienable right to benefit from the result of their own honest labor.
  7. It is more noble to teach young people about responsibilities than about rights.
  8. It is better to do what everyone has always done, unless you have some extraordinarily valid reason to do otherwise.
  9. Radical change should be viewed with suspicion, particularly in a time of radical change.
  10. The government, local and distal, should leave people to their own devices as much as possible.
  11. Intact heterosexual two-parent families constitute the necessary bedrock for a stable polity.
  12. We should judge our political system in comparison to other actual political systems and not to hypothetical utopias.

In addition, he strongly urges opponents of neo-Marxism/postmodernism to speak the truth – the Logos, which transforms chaos into order — as best one can, regardless of the consequences.  To not speak also has consequences.  He says, “It is not safe to speak. But it is less safe NOT to speak.”


Even though the Cultural Marxist long march through Western Culture has been enormously effective, it is not yet complete.  And there are indications of pushback, often in non-traditional media, such as YouTube.  In the following is a list of individuals that can be a source of information, pushback and clarity with respect to the penetration of Postmodernism/neo-Marxism.  Each of these has been referenced and/or quoted in this Primer:

Jordan Peterson – Psychology professor, University of Toronto

Jordan Peterson brings to the battle over three decades of study on 20th century totalitarian regimes.  He has a wide range of experience as a psychologist, in clinical practice, research, and consulting in the private sector.  He regularly lectures around North America on the dangers of Postmodernism/neo-Marxism, and also is providing a lecture series on the Bible.  He has an extraordinarily significant presence on YouTube.  Since he frequently refers to Christianity in his lectures, an appendix entry is provided to outline his views on these matters.

Janice Fiamengo – English professor, University of Ottawa

Janice Fiamengo began her academic career as a supporter of and participant in Feminism.  However, she became increasingly concerned about the ideology and the damage it was doing, especially to men.  She transformed into an anti-Feminist, and has a strong YouTube presence with several series, working with Studio Brule.  Her “The Fiamengo Files” series is an excellent expose and repudiation of Feminism and Cultural Marxism, and also advocates strongly for men’s issues.

Jonathan Haidt – Social Psychology professor, New York University

Jonathan Haidt serves as a critic of North American universities and the lack of intellectual diversity, and the suppression of free speech.  He with several others has formed Heterodox Academy, a blog that serves as an “advocate for a more intellectually diverse and heterodox academy.”  He also lectures quite widely, and has a strong YouTube presence.

Jonathan Pageau – Icon carver, lecturer, Montreal

Jonathan Pageau is both an artist and also a lecturer.  His artistry is focused on the carving of ancient scenes in the Eastern Orthodox tradition.  He lectures on the dangers of postmodernism, cultural and religious symbolism, and the importance of the Logos.  He sometimes teams with Jordan Peterson in lecture appearances and on YouTube; for example, at one point discussing the metaphysics of Pepe the frog.

Paul Kengor – Political Science professor, Grove City College

Paul Kengor’s focus during his academic career has dealt significantly with Marxism.  Several recent books deal with Communism as it impacts the U.S., including tracing the history leading up to the adoption of Gay marriage, biographing Frank Marshal Davis (Barack Obama’s mentor), profiling many Leftists politicians and journalists who have aided the communist cause over the past century, as well as a The Politically Incorrect Guide to Communism.  There is a strong YouTube presence for his speeches and interviews.

Dinesh D’Souza – Filmmaker, author, political commentator

Dinesh D’Souza came to the U.S. as a high-school exchange student, and attended Dartmouth College.  He worked as a policy analyst in the Reagan White House, and then in 1991, his book “Illiberal Education” was one of the first exposés of political correctness.  Since that time, he has written many best-selling books, mostly dealing with politics, culture, and religion.  In the past decade, he has also become a filmmaker, producing several political documentaries focusing on the false narratives of the Left contrasted with historical fact.  He lectures constantly, often on university campuses. He has also on occasion debated atheists, being a defender of Christianity.

Ben Shapiro – Political commentator, author, Daily Wire

Ben Shapiro is a political commentator, author, and lecturer, and founder of the “Daily Wire” videoblog. He comments regularly of the current political scene in the U.S., and much of his speaking appearances are scheduled on university campuses.  He articulately and compellingly opposes political correctness that the Left often goes to extreme measures (sometimes including Anti-fa) to prevent his event from taking place.  Shapiro is very effective with students during Q&A sessions.

Star Parker – Founder, Center for Urban Redevelopment and Education

Star Parker lived an irresponsible life through early adulthood, with promiscuity, drugs, and other criminal activity.  After four abortions, she kept her child, and then became a welfare cheater.  However, a Christian conversion changed everything.  She got off welfare, went to college, and then business.  She became politically active in the welfare reform movement of the 1990s, and founded a conservative think tank Center for Urban Renewal and Education.  She has also deployed a video aggregator website, Black Community News, which deals with issues from a conservative point of view.  She is also and author of several books, and lectures on university campuses, dealing with issues of political correctness, free speech, abortion, and Black support of conservative agenda.


There are many organizations in North America that serve to combat the influence and spread of Postmodern neo-Marxism, too numerous to catalog here.  However, in the important area of academia, there are several groups that have special effectiveness:

Young Americans for Freedom.  This organization was founded in 1960 by William F. Buckley, Jr., and is the oldest group in the USA supporting conservative principles on campuses.  Local chapters often invite the most prominent conservative speakers for events, such as Ben Shapiro and Dinesh D’Souza.

Turning Point USA.  This is a recently-formed, but fast-growing organization, focusing on supporting conservative and libertarian university, college, and high school students.

Campus Reform.  From its “About” page: “As a watchdog to the nation’s higher education system, Campus Reform exposes bias and abuse on the nation’s college campuses.  As a watchdog to the nation’s higher education system, Campus Reform exposes bias and abuse on the nation’s college campuses.”

Freedom Project Academy.  This organization focuses on pre-K through grade 12, supporting online education for homeschooling.  They also provide opposition to Common Core via lectures, videos and literature.

In addition, there are many explicitly Christian organizations which promote conservative principles in the public square, and on campus.  Among the most prominent are pro-Family groups such as Focus on the Family, American Family Association, conservative litigation support groups such as American Center for Law and Justice and Alliance Defending Freedom, as well as campus ministries such as Navigators, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, and The Veritas Forum.

PragerU.  This is an organization that produces five-minute videos on a wide variety of cultural and political issues, from a conservative perspective.  The presenters include many well-known academics, journalists, writers and politicians from across the conservative landscape. The presentations are accompanied by very well-designed graphics.  The videos are posted on YouTube; unfortunately, approximately 10% of the videos are deemed “restricted” by Google, clearly a Leftist attempt at censorship.  These videos get to the essence of many issues, and are an excellent tool for “quick studies”.


As has been noted from Chapter 1 and throughout this book, the battle that political correctness is waging against Western Civilization is in essence between Marxism and Judeo-Christianity.  And further, it has been shown that the fundamental aspect of Western Civilization is the Christian concept of the Logos, focusing on the individual rather than the group, as in postmodernism.

In a March 17 2017 speech, Jonathan Pageau contrasted Marxist postmodernism with the Christian concept of the Logos.  In the following excerpts from that speech, he begins by indicating the power that postmodernism has accrued:

The entire project of postmodernism, the last 30-40 years of higher culture and higher education has been a systematic attack on Logos: to de-center Logos, to deconstruct narratives and value hierarchies.  So, we are left slipping and sliding without purpose and direction.

But he notes that the deconstruction that postmodernism has so effectively wielded against Western Civilization – against the Logos – has created chaos, even for postmodernism.

And now we’ve reached the end of what postmodernism has to offer.  We can actually say that we’ve come to a point where postmodernism has won — basically — the cultural debate.  And a philosophy which decries the center and certainty, has perniciously become the very center and unquestionable authority it despises.

So, everything is upside down; everything is inside out.  Everything is becoming its opposite.  And all these inversions and chaos are not to be taken lightly.  It has brought about a sterile age; literally sterile, as people are not having enough children to fill the society.

Pageau notes that if there is no objective truth (as the postmodernists say), then postmodernism itself cannot meaningfully be considered to be true.

I mean it’s the postmodernists who heralded the end of truth 40 years ago.  And now they’re surprised to see the effect it has.  How chaos does not discriminate.  How it’s turning against them, just as they turned it against their ideological enemies.  They wanted to change the world to sand; now they’re surprised to find it slipping between their fingers.

But there’s a ray of hope; Logos has not been eliminated.

What is most surprising, and what is most shocking to them, is to find out that now they’ve reached the end of their pursuit, having thought they won, they see from within the decomposing residues of Western Patriarchy, they see that there is a seed that’s sprouting.  That in the darkest place, there is a flame that is lit.  Logos awakens.  The darkness has not overcome it.  St. John promises that.

These very stories you tried to deconstruct, you would have noticed that dawn always comes, that a seed is always planted, the Logos regains the center, Christ rises from the dead.

Pageau then proclaims that a pro-Logos movement is beginning to take place, including “. a whole new strange group of public figures that’s arising from the margins.”  People that are being viciously and hysterically attacked by the Left:

“bigot”, “racist”, “sexist”, “Nazi”, all the usual litany of attacks, and they’re losing their minds.  The sand is slipping out of their hands.

This movement has recently been given a name: “Intellectual Dark Web.”

Pageau provides a note of optimism and defiance:

And only two years ago you would have probably collapsed before this attack.  But now, we look around, and we find there is a still, silent center on which to stand.  There is an eye in the overwhelming hurricane.  And we can finally say, we will not accept your frame.  We will not accept your definitions. They are weak by the very process you used to deconstruct them; to deconstruct the categories.  And we will speak for ourselves. 

Pageau understands that the postmodernists will not be idle:

“.it is a dangerous time.  A time of transition, a time of chaos is a dangerous time.  Firstly, because the enemies of Logos will ramp up their hysteria and totalitarian tendencies, as Logos awakens.  But it is also dangerous because as Christ himself told us, the tares grow amongst the wheat.  The re-centering of Logos IS the reawakening of identity, we can’t avoid it. “

Pageau raises concern about the form the reawakening of identity will take.

And that’s a frightening thing.  Because if identity stops … without uniting itself to the highest of high, it could be murderous, and it can be increasingly murderous just as in the past century.  And it is in fact the very murderous, and genocidal tendency of identity which provoked the postmodernists to deconstruct identity in the first place.

Pageau then specifies the ultimate focus of identity:

In the scheme run out for us by St. Maximus, the ultimate identity, the place where all meaning finds its resolution is the divine Logos, the source of everything; that is our trajectory as we walk the path of Logos, as we are transformed by truth.  The finality is to be united with God.  And I know that for some people, just the word God causes allergic reactions, and I’m sure people listening to this will develop hives on their skin as they hear this.

But maybe we can just think of it this way: for identity to be more than a weapon, it must reach its highest point at something that is beyond duality.  So, seeing our highest identity in God is finding unity with everything, the source of everything.

And in terms of Christianity in particular, the identity with Christ is different from other identities, because it’s the identity with the cross; it’s to identify with suffering.  It’s not the identity of a self-serving power, but the identity of a self-emptying power; a power bound in love that empties itself out of love.

Finally, in conclusion he connects with what this means for us in a practical sense:

But what it really entails; what’s important about it — and this is something that is echoed profoundly with what Dr. Peterson has been telling us — is that we must first walk on the path of Logos ourselves.  We must embrace our own suffering in that truth.  We must take up our cross. We must do so with a desire to first get rid of the lies which blind us; to straighten our own path.  In doing so, well, that is how we will change the world.

St. Seraphim of Sarov is known to have said, “Save yourself, and thousands around you will be saved.”  As we walk on that path; as we strip away our own excesses, rather than looking at the imbalances of others, as we strip away our bad habits and our narcissism, rather than acting like victims, the world will change.  And we will start to see and to experience Logos, to live within the patterns of meaning that constitute the world.

And the result:

If you take that journey, I guarantee that the universal patterns of meaning will manifest themselves so strongly in your life, that at first you’ll use the word “synchronicity”, but soon you’ll have no other word to use besides “miracle”.  And the postmodern chaos will vanish as wax melts before the fire.  And Logos, the very Logos that rises from the grave will fill your world and THE world with life, and light.


In this eBook, the following has been shown concerning political correctness:

* Its origins come from the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism

* The architects of Cultural Marxism and its “children” disciplines such as postmodernism, Feminism, etc. saw the destruction of Western Civilization as a necessity to achieve their utopia

* Among the primary objectives of political correctness are the destruction of Judeo-Christianity, the traditional family, and free speech.

* Political correctness uses two primary techniques to achieve the transformation of Western Culture: (1) propaganda, consisting of false narratives to recruit and maintain followers, and (2) coercion, to silence the opposition and enforce egalitarianism.

* Political correctness makes extensive use of postmodern thinking, whereby objective truth, logic, and rationality are dismissed as oppressive constructs.

* Political correctness uses identity politics to divide the culture into oppressor and victim groups, assuming all people in these groups think and experience life in identical fashion; individuality is not tolerated.

Whenever political correctness appears in your life, ask the question: What is the real objective, and how are they selling it?  In truth, it is ALWAYS about achieving the socialist utopia via the destruction of Judeo-Christian worldview, and the selling is always a smoke screen providing fictitious (although very effective) justification and faux moral superiority, while hiding the true objectives.  Once this concept is understood, all politically correct utterances are seen in bold font for what they really are.  We must take advantage of our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech to protect freedom of speech, and speaking the truth in love, see an end to the advance of neo-Marxism in our country.

Finally, note that there is scripture which establishes the exact context for neo-Marxism and its child, political correctness:

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”  (Ephesians 6:12)

Certainly, an entity that consistently seeks the destruction of Christianity is — by definition — a part of the principalities, powers, rulers of darkness and spiritual wickedness in high places.




The following videos provide critique of Postmodernism from a variety of perspectives, by University of Toronto Psychology professor Jordan Peterson

Jordan Peterson destroys Post-Modernism and ‘That wasn’t real Marxism’ argument (10:44)

Jordan Peterson outlines the connection between Marxism and Postmodernism as the foundation for leftist ideology.

Jordan Peterson Debunks White Privilege (10:12)

Jordan Peterson describes how postmodernism informs the concept of White Privilege, and demonstrates the inherent racism in such concepts.

Professor Jordan B. Peterson’s Brutal Takedown Of The Post-Modern Activist Ethos (05:44)

In this clip, Peterson is asked if the current student activism is an acceptable way of reducing unnecessary suffering (which Peterson urges). He decries that the student activism is too public, too much virtue signaling. He urges students to clean up their own personal lives, privately and humbly. Current activism is superficial, trendy and too easy, and externalizes the blame. One needs instead to start with the examination of one’s own life. He says to first become competent so that others come asking you to help.

Men Women are biologically different with differing personalities – Jordan Peterson Camille Paglia (13:56)

Clip from Jordan Peterson interview of Camille Paglia, whereby the problem of totally negative view of men by Postmodern Feminism is causing Western Culture to collapse on itself. Paglia suggests that men need to stand up, but Peterson counters that men cannot enter into vigorous dialogue with women, and what is needed is for sane women to deal with the insane women in their midst, and create a new model encompassing both good and bad members of each sex. They are not optimistic that this will happen.

2017 06 28 – Postmodern NeoMarxism – Diagnosis and Cure (33:12)

Jordan Peterson summarizes the impact of postmodernism and neo-Marxism on the culture, and focuses especially on possible remedies in the educational arena.

Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism – Jordan B Peterson (43:00)

Jordan Peterson, Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, speaks with The Epoch Times about Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism. Communism is estimated to have killed at least 100 million people, yet its crimes have not been fully compiled and its ideology still persists. The Epoch Times seeks to expose the history and beliefs of this movement, which has been a source of tyranny and destruction since it emerged.

Harvard Talk – Postmodernism & the Mask of Compassion (1:30:28)

Jordan Peterson describes the April 10, 2017 event: “I was invited to speak at Harvard University in mid-April on the use of compassion as a mask for the advance of the profoundly anti-western postmodern and neo-Marxist doctrines. There was a fair bit of controversy surrounding the invitation (which accounted in part for the relatively confrontational tone of the interview/discussion). There were protesters in attendance, one of whom insisted (as is quite common) in speaking out of turn, because, of course, her comments were so important that putting them forward justified breaking the agreed-upon rules. That said, the protesters were civil.”

Modern Times – Camille Paglia & Jordan B Peterson (1:43:36)

Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia in a wide-ranging discussion of various aspects of Postmodernism and Feminism, and resulting cultural decline that these ideologies have inflicted on Western Civilization.


The videos referenced below deal with various aspects of the Equity concept of Social Justice.  Historically, “equity” movements have created massive problems for the societies in which they have been implemented.

Jordan Peterson – The obvious problem with equality of outcome (01:12)

Brief clip from Joe Rogan interview of Jordan Peterson contrasting equal opportunity with equal outcomes.

Jordan Peterson on Free Market – You’re rewarded for what you PRODUCE, not what you ‘DESERVE’ (04:60)

Clip from Jordan Peterson’s appearance at a Generation Screwed event in Calgary, Alberta in March 2017. He discusses that potential employees should be judged on what they can offer, rather than what they deserve.

Equity Policy is Idiotic – Jordan Peterson on the Infinite Fractionation of Groups (05:28)

Clip from Jordan Peterson’s appearance at Ryerson University. He discusses the insanity of the use of equity in the staffing of organizations, rather than competence, personal conscientiousness, and preferences.

Blind pursuit of Equal OUTCOME leads to an ‘Abomination of Justice’ – Jonathan Haidt (13:60)

Clip from a Jonathan Haidt speech given at Duke in October 2016 wherein he addresses the common disparity between truth and social justice. He decries the view that whenever we observe a disparity of outcomes between races, genders, or other groups, we should infer that injustice has been done.

The equity authoritarians MUST BE STOPPED. NOW! (30:08)

Jordan Peterson: “This is a talk I gave in Calgary, Alberta on Mar 25, 2017, for a political action group, Generation Screwed. I wrote it out, and read it, which I rarely do, because I was developing a new argument, and wanted to ensure I made it properly. During the talk, I discuss the increasingly widespread demands for so-called “equity,” or equality of outcome. This is the most dangerous idea that the postmodern neo-Marxists have yet championed. Equity cannot be attained, even if it was desirable, because there is no limit to the ways in which people can be categorized. Race, sex, gender identity, and sexual proclivity — the current contenders for primacy of identity among the radical activist leftists — are no more valid as categories of human beings than attractiveness, personality, political belief, intelligence, health status, or economic class. Thus, the demand for equity can never be met. The equity authoritarians must be stopped. Now. There are few doctrines as dangerous to the rights of individual citizens or to social institutions. Learn the arguments. Push back. Now.”


The videos listed below deal with unconscious anti-bias training, using evaluation methods such as the Banaji and Greenwald Implicit Association Test (IAT). The problem is that such tests have a repeatability factor of 0.5 or maybe 0.6, which renders them essentially useless. For tests of human understanding and intelligence, or personality characteristics, a factor greater than 0.8 is needed to provide any credence, with tests such of those for IQ and personality yielding factors greater than 0.9.

Thus, valid tests for unconscious bias are essentially non-existent, and those that are actually in use are simply weapons to achieve ideological goals.

Jordan Peterson on Unconscious bias training (7:46)

Clip from Jordan Peterson appearance at Ryerson University in early 2017. Peterson discusses the futility and thus danger of the use of the Implicit Association Test of Banaji and Greenwald to discover unconscious bias.

Jordan Peterson on mandatory unconscious anti-bias training (06:44)

Clip from early 2017 interview of Jordan Peterson by Joe Rogan, wherein Peterson criticizes unconscious anti-bias training as both invalid and counter-productive.

Jordan Peterson – I Will Refuse To Undergo Anti Unconscious Bias Training (02:20)

Clip from a video of Jordan Peterson testimony before the Canadian Senate committee dealing with bill C-16. In this fragment of his testimony, Peterson exposes the invalidity of unconscious bias training, and his intention to refuse to participate in any such program.



The Fiamengo File Trailer (01:20)

An introduction to the YouTube video series exposing contemporary Feminism, by University of Ottawa English professor and anti-Feminist Janice Fiamengo.

Why I Am An Anti-Feminist – The Fiamengo File, Episode 1 (11:58)

Must-see video, explaining the concerns that Professor Fiamengo has with academic Feminism.

Feminism, A Victim Mentality Disorder – TFF Episode 29 (17:49)

And expose of the extreme sense of victimhood taught to female students by zealous Feminist faculty.

Feminism Wants Your Soul – The Fiamengo File, Episode 8 (10:36)

Janice Fiamengo reveals the debilitating damage that Feminism can create for men who come into contact with it.

Women In The Military – The Fiamengo File Episode 13 (10:06)

Janice Fiamengo discusses the issue of women in the military, dealing with strength, courage, and actual effectiveness or lack thereof.

What If Men Are Smarter – TFF Episode 56 (19:44)

Janice Fiamengo explores the differences between men and women, comparing what true science shows vs. the equality that Feminists want.

Social Justice at work

Save Us from Social Justice – TFF Episode 54 (11:27)

Janice Fiamengo describes the totalitarian darkness created by Social Justice, as it is applied in Canada.

When a Divinity School goes SJW – TFF Episode 65 (13:48)

Janice Fiamengo discusses Duke Divinity School professor Paul Griffiths, Warren professor of Catholic theology, who offered his resignation in May 2017 following several disputes with other faculty members about racial equity training and the culture of academic freedom in the school.

Social Justice Warriors in action (warning – language)

The Revolutionary Stupid Movement – TFF Episode 25 (12:47)

Anti-feminist Janice Fiamengo exposes the anti-intellectual behavior of progressive student radicals on Canadian university campuses.

Institutions of Higher Indoctrination (34:16)

Very disturbing examples of hyper-fanatic opposition to any speech opposing the Feminist narratives.

Pessimistic summary

Gad Saad interview of Janice Fiamengo – Conclusion (8:53)

Conclusion of Janice Fiamengo interview by politically incorrect evolutionary behavioral scientist Gad Saad. They conclude that Feminism will not autocorrect, and that cultural decline will ultimately devolve into violence.


Sample Videos

Given below are sample videos featuring a variety of Black Conservatives. Their views on matters of race and culture show a variety of viewpoints and prescription for dealing with issues, but in all cases, they have transcended victimhood.

C-SPAN – D’Souza Exposes The Racist Political Strategy Of Democrats (1:02:51)

In this July 28, 2016 lecture, Dinesh D’Souza focuses on the sordid, racist history of the Democrat party, from its formation with slave owner Andrew Jackson, through the civil war (which was actually a war between the Republicans and the Democrats), through the New Deal (where the Democrats first bought the votes of Blacks) up until the present. He explains that there was never a “big switch” where suddenly the Democrats stopped being racists. He discusses the current plantation-like scheme and scam that the racist Left currently uses against Blacks to retain power.

Poverty-Pimp Obama – From Crisis to Control – Clarence Weaver (19:21)

In this interview, motivational speaker and entrepreneur Mason Weaver describes how the Democrats are only interested in creating and managing crises for votes, never to solve problems. He seeks for an America free of the government plantation, with Americans unified, and no hyphenations to promote differences.

Star Parker – Liberty University Convocation (32:52)

On February 3, 2017, at Convocation at Liberty University, North America’s largest weekly gathering of Christian students, author, and founder of Urban Cure, Star Parker, spent time meeting with students and sharing life lessons.

Thomas Sowell – The Reality Of Multiculturalism (15:00)

Economist and prolific author Thomas Sowell comments on the absurdity of multiculturalism. This is part of a longer interview dealing with his 2013 book “Intellectuals and Race”.

Walter E. Williams — Common Sense (9:07)

Gems of wisdom on race, government, economics and culture from the DVD “Suffer No Fools” by Economics Professor Walter E. Williams

Life Liberty & Levin – Author Shelby Steele ‘White Guilt is Black Power’ (42:60)

Black conservative author Shelby Steele is interviewed by Mark Levin. Steele outlines how the Left takes advantage of “white guilt,” not so much to help Blacks, but as a source of intimidation (e.g., labeling anyone who disagrees with Leftist policy as “racist”) and power.

Carol Swain Talks About Being Labeled as an Apologist for White Supremacist Huckabee (06:56)

Dr. Carol Swain is interviewed by Mike Huckabee about the false labeling of conservative organizations and people as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Fred Allen Lecture Series Presents – Allen West LIVE at Boston University (1:04:40)

(From YouTube description) Lt. Col. West is taking campuses around the country by storm with his latest YAF lecture series, a politically incorrect conversation about how to protect the homeland against the threat of radical Islam. In this video from Boston University on April 26, Lt. Col. West provides commentary unlike you can hear anywhere else: honest, sincere, and solutions-oriented. No double-speak here!

Larry Elder Dismantles The ‘Systemic Racism Argument’ – Larry Elder on Dave Rubin Systemic Racism (08:48)

During an interview with Dave Rubin, Black Conservative Larry Elder challenges Rubin to provide examples of systemic racism in America. Rubin is unable to do so.

Candace Owens Full (53:16)

Black Conservative Candace Owens speaks at a Center of the American Experiment lunch forum on May 8, 2018, with a following Q&A session. The Center is a Minnesota-based think tank focusing on conservative and free-market principles.

Jesse Lee Peterson DESTROYS The “White Privilege” Myth (7:33)

Black conservative Jesse Lee Peterson interviews a UCLA Black Woman concerning issues of Affirmative Action, White privilege, Black Lives Matter, and the problem of fatherless families in poor Black neighborhoods. Rev. Peterson is the creator of the YouTube channel “The Fallen State.”

David Webb – The United States is Not Institutionally Racist (10:00)

Conservative commentator on Fox News and Breitbart, co-founder of Tea Party David Webb speaks at the Oxford Union, debating for the Negative on the Motion: “This House Believes the United States is Institutionally Racist.

Stacy Washington Sets The Record Straight on ANTIFA Huckabee (05:52)

Black Conservative talk show host Stacy Washington is interviewed on the Mike Huckabee TV show. The false narrative of the ANTIFA movement is exposed by Washington, and the need for a non-victim mentality within the Black community is explained.

CPAC 2017 – Deneen Borelli (07:12)

Black Conservative author, columnist and commentator Deneen Borelli speaks at CPAC 2017.

Project 21’s Derryck Green Debunks Myth of Conservative Racism (5:12)

Blogger and speaker Derryck Green of Project 21 exposes a series of false accusations that the Left uses to charge conservatives with racism.

Recommended Books

In addition to the videos of Black conservatives referenced above, given below are a listing of books by Black conservative that deal with various aspects of the war against Blacks waged by the progressive movement. Note that the last three books include “Plantation” in the title, referring to the urban plantations discussed above.

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell: Intellectuals and Race

Thomas Sowell exposes the intellectual shallowness of some of the policies toward racial minorities by the Left, including diversity, multiculturalism, and affirmative action. He points out the irony that intellectuals pay no price for their many destructive ideas.

Black Rednecks and White Liberals

Thomas Sowell provides a series of essays which shed new light on the causes of the dysfunctional minority urban culture. For example, the pronunciation of the word “ask” as “axe” did not originate in the south under slavery, nor in Africa, but rather came to North America from poor white culture in rural England where the southern settlers originated.

Shelby Steele

Shelby Steele – Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country

Shelby Steele discusses how progressivism used “poetic truth” to gain power and assumed (but false) moral superiority. Such “truth” is not based in fact but in ideology. The impact of failed progressive policy with respect to minority communities is lamented.

Jason Riley

Jason Riley: Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed

In Please Stop Helping Us, Jason L. Riley examines how well-intentioned welfare programs are in fact holding black Americans back. Minimum-wage laws may lift earnings for people who are already employed, but they price a disproportionate number of blacks out of the labor force. Affirmative action in higher education is intended to address past discrimination, but the result is fewer black college graduates than would otherwise exist. And so it goes with everything from soft-on-crime laws, which make black neighborhoods more dangerous, to policies that limit school choice out of a mistaken belief that charter schools and voucher programs harm the traditional public schools that most low-income students attend.

Star Parker

Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What We Can Do About It

Uncle Sam’s Plantation is an incisive look at how government manipulates, controls, and ultimately devastates the lives of the poor, and what Americans must do to stop it. Once a hustler and welfare addict who was chewed up and spit out by the ruthless welfare system, Star Parker sheds much needed light on the bungled bureaucratic attempts to end poverty and reveals the insidious deceptions perpetrated by self-serving politicians.

Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams: American Contempt for Liberty

In this collection of essays, Walter E. Williams takes on a range of controversial issues surrounding race, education, the environment, the Constitution, health care, foreign policy, and more. Skewering the self-righteous and self-important forces throughout society, he makes the case for what he calls the “the moral superiority of personal liberty and its main ingredient, limited government.”

Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination? by Walter E. Williams (March 2011)

Walter E. Williams applies an economic analysis to the problems black Americans have faced in the past and still face in the present to show that that free-market resource allocation, as opposed to political allocation, is in the best interests of minorities. He debunks many common labor market myths and reveals how excessive government regulation and the minimum-wage law have imposed incalculable harm on the most disadvantaged members of our society.

Burgess Owens

Liberalism or How to Turn Good Men into Whiners, Weenies and Wimps

Former Super Bowl champion safety Burgess Owens discusses the negative effect of Marxist policies on Black men. He exposes the white racism associated with boards of directors of the NAACP and BET, and the general failure of so-called black leadership because of their basis in Marxist ideology.

Ben Kinchlow

Black Yellowdogs: The Most Dangerous Citizen Is Not Armed, But Uninformed

Former CBN co-host Ben Kinchlow provides an insightful look at racial issues in the US from the time of slavery until the present. He identifies the policies that have been especially damaging to the Black community.

Mason Weaver

It’s OK to Leave the Plantation : The New Underground Railroad

This 1998 book discusses the “plantation mentality” that is causing Americans to become co-dependent. It is historical however does look at the authors personal journey from a Berkley militant to a conservative businessman.

Deneen Borelli

Blacklash: How Obama and the Left Are Driving Americans to the Government Plantation

This book demolishes the lies of self-styled African-American leaders and is an impassioned call for a community to break free of the progressive policies that hold them back from achieving the American Dream.


Lindsay Shepherd was a graduate student at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario. In mid-November 2017, in a tutorial she was running, she introduced a video dealing with transgender pronouns which included the comments of University of Toronto Psychology professor Jordan Peterson, wherein he took exception to the social constructionist view of gender identity.

Because Shepherd did not condemn Peterson’s comments, but rather let the students hear all sides of the issue, she was brought before a private “Kangaroo Court” meeting involving two WLU faculty members, and an administrator whose job apparently is to police politically incorrect thought and expression on campus.

However, Lindsay Shepherd secretly recorded the entire meeting, and once it was released on YouTube, it created a firestorm of criticism in multiple directions.

Lindsay Shepherd Inquisition at Wilfrid Laurier University

‘Surreal inquisition’ at Laurier University extinguishes free thought (04:48)

One of several reports of the interrogation in the days following the release of the recording of the meeting.

FULL RECORDING – Lindsay Shepherd Interrogated by Wilfrid Laurier University’s Gender Police (42:08)

The recording of the Lindsay Shepherd interrogation, acquired using her laptop. The three Wilfrid Laurier staff were unaware that the meeting was being recording.

Lindsay Shepherd’s Full Speech at WLU Free Speech rally (04:48)

In the days following the release of the recording on social media, there was a Free Speech rally on campus where Lindsay Shepherd spoke.

Lindsay Shepherd – Free speech should be everyone’s issue (06:48)

Interview by Rebel Media of Lindsay Shepherd after a free speech rally. She reflects on the intellectual culture on campus.

Teaching assistant reacts after Wilfrid Laurier University president promises change (12:44)

A CBC interview of Lindsey Shepherd wherein she is questioned about her reaction to her exoneration of any wrong-doing in a statement released by the university president. Also, she is questioned about the reaction she has received from the public, including from those in the LGBTQ community. She defends her neutrality on these issues, preferring her students make up their own minds.

Jordan Peterson and Lindsay Shepherd Finally Meet on Louder with Crowder (20:40)

A three-way discussion among Lindsay Shepherd, Jordan Peterson and David Crowder, on the CRTV program “Louder with Crowder”. This is apparently the first time she and Jordan Peterson have met, albeit only electronically.

Jordan Peterson and two Wilfrid Laurier Professors

The first two videos below are clips from the 2-hour meeting, and the third is the full meeting.

Laurier Professor Shocked by Postmodernist Claims (Peterson Haskell McNally) (11:28)

Clip from the Jordan Peterson interview whereby Professor Haskell is dismayed at the postmodernism dominating the intellectual culture of Wilfrid Laurier University.

Jordan Peterson Was RIGHT About BILL C16 Discussion with Dr. Haskell and Dr. McNally (17:16)

Professors Haskell and McNally discuss Jordan Peterson’s September 2016 stand opposing Canadian Bill C-16 dealing with transgender pronouns. They agree with Peterson’s stance.

Deconstruction – The Lindsay Shepherd Affair (2:04:04)

Full interview of Jordan Peterson with two Wilfrid Laurier professors who are part of a small free speech movement on the campus. Their focus was on the Lindsay Shepherd affair, but more broadly of on the status of free speech and diverse thought on North American campuses.

Lawsuits against the University – June 2018

Lindsay Shepherd’s Wilfrid Laurier University Lawsuit – National Review

It this June 2018 National Review article, details are provided of the lawsuits of Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Peterson against Wilfrid Laurier University.

The Lindsay Shepherd Affair – Update (37:08)

Jordan Peterson provides details of two lawsuits against Wilfrid Laurier University, dealing with the mistreatment of Lindsay Shepherd, and the defamation of Jordan Peterson by the University and the three members of the tribunal that dealt with Ms. Shepherd.

Jordan Peterson explains why he sued Wilfrid Laurier University (June 2018) (05:28)

Jordan Peterson gives details of his lawsuit for defamation against Wilfrid Laurier University, for statements made in regard to the Lindsay Shepherd affair of November 2017.

Jordan Peterson on Suing Wilfrid Laurier – ‘They haven’t learned their lesson’ (08:04)

Jordan Peterson explains that he went ahead with his lawsuit because he saw the University as acting disingenuously in its response to Lindsay Shepherd and Peterson.


Here is the viral video (over 4 million views) of Cathy Newman interviewing Jordan Peterson on UK Channel 4:

Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism (29:00)

Here are clips of Peterson reflecting on the interview:

Jordan Peterson on the infamous ‘GOTCHA’ moment and animus possession (05:44)

Jordan Peterson on what he would do in Cathy Newman’s shoes (05:24)

‘I was watching her like a clinician.’ Jordan Peterson analyses Cathy Newman (03:04)

The Two Faces of Cathy Newman – Jordan Peterson recounts the moments before the interview (02:12)

Jordan Peterson on the events that followed notorious channel 4 interview (07:52)

Some printed articles soon after the interview:

David Brooks (NYT) – The Jordan Peterson Moment

National Review – The Last Gasps of Outrage Culture

Peggy Noonan (WSJ) – Who’s Afraid of Jordan Peterson?

The Atlantic – Why Can’t People Hear What Jordan Peterson is Saying?

Here is an interview of Peterson by Libertarian Christian David Gornoski, dealing in part with the Newman interview, but also in more comprehensive views of Christianity vs. Identity Politics. Many references are made to Peterson’s 2018 book, Jordan Peterson – 12 Rules for Life – An Antidote to Chaos:

Christ vs the Crowd – Jordan Peterson, David Gornoski on 12 Rules for Life, Sacrifice, Rene Girard (1:09:48)

Here is a clip of Cathy Newman from a few years ago:

Cathy Newman Not Exactly Ushered Out Of Mosque On #VisitMyMosque Day (01:36)


It is important to consider the views on Christianity expressed by University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson.  He often deals with aspects of Christianity as they apply to politics and culture, and has recently delivered a series of well-attended lectures on the psychological significance of the Biblical stories.

He not only affirms the critical role of Christianity in the development of Western Civilization, but also states the fundamental role of the Logos, both in the Biblical creation story as well as in the story of the life and death of Jesus Christ.  However, these views—profound as the may be in certain respects—are essentially metaphysical abstractions, based to a great degree on the philosophy of Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, rather than on orthodox Christian theology with its focal point a living relationship with the person of Jesus Christ.

His friend, Eastern Orthodox icon carver Jonathan Pageau—who Peterson consults with concerning orthodox Christian concepts—assesses his views as heretical.  Pageau, in an interview with Christian Reformed Church pastor Paul Vander Klay (who has blogged at length about Peterson’s views and interviewed him on the topic), affirmed Vander Klay’s efforts to show how Peterson connects with Christianity, as well as how he disassociates from Christianity.  He further asserted that Peterson’s views don’t conform to orthodox Christian doctrine, nor does Peterson attempt to represent himself as proclaiming Christian truth.

Thus, it should be understood that while Peterson speaks with authority based on decades of study of political and cultural issues as well as their psychological aspects, he must be considered as not authoritative on matters related to Christian doctrine. While some Jungian concepts might be of benefit in understanding how people react to Christian teaching, they must always be approached within an in-depth context of orthodox theology and hermeneutics.

To his credit, Peterson does not hide his views on Christianity in any deceptive manner.  For example, he self-published a video clip of an interview with British journalist Tim Lott wherein he identified as a “Christian”, but that he was agnostic about the physical reality of Christ’s resurrection.  And on his video blog, he stated that he doesn’t attend church because of “lying pastors”: clergy who proclaim what they actually don’t believe.

On the other hand, his lecture series on the Bible and other expressions related to the profundity and mystery of Christianity has led some to refer to Peterson as “an entry drug to Christianity”.

The bottom line is that like all of us, Peterson is on a journey in the spiritual realm, and the final chapter has not yet been written.  His ongoing relationship with Jonathan Pageau indicates that he does not shy away from exploring belief, but at this point, it appears that he has not taken the leap of faith into orthodox Christianity.

A Thorough Exploration of Peterson and Christianity

British theologian Alastair Roberts has provided a detailed analysis of Peterson’s relationship to Christianity, containing the following subsections:

* Who Is Jordan Peterson?

* Peterson’s Existentialism

* Peterson’s Individualism

* Peterson and Jung

* Peterson’s Darwinianism

* Myths

* Peterson’s Bible

* Recovering the Mythic World of Scripture

* Peterson’s Theology

* What Should Christians Make of Peterson?

In this final section, Roberts makes a number of important observations.  Here are a few quotes:


He [Peterson] is synthesizing several philosophical, literary, psychological, religious, and scientific thinkers into a vision of reality that is lively and existentially compelling, especially when contrasted with the prevailing scientism of our day.


His account of Christian truth is highly idiosyncratic, albeit frequently brilliantly so, even in its error.


While the actual form of Peterson’s ‘Christianity’ resembles many expressions of theological liberalism, Peterson often seems to be moving towards genuine faith, while theological liberals typically display a movement away, characterized by an attenuation of conviction.


While his courageous integrity is worthy of our admiration and imitation and much of his counsel is both wise and powerful—especially for young men, who have been ill-served by many churches—I believe that in engaging with his less publicized deeper religious perspective we also have much to gain.


It seems to me that, even on Peterson’s own terms, a message that foregrounds responsibility, agency, and restored dignity is weaker when grace is not the fundamental note.


At points it seems as if Peterson has constructed an incredible and imposing edifice, yet is dallying when it comes to unveiling the foundations. Christians have good reason for concern here.


Reckoning with the admixture of genuine wisdom and commitments that are clearly at odds with our Christian faith that we encounter in a thinker like Peterson requires maturity. Undertaken carefully and responsibly, such engagement can be deeply rewarding. Yet, if stubbornly resisted, not only may we miss an opportunity to grow, we may also be the occasion of people rejecting the Church for powerful truths they’ve discovered locked outside its walls.


Dr. Roberts has posted additional articles dealing with Jordan Peterson; some are identified here.

Other viewpoints

During early 2018, following Peterson’s publication of “Twelve Rules for Life”, and possibly his highly-watched interview with Cathy Newman, a sizable number of academics, clergy, theologians and bloggers posted articles discussing Peterson’s views on Christianity. Links to a sampling of these articles are provided in the Appendix below.

Summary Thoughts on Jordan Peterson and Christianity

In the final analysis, it seems that Jordan Peterson’s relationship to orthodox Christianity is a work-in-progress.  It is clear that in mid-2018 he is providing a recipe for obtaining meaning in life that is very well-crafted and seemingly very well-accepted, but which avoids the exercise of faith in God, and the Word of God.  In a sense, he is making a call to “be good without God”, although maybe better stated “…without faith or belief in God, as revealed in the Bible.”

In a 2018 National Review article “Jordan Peterson, Oren Harman, and God”, writer Liam Warner raises concern about Peterson assuming that the inability to actually believe in God in the 21st century is a given:

Even this legitimate concern, however, does not absolve him from the intellectual duty to account for his fundamental premise, which is that traditional religion is no longer an option. While he gives several answers as to whether he believes in God, he gives no answers as to why. Perhaps he considers that beyond the scope of his current project, combatting nihilism and meaninglessness. On the contrary, it is essential. His Bible lectures are clearly not a long-term effort to returning people to religion by first getting them to let down their anti-religious guard. Once you have been taught to see something as useful fiction, it is very hard later to see it as fact. Calling the Bible super-literature is not a step on the way to calling it the word of God; it is a different road altogether.

Warner doesn’t doubt Peterson’s sincerity, and postulates that he might even be privately consumed by the question of the existence of God.  He urges Peterson to deal explicitly with the ultimate question:

Whatever the cause, though, the effect is that the intellectual idol of millions of people is punting on the most important question in the world. No doubt the matter of God is poetic, but more significantly it is philosophical. It is a question of literal, metaphysical truth before it is a question of psychology. Peterson has said that he behaves “as if God exists,” but he lectures as if He doesn’t. It would be helpful to his fans and himself if he addressed the heart of the West’s crisis in meaning: God, yes or no?

Warner concludes:

Peterson is caring for a world where faith is dead. But just to be sure, he should check for a pulse.

(A transcript of a Peterson answer to Warner’s question is provided in this Appendix.)

Clearly if one chooses to look objectively, there is much evidence that credible faith in God and Christianity is in fact not dead, but in both humble and high places is providing ultimate meaning in life for multitudes of people around the world, with extraordinary positive impact on their lives, the lives of their families, and the culture within which they live.

Further, the remedies Peterson provides – as profound as they are within the limits of his unbelief – in the long term, deny his “followers” the genuine power and grace that God provides, through faith.  It seems that Peterson does not yet understand that it’s by believing God that you deeply know the truth.  The full statement of Jesus Christ in John 8:31-32:

“If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”


Given below are links to additional analyses in early 2018 on the relationship of Jordan Peterson’s views on Christianity to orthodox Christian doctrine.  This variety of views comes from a spectrum of backgrounds, but in all cases, reservations are expressed relative to Peterson’s theological concepts.

Is Jordan Peterson the New Messiah?

A Christianity Today article by David Robertson, pastor of St. Peter’s Free Church in Dundee, Scotland, and the founder of Solas – Centre for Public Christianity.

The Voice Evangelical Men Wish They Had: How Jordan Peterson is the father and pastor of thousands of young Christians

Anthony B. Bradley is an American author and professor of religion, theology, and ethics at The King’s College in New York City, where he also serves as the chair of the Religious and Theological Studies program.

Who Wants to Be a Heretic?

Article by University of Chicago History professor Rachel Fulton Brown, self-described as an Entish Presby-Catholic medievalist.

Is Jordan Peterson a Gateway Drug to Christianity or Just a Highbrow Joel Osteen?

Article by Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod pastor Peter Burfeind, author the book, Gnostic America: A Reading of Contemporary American Culture & Religion according to Christianity’s Oldest Heresy

Jordan Peterson Needs to Convert (before he accidentally starts a cult)

View from an evangelical Canadian blogger, probably a priest or pastor.

How to Understand the Jordan Peterson Phenomenon

Joe Carter is an editor for The Gospel Coalition, the editor of the NIV Lifehacks Bible, and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicator.

The Hellenic Jordan Peterson?

E.J. Hutchinson is Assistant Professor of Classics at Hillsdale College, writing in The Calvinist International.

Jordan Peterson’s Psycho-religious Heresy

Article in The Spectator Australia magazine by Mark Powell, associate pastor of a Cornerstone Presbyterian Church, Strathfield, NSW, Australia.

Jordan Peterson and Catholicism (33:00)

Host Brandon Vogt interviews Bishop Robert Barron on the Word on Fire program concerning the relationship of Jordan Peterson to orthodox Catholicism.  They discuss some areas where Peterson brings helpful insights, and other areas where he admittedly does not square with orthodoxy.  A big issue of difference is the historicity of Christianity that Peterson at this point has yet to fully embrace.

Why Jordan Peterson has more in common with atheists than Christians

Observations of a young “cradle Catholic” writer from the US mid-west.

Paul Vander Klay YouTube Channel

Perhaps the most comprehensive source of analyses of Jordan Peterson’s relationship to Christianity is found in the YouTube channel of Christian Reformed Church (CRC) pastor Paul Vander Klay, of Sacramento, CA.  He has interviewed with both Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Pageau.


This transcription is extracted from the interview of Jordan Peterson by Margaret Hoover of NPR’s Firing Line, posted on YouTube in mid-December 2018.  In this interview, Ms. Hoover confronts Peterson with the question Liam Warner posed in his National Review article earlier in 2018: “God, yes or no?”:

MH: I want to ask you about your personal faith.  Christians who watch you have listened closely over the last two years about whether you self-identify as a Christian or not. And the National Review has – which was also the publication that William F. Buckley founded – has written about you the following:

“..the effect is that the intellectual idol of millions of people is punting on the most important question in the world. … It is a question of literal, metaphysical truth before this question of psychology. Peterson has said that he behaves as if God exists, but he lectures as if He doesn’t. It would be helpful for his fans and himself if he addressed the heart of the West’s crisis in meaning: God, yes or no?”

Why not take on this question of the existence of God?

JP: Because it’s not something to reduce to a sound-byte, fundamentally.

MH: But your lectures are two hours long.

JP: This is true, but when you’re talking about the most important questions that people have ever asked, then two hours isn’t very long, apparently.  People will watch them.  So I’m not prepared to say things in any other way than I’ve already said them.  You know, it isn’t obvious what belief means. People think that what they believe is what they SAY they believe.  I don’t believe that. I believe that what people believe is what they act out.  And so I said, I act as if God exists.  That’s a sufficient statement, as far I’m concerned.  Now what’s the old saying?  By their fruits ye shall know them.  Same idea.  Right?  It’s a matter of action, and a matter of commitment.  It’s not a matter of me parading out my explicit statements about a metaphysical reality that’s virtually IMPOSSIBLE to comprehend.  You RISK, when you reduce, and I’m not willing to do that.  And I’m not interested in providing people with easy answers, INCLUDING ME! So…

MH: There’s a question of whether you’re working it out yourself.

JP: Of COURSE!  And everyone who’s honest is working it out themselves.  None of us have incontrovertible knowledge about what transcends our understanding.  You know, like, I certainly do think I’ve learned things.  I’ve learned that the deeper I go into the Biblical stories, and to religious mythology in general, cross-culturally, the less I see any bottom. You can go into it forever, and I’ve learned an immense amount doing that, and much of it has transformed my life. So. And I also believe that the West is grounded on the metaphysical presupposition that human beings have a spark of the divine in them, and I don’t think there’s a truer way of saying that, and I also believe that it’s true. Now, what that means with regards to the ultimate metaphysical realities that ground the entire world, I dare not say!  Because I DON’T KNOW!  So I tend to try to say what I know, and to leave the rest alone.  And there’s plenty I don’t know, and plenty I can’t talk about.  So, but I’m talking about what I CAN.  I’m not interested in joining a club, regardless of what the club is.  So I’m not going to make statements of reflecting a certainty that I don’t have.  So.

MH: What is your approach to truth?

JP: My approach. I try to not say things that make me weak.  All right, and I didn’t know this, but…

MH: What does that mean?

JP: If you pay attention to what you say, and I mean pay attention to it, if you pay attention to how the words make you feel, then you can tell when you’re saying something that is founded on a rock, and not on sand.  And that’s what you should do.  And that means you have to pay attention to EVERY WORD YOU SAY.  And there’s a rule here.  The rule is something like this: you can plot your way through life, you can plot and scheme your way through life.  You can do what’s expedient, let’s say, instead of what’s meaningful. Or you can say what you believe to be true, and you can take the consequences.  And that’s as far as I’m concerned, that’s the fundamental call to responsibility.

MH: Why are you afraid of being weak?

JP: Well, the weakness I was referring to.  Well, it’s essentially fear of Hell.  If you make yourself weak, life is very hard.  If you make yourself weak and suffer stupidly because of it, you will become bitter, and once you become bitter, you’ll become vengeful, and after vengeful, there is no limit.  That’s one of the things I learned from studying totalitarianism in the 20th century.  Because I studied it from the psychological perspective, I wasn’t interested in the mass movements. I was interested in the motivations of the cruelest Auschwitz guards.  What was he up to? Or the person who went and shot up the elementary school in Connecticut.  What was he up to, exactly?  Just exactly where did he dwell, and why?  It’s well, like, weakness made him suffer stupidly, and that made him cruel, and that was just the beginning.  And so, that weakness.  If you make yourself weak by engaging in deceit.  If you fail to take responsibility, then you transform yourself into something that cannot bear to endure this structure of existence.  And you will torture yourself. And that leads to very bad places.



Given below are links to videos dealing with the history of Fascism and its contemporary manifestations on university campuses. (Warning: language of Fascist demonstrators often obscene.)

Dinesh D’Souza and “The Big Lie” – History of Fascism

Is Fascism Right Or Left (05:16)

Dinesh D’Souza joins us LIVE to talk about his new book, ‘The Big Lie – Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left’ (14:39)

Dinesh DKSouza Explains Fascism to ANTIFA & Leftist Hypocrites! EPIC! (17:24)

D’Souza – What the Nazis learned from American progressives (43:60)

Dinesh D’Souza LIVE at Yale University (57:40)

Feb. 5, 2018 Dinesh D’Souza Event – Dinesh D’Souza on ‘Education in America’ (1:16:52)

Other Commentary on Contemporary Fascism

Stacy Washington Sets The Record Straight on ANTIFA Huckabee (05:52)

UNDERCOVER IN ANTIFA – Their Tactics and Media Support Exposed! (11:52)

How The Left’s Blind Pursuit Of ‘Equality’ Can Lead To Actual Fascism (13:60)

Pre-WWII Fascist Footage in Germany and Italy

Mussolini Celebrates 10th Anniversary In Rome (01:36)

Mussolini and his Black Shirts on the rise in Italy 1922 (01:44)

  1. The role of the Brownshirts (03:04)

Contemporary Fascists in Action – Attempts to Suppress Free Speech

Jordan Peterson at McMaster University – Disruption

McMaster U. MELTDOWN (with Subtitles) – SJW insanity vs Jordan Peterson’s monk-like calm (17:20)

Philistia, aka McMaster University, vs. Jordan Peterson – TFF Episode 61 (16:04)

Jordan Peterson at Queens University – Disturbance

The Queen’s University Talk – The Rising Tide of Compelled Speech (1:46:44)

Jordan Peterson at Fall 2016 University of Toronto Outdoor Free Speech Rally

Professor Jordan Peterson Swarmed by Narcissistic SJW Ideologues after UofT Rally (13:20)

Janice Fiamengo on Contemporary Social Justice Warrior Issues on Campus

Institutions of Higher Indoctrination (34:16)

Ben Shapiro at Young Americans for Freedom Event – Disruption

Ben Shapiro LIVE at University of Wisconsin-Madison (1:46:57)

Ben Shapiro Not Allowed to Speak at DePaul University

Exclusive Video – Ben Shapiro Barred From Entering DePaul University! (06:04)

Christina Hoff Sommers at Lewis and Clark Law School – Disruption

Leftist Students Shut Down UCSC College Republicans 10-17-2017 (11:08)

Summary Thoughts on Campus Free Speech

The Least Free Place in America (05:28)


In the following are articles and videos dealing with Transgender ideology, and the danger posed to children as this ideology has replaced objective science and medicine, and has deliberately hidden the great successes of therapeutic treatment prior to the emergence of this Postmodern neo-Marxist ideology.

Articles Dealing with Various Aspects of Transgender ideology

Michelle Cretella – I’m a Pediatrician. How Transgender Ideology Has Infiltrated My Field and Produced Large-Scale Child Abuse

Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians, describes and decries the “new normal” within much of the medical community of viewing what was once called a mental disorder – Gender Identity Disorder – as a “normal” condition, with Pediatric “gender clinics” springing up around the country to facilitate and normalize pathology.

How the Fight Over Transgender Kids Got a Leading Sex Researcher Fired

Extensive article detailing how the Left closed down a transgender treatment facility in Toronto, and fired the founder of the clinic, Dr. Kenneth Zucker.

What Is Gender Dysphoria?

Position paper of the APA on GD/GID.

Former Johns Hopkins Chief of Psychiatry: Transgender Movement ‘Collaborating With Madness’ – Daily Wire

Article by Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Dr. Paul McHugh advocating treatment rather than cooperating with madness.

Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five

Extensive article paper on the Big 5 and similar studies on personality differences in men and women.

Gender Differences in Personality Are Larger than Previously Thought – Psychology Today

Article calling attention to a recent study the shows big differences in male/female personalities.

Gender Dysphoria Gender Identity Disorder and Informed Consent

Extensive article discussing origins of GID, and treatments.

Gender Ideology Harms Children – American College of Pediatricians

Position paper from American College of Pediatricians on transgender issues.

Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme – Public Discourse

Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins tells the truth about the politics of GID.

Videos Outlining of Problems with Transgender Ideology:

The Dangers of a Transgender Ideology The Daily Signal (05:20)

Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians, details the dangers of a Transgender ideology for children.

Three Facts Those Promoting Transgenderism Ignore The Daily Signal (03:52)

Genevieve Wood, Senior Communications Advisor and Senior Contributor, The Daily Signal outlines three points of logical disconnect in the ideology supporting the transgender movement.

How to Debunk Transgender Madness in 2 Minutes (02:56)

Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians, summarizes the ignorance of scientific and medical realities in the transgender movement.

Gender Identity – Why All the Confusion (04:32)

Ashley McGuire is a Senior Fellow with The Catholic Association and the author of Sex Scandal: The Drive to Abolish Male and Female. Ashley writes and speaks widely about religious freedom, Catholicism, and women. In this Prager U video, she outlines the commonsense understanding concerning male and female, which has been undermined by ideology.

Speeches and Forums dealing with Gender Dysphoria:

Gender Dysphoria in Children – Understanding the Science and Medicine (1:07:00)

A panel of non-ideological experts on Gender Dysphoria discuss scientific and medical realities being compromised and ignored by the transgender movement. Panelists include Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians, Paul Hruz, MD, PhD, Division Chief, Endocrinology and Diabetes, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Endocrinology and Diabetes, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Cell Biology & Physiology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Allan S. Josephson, M.D., Psychiatrist, Professor and Division Chief, University of Louisville Department of Pediatrics-Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry & Psychology. The moderator is Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Dr. Ryan Anderson.’

Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation – Lessons Learned from Life-Course Research (1:17:40)

Speaking at Michigan State University is Dr. Kenneth Zucker, formerly of the Child Youth and Family Gender Identity Clinic in Toronto, where considerable success has been found in helping youth find relief from their gender dysphoria. Because the world-renown success of this clinic, the Postmodern neo-Marxist ideologues had Dr. Zucker fired, and the clinic closed, since their success ran counter to Transgender ideology.

Abuses of the Public by Psychiatry (1:11:40)

Dr. Paul McHugh is an American psychiatrist, researcher, and educator. He is University Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the author, co-author, or editor of seven books within his field. From 1975 till 2001, McHugh was the Henry Phipps Professor of Psychiatry and the director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at the Johns Hopkins University. At the same time, he was psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. In this video he is speaking on the topic “Abuses of the Public by Psychiatry” at the Arthur J. Schmitt Lecture Series, Center for Ethics and Culture, Notre Dame University, December 2010.

Ravi Zacharias – Christian Perspective

Ravi Zacharias Speaks Out On Transgenderism (05:60)

In a Q&A at Passion City Church in Atlanta, Ravi Zacharias provides some thoughts on the contemporary transgender issues. He recommends two recent books:

Mark Yarhouse – Understanding Gender Dysphoria: Navigating Transgender Issues in a Changing Culture

Ravi characterizes this book as “probably the most thorough research that’s ever been done on the subject.”

Vaughan Roberts – Talking Points – Transgender

Ravi says that the author Vaughan Roberts, Vicar at St. Ebbe’s Church in Oxford, writes with special authenticity, because he has had a life-long struggle with same-sex attraction.

Videos prepared in 2015 by Joseph Backholm, Director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington:

Do College Kids Know the Difference Between Men and Women (03:40)

Gender Identity – Can a 5’9, White Guy Be a 6’5, Chinese Woman (04:60)

The Binary That Really Needs to Go Away (03:28)


On-the-street interviews with university students in Washington state in 2015.  The interviewer is Joseph Backholm, Director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington.


The first video is from Seattle University.


Q: Are you aware of the conversation going on in Washington state right now around kind of gender identity and gender expression issues and the ability to access facilities on those grounds?


A: Yeah.


A: Yeah. Um.  Like there’s gender-neutral bathrooms, and like all the dorms and stuff like that.


A: I think that gender is fluid, so if you want to use the bathroom because that’s a space where you feel comfortable and safe in doing so, then I think that’s completely fine.


A: I think that whoever you think you are – male or female — then that’s the bathroom you should go into.


A: I think if it doesn’t really negatively affect anybody, then I think anyone should be able to choose what gender they choose to identify as.


A: People no matter what their gender identification is, they should be allowed to use whatever restrooms they feel that they identify with.


Q: Is there a difference in your mind between men and women?


A: Um.. No. Yes.  I mean…


A: Um.. Possibly?


A: In general, yes.  But I don’t know why they fight.


A: Socially, currently yes there is.  There is no need for that difference to exist scientifically and logically.


A: If you think that you’re a male, or you think that you’re a female, that matters more than the biological difference.


A: There’s not much difference besides what society forces on people.


Q: How do you know the difference between men and women?


A: By what people think they are.  So, you can’t like judge someone by like their looks.


A: I don’t think there’s any one way to distinguish between a man or a woman, and I don’t think it’s necessary.


A: It’s not always consistent; it has a high possibility perhaps 98% of the time you get it right.  The is some ambiguity.


A: I think, yeah, there are ways to tell, but then again you can always be wrong.


Q: What would you say I am?


A: Just judging off your looks, I’d say that you are a male.


A: I would probably assume a man, but then again you never know.


A: A male.  (Q: Why would you say that?  A: Judged on how I look at you. Q: Do you think that’s a problem?  A: Yeah, probably.)


Q: Do you think the difference between men and women matters, for any reason?


A: Ah, no.  Not really.


A: I think most sociologists agree that the concept of gender is more of a societal construct.


A: I do think it matters, somewhat.  Yeah.


A:  To me, no. I don’t feel as if it matters to me, because at the end of the day, the person is just a person.


A: No.  I don’t think it should matter.


A: In the differences on a social level are simply a product of a biased society.


Q: Is there a reason to have these labels, male and female?


A: I don’t think so.  I think that it’s again a social construct of this binary that we’re given at birth.


A: There is kind of a difference, but at the same time, if someone wants to identify as one or both or as nothing, I also find that completely ok.


The second video is from the University of Washington:


Q: Are you aware of the debate happening in Washington state around the ability to access bathrooms, locker rooms, spas, based on gender identity and gender expression?


A: I think people should be able to have access to the facility.


A: I think bathrooms could and potentially should be gender neutral, because there doesn’t need to be a classification for differences.


A: I think people should definitely have the ability to go to whichever locker room they want.


A: I feel like at least public universities should do their best to accommodate for those who do not have a specific gender identity.


A: You know, whether you identify as a male or female, and whether your sex at birth is matching to that, you should be able to utilize the resources.


Q: So, if I told you that I was a woman, what would your response be?


A: Good for you.  Ok, like, yeah.


A: Nice to meet you.


A: I would be like, what?  Really?


A: I don’t have a problem with it.


A: I’d ask you how you came to that conclusion.


Q: If I told you that I was Chinese, what would your response be?


A: I mean, I might be a little surprised, but would say, “Good for you.  Like, yeah, be whoever you are.”


A: I would think maybe you would have some Chinese ancestor.


A: I would ask you how you came to that conclusion, and why you came to that conclusion.


A: I would have a lot of questions, just because on the outside I would assume that you’re a white man.


Q: If I told you that I was seven years old, what would your response be?


A: (at first unable to respond) If you feel seven at heart, then, so be it, yeah, good for you.


A: Um, I wouldn’t believe that, immediately.


A: Ah, I probably wouldn’t believe it, but I mean, it wouldn’t really bother me that much to go out of my way and tell you that you’re wrong, and say, “Well, he wants to be seven years old.”


Q: So, if I wanted to enroll in a first-grade class, do you think I should be allowed to?


A: Ah, probably not, I guess, unless I guess if you haven’t completed the first grade up to this point, and some reason need to do that now.


A: If that’s where you feel like mentally you should be, then I feel there are communities that would accept you for that.


A: I would say, so long as you’re not hindering society, and you’re not causing harm to other people, I feel like that should be an ok thing.


Q: If I told you I’m 6 feet, 5 inches, what would you say?


A: (no answer)


A: That I would question. (Q: Why? A: Because you’re not.  No, I don’t think you’re 6 foot 5.)


A: If you truly believe you’re 6-5, I don’t think it’s harmful. I think it’s fine if you believe that.  It doesn’t matter to me if you think you’re taller than you are.  (Q: So, you’d be willing to tell me I’m wrong?  A: I wouldn’t tell you you’re wrong.)


A: No, but I’d say that I don’t think that you are.


A: I feel like it’s not my place, like as another human to say someone is wrong, or to draw lines or boundaries.


A: No, I mean I wouldn’t go just like, “Oh, you’re wrong.” Or like it’s wrong to believe in it.  It’s just that it doesn’t really bother me what you want to think about your height or anything.


Q: So, I can be a Chinese woman?


A: (laughter) Um, Sure.  (Q: But I can’t be a 6-foot 5 Chinese woman.  A: Yes!)


A:  If you thoroughly debated me or explained why you felt that you are 6 foot 5, I feel like I would be very obtuse saying you are 6 foot 5, or Chinese, or a woman.


The following links are to mostly brief videos dealing with various aspects of Capitalism, and in some cases comparing with Socialism.

Prager U Videos

As the Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Richer (05:20)

Daniel Hannan, UK member EU Parliament.

Can the Government Run the Economy? (05:00)

Steve Forbes, author and publisher.

If You Hate Poverty, You Should Love Capitalism

Arthur Brooks, American Enterprise Institute.

Income Inequality Is Good (04:20)

Jim Tanmy, Editor, Real Clear Markets.

Is Capitalism Moral? (05:00)

Walter E. Williams, Economics Professor, George Mason University.

Myths, Lies and Capitalism (04:12)

Arthur Brooks, President, American Enterprise Institute.

Socialism Makes People Selfish (04:04)

Dennis Prager, radio talk show host and author.

The Progressive Income Tax – A Tale of Three Brothers (04:40)

Adapted from an article by noted investor and economist, Kip Hagopian, and narrated by actress Carolyn Hennesy of “General Hospital” and “True Blood” fame.

What is Crony Capitalism (05:44)

Jay Cost, political historian and author of A Republic No More.

Who Does a $15 Minimum Wage Help? (05:12)

Andy Pudzer, CEO CKE Restaurants 2001-2017.

Why Capitalism Works (03:28)

George Gilder, Social Critic and best-selling author.

Why Private Investment Works & Govt. Investment Doesn’t (05:32)

Burton Folsom, Professor of History, Hillsdale College.

Why You Love Capitalism (05:56)

Jared Meyer, Senior Research Fellow, Manhattan Institute.

Brief Jordan Peterson videos on Capitalism

Dr Jordan Peterson – why Capitalism is HIGHLY EFFECTIVE in the WEST (05:36)

Jordan Peterson – How can capitalism be good? (04:18)

Jordan Peterson – Inequality of Wealth and Productivity (06:44)

Jordan Peterson – Pareto Distributions (05:56)

Jordan Peterson – Thoughts on Capitalism (03:40)

Jordan Peterson – Why Globalism Fails and Nationalism is Relatable (12:16)

Jordan Peterson — Capitalism IS NOT Responsible For Inequality (04:36)

Jordan Peterson on Wealth Inequality and Capitalism (02:16)

Marxism is ignorant of the Pareto principle Jordan Peterson & Bret Weinstein (09:04)

Property Rights – Jordan Peterson (01:20)

Rogan, Peterson, and Weinstein on Capitalism and Markets (21:28)

The Pros of Capitalism Jordan B Peterson (04:60)

What Marx Got Wrong Jordan B Peterson (04:00)

Additional videos on Capitalism

Thomas Sowell – From Marxism to Capitalism (09:40)

Economist Thomas Sowell relates how he progressed from being a Marxist, coming out from his education at Harvard in the 1950s, to supporting free market Capitalism. The trigger that began the transformation was his first exposure to the inner workings of governmental programs.

Walter Williams – Why the Founders Did Not Want a Democracy (10:32)

Walter Edward Williams (born March 31, 1936) is an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist and author known for his classical liberal and libertarian conservative views. He discusses the problems of big government and the vision of the founding fathers.

Capitalism and Socialism – Crash Course World History #33 (14:08)

Author and vlogger John Green compares Capitalism with Socialism.

Dennis Prager – Capitalism Vs Socialism (58:36)

Talk show host and author Dennis Prager speaks at the Young Americans Foundation (YAF.org) on the subject of Capitalism Vs Socialism, Left Vs Right! August 2016.



The following books are samples of many that are available that deal critically with Socialism:

The Eight Spectres of Karl Marx in the 21st Century

This extensive chapter from a book entitled, “Is Man the Measure: An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism and Transhumanism” focuses on the negative impact of Marxism and Socialism as it stands in the 21st century, in opposition to Judeo-Christianity.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Communism

A straight-forward, uncompromising history of Communism, from the Jacobins of the French Revolution, through Marx and Engels, to the 20th and 21st century manifestations, all filled with resentment, violence, and death.

Ludwig von Mises – Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis

From an Amazon review of this foundational 1951 book on Socialism: “It is no exaggeration to say this text changed my entire world view. Mises lays out a case for capitalism that is unabashed, carefully defining and comparing true free markets to socialistic approaches from an organic moral construction in the tradition of pure Austrian theory. It at once made me an Austrian, an instant Mises fan, and educated me on the errors in my previous thinking on these subjects.”


The following articles mostly deal with the contemporary attraction to Socialism by Millennials:

Why So Many Millennials are Socialists – Emily Ekins and Joy Pullman

The subtitle to this substantial article reads as follow: “Septuagenarian presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has been capitalizing on young people’s lack of knowledge and life experience to sell them a bill of rotten goods.”

Anti-Racists Should Think Twice about Allying with Socialism

In this Foundation for Economic Freedom article, the truly racist past that is associated with the Left, including Socialism and Progressivism, is exposed. The lack of understanding of that history is cited as a serious problem.

Millennials Embrace Socialism, but Do They Know What It Is? – Jonah Goldberg

National Review columnist and author Jonah Goldberg explores the pro-Bernie Sanders phenomena among Millennials during the 2016 election campaign. He highlights the nearly total lack of understanding of what constitutes true Socialism.

Fellow Millennials: Don’t Be Deceived by Democratic Socialism

A Millennial writer exposes the lack of understanding of the true meaning of Socialism among people of her age. The shallow knowledge of the ideology prohibits most Millennials from correctly evaluating the negative consequences of Socialistic governance, as proposed by Bernie Sanders.


The following videos provide brief critiques of Socialism from a variety of perspectives:

Charlie Kirk Destroys “Democratic” Socialism (02:17)

A video clip where Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk exposes the failings of Socialism.

Ben Shapiro – 7 Myths of Democratic Socialism Debunked (20:04)

Ben Shapiro gives a keynote address at the August 2018 Young America’s Foundation annual National Conservative Student Conference. In this clip, he discusses the misconceptions surrounding the phrase “Democratic Socialism.”

Is There Anything Good about Socialism? (02:00)

(From YouTube) Charlie Kirk Is asked: Is There ANYTHING good about Socialism, and his answer is simple: NO!

AWESOME – Allie Stuckey totally torches socialism in only 90 seconds (02:56)

Socialism doesn’t just destroy profit, it also crushes purpose in life for the individual.

Sweden Not a Socialist Success (05:08)

This video explains the Sweden is far from a socialist country, and is moving in a more pro-capitalist, small government direction, for example, providing school vouchers for public schools, and other privatization policies.

Ben Shapiro PERFECTLY Explains Why Socialism Always FAIL (13:36)

Ben Shapiro describes the fundamental reasons why Socialism is not only unfair and immoral, but also impossible to succeed.

How Socialism Ruined My Country (05:48)

(From YouTube) Is Bernie Sanders right? Are people living under socialism better off? Brazil is a good case study. Felipe Moura Brasil, a journalist and Veja magazine columnist, explains how his country has fared under socialism.

How’s Socialism Doing in Venezuela? (05:08)

(From YouTube) Venezuela is falling apart. Its economy? Ruined. Its people? Hungry. Its government? Corrupt. What happened to this oil-rich country? In a word, Socialism. Debbie D’Souza, a native Venezuelan and political activist, explains.

Johan Norberg – The Truth about Swedish Socialism (05:00)

(From YouTube) Johan Norberg (born 27 August 1973) is a Swedish author and historian. He regards himself as a classical liberal. He is arguably most known as the author of “In Defense of Global Capitalism” (2001) and as a fellow of the Cato institute.

In this clip, he talks about the myth of Swedish socialism.

Jordan Peterson – George Orwell’s Wigan Pier, Marxism and the Working Class (17:23)

Jordan Peterson uses the example of George Orwell’s 1937 book, The Road to Wigan Pier to demonstrate the Left doesn’t really care about the poor. They simply hate the rich.

Jordan Peterson on Marxism, Socialism and Postmodernism (11:52)

This clip of Jordan Peterson dealing with Marxism, Socialism and Postmodernism is extracted from the Q/A session, January 22, 2017 Speakers Action Group

Yuri Maltsev – Why Socialism Will Never Work (12:28)

Yuri Nicholas Maltsev is an economist and economic historian. He is a Professor of Economics at Carthage College in Wisconsin and a Senior Fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Dr. Maltsev received his Doctorate of Philosophy in Labor Economics from the Institute for Labor Research in Moscow (1980). He held, over a fifteen-year period, various teaching and research positions in Moscow, Russia. Before defecting to the U.S. in 1989, he was a member of a team of Soviet economists that worked on President Gorbachev’s reforms.

Socialism Isn’t Cool (07:48)

From the Rubin Report: “The ideas of socialism, that the means of production, distribution and labor should be owned, controlled and regulated by the community as a whole are the worst sort of collectivist ideas.”

Why We’re Losing Liberty (05:12)

(From YouTube) Was the Constitution written in a way that was designed to protect freedom and limit the government’s size? Has it been effective in doing that? And what’s the Supreme Court’s record when it comes to protecting our rights? Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, answers these questions and more.

Democratic Socialism is Still Socialism (04:08)

Conservative political commentator Steven Crowder delivers a Prager U video exposing the Left’s false narrative that there is a difference between “Socialism” and “Democratic Socialism”.

Why ‘Democratic’ Socialism Doesn’t Work (19:49)

Conservative political commentator Steven Crowder – in one of his podcasts of “Louder with Crowder” – exposes the unworkability of Socialism of any flavor.

UNDERCOVER – Crashing College Socialist #SJW Protest (20:52)

(From YouTube/Steven Crowder) What happens when @NotGayJared and I go undercover to a college #SJW Socialist “Conference”? Not what we expected… and yet… EXACTLY what we expected…

Ten Things Millennials Should Know About Socialism Thomas J. DiLorenzo (44:52)

Thomas J. DiLorenzo, of Loyola University in Maryland and also the Mises Institute, discusses a series of concepts about Socialism that Millennials – such as those who follow Bernie Sanders – need to know, and to a great extent have never been taught. Prof. DiLorenzo is the author of The Problem with Socialism.


Given in the following are links to representative books, articles, and videos providing exposure to various aspects of the climate change movement, which is characterized by fraudulent data and skewed computer models, yet because state-of-the-art propaganda and prominent media, academic, and political platforms penetrating much of the culture with false narratives.


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change

(From Amazon) Less freedom. More regulation. Higher costs. Make no mistake: those are the surefire consequences of the modern global warming campaign waged by political and cultural elites, who have long ago abandoned fact-based science for dramatic fearmongering in order to push increased central planning. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change gives a voice — backed by statistics, real-life stories, and incontrovertible evidence — to the millions of “deplorable” Americans skeptical about the multibillion dollar “climate change” complex, whose claims have time and time again been proven wrong.

Climate Change: The Facts

(From Amazon) Tirelessly promoted by princes, presidents, actors and activists, “climate change” has become a dominant theme of global politics. But what’s really going on as the “pause” in global warming prepares to enter its third decade? In this new anthology, leading scientists and commentators from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia consider the climate from every angle – the science, the policy and the politics.

A Disgrace to the Profession

(From Amazon) The “hockey stick” graph of global temperatures is the single most influential icon in the global-warming debate, promoted by the UN’s transnational climate bureaucracy, featured in Al Gore’s Oscar-winning movie, used by governments around the world to sell the Kyoto Accord to their citizens, and shown to impressionable schoolchildren from kindergarten to graduation.

And yet what it purports to “prove” is disputed and denied by many of the world’s most eminent scientists. In this riveting book, Mark Steyn has compiled the thoughts of the world’s scientists, in their own words, on hockey-stick creator Michael E Mann, his stick and their damage to science. From Canada to Finland, Scotland to China, Belgium to New Zealand, from venerable Nobel Laureates to energetic young researchers on all sides of the debate analyze the hockey stock and the wider climate wars it helped launch.

An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy

(From Amazon) Updated 2nd Edition: Al Gore’s new movie An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power is reviewed for its accuracy in climate science and energy policy. As was the case with Gore’s first movie (An Inconvenient Truth), the movie is bursting with bad science, bad policy and some outright falsehoods.

Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know

(From Amazon) You have been inundated with reports from media, governments, think tanks and ”experts” saying that our climate is changing for the worse and it is our fault. Increases in droughts, heat waves, tornadoes and poison ivy – to name a few – are all blamed on our “sins of emissions” from burning fossil fuels and increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Yet, you don’t quite buy into this human-caused climate apocalypse. You aren’t sure about the details because you don’t have all the facts and likely aren’t a scientist. Inconvenient Facts was specifically created for you. Writing in plain English and providing easily understood charts and figures, Gregory Wrightstone presents the science to assess the basis of the threatened Thermageddon.


On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data and The Validity of EPAs CO2 Endangerment Finding

(From the Report Abstract) The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever, despite current claims of record setting warming.

Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming ‘pause’

Former federal climatologist John Bates blasts 2015 NOAA study as other scientists defend its conclusions.

Climate alarmism: The mother of all availability cascades

An availability cascade is a self-reinforcing process of collective belief formation by which an expressed perception triggers a chain reaction that gives the perception of increasing plausibility through its rising availability in public discourse.

This is the way the climate scare ends: not with a bang, but a whimper

An article postulating how the Climate Change scare phenomenon will end.

Videos featuring Greenpeace co-Founder Patrick Moore

Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian activist, and former president of Greenpeace Canada. Since leaving Greenpeace, Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.”

Climate Change – What Do Scientists Say (05:48)

Dr. Patrick Moore outlines the important issues concerning Climate Change, indicating that global warming alarm is not warranted, based upon current understanding of the historical and contemporary data, as well as the relevant science.

The TRUTH about carbon dioxide (CO2) – Patrick Moore, Sensible Environmentalist (20:08)

Dr. Patrick Moore dispels the legend that the earth’s temperature is directly related to atmospheric CO2 levels. He also describes the benefit to the earth of increased CO2 levels.

Ocean Acidification – The Facts – Dr Patrick Moore (26:48)

Dr. Patrick Moore addresses the concerns of increase in atmospheric CO2 as it is absorbed into the oceans. He demonstrates that, rather than creating a catastrophe for coral reefs and fish, the slight decrease in pH is actually a net plus for the ecology of the oceans. Included in reference to the buffering accomplished which mitigates the move towards less alkalinity.

ACTUAL SCIENTIST – ‘Climate Change is a Scam!’ (45:56)

Steven Crowder interviews Ecologist and Climate Change Skeptic Patrick Moore. Crowder asks questions that concern him about the Climate Change controversy, and Dr. Moore provides detailed answers.

Other Voices

What They Haven’t Told You about Climate Change (04:36)

MIT Professor Emeritus Richard Lindzen states that Climate Science is not settled, and that there is no proof that CO2 levels in the atmosphere affect the world temperatures. He notes that in the past 20 years, there’s been a great increase in atmospheric CO2, but the world temperature is essentially the same. He is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books

American Freedom Alliance – Dr. Willie Soon – Are CO2 Levels and Climate Change Related? (1:15:21)

Dr. Willie Soon – lecture “CO2 Levels and Climate Change Related?” February 9, 2017. Dr. Willie Soon is an astrophysicist and geoscientist with numerous honors and awards from leading scientific organizations. He is a co-author of a number of climate-related texts. Dr. Soon earned his bachelor’s, master’s and Ph.D.’s degrees in aerospace engineering from the University of Southern California.

Willie Soon – Could it be The Sun (17:36)

Dr. Willie Soon discusses the loss of Artic ice vs. IPCC models on the one hand, and his own research, which suggests that the sun might be the best explanation, rather than atmospheric CO2.

Unstoppable Solar Cycles – The Real Story of Greenland (11:20)

The correlation of the ice ages with solar activity over the past 2000 years is discussed, with specific focus on Greenland as an agricultural region prior to the latest ice age.

Must Watch – Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink (04:40)

Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Following is her verbal remarks as delivered to last week’s US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate.”


Given in the following are a series of videos dealing with UN Agendas 21 and 2030. While many of the videos are sited in California, the agendas are being implemented nationwide — actually, worldwide — with most of the population unaware of the totalitarian goals or the ideology behind the movement.

Brief summaries of Agenda 21 and 2030

Agenda 2030 by Alex Newman (08:24)

Excerpt from Alex Newman 2016 lecture in New York on the New World Order. In this clip, he deals with some important aspects of UN Agenda 2030.

Agenda 21, in under 5 minutes (04:60)

A brief but useful summary of the history and progress of Agenda 21, as of 2013.


An explanation of the 17 goals of UN Agenda 2030, translating from UN-speak (i.e., sustainability) into understandable English.


The United Nations Agenda 21/2030 program encompasses all facets of our life including education. The reason why the universities are melting down right now is because agenda 21 sustainable development and its ideas are being taught and we are seeing the fruits of that teaching.

View from the proponents of Agenda 21 and 2030

Agenda 2030 EN (03:12)

A video promoting Agenda 2030, published by the German Government Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Founded in 1961, the Ministry works to encourage economic development within Germany and in other countries through international cooperation and partnerships. It cooperates with international organizations involved in development including the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the United Nations.

The Privacyless, Freedomless Smart City of 2030 the Elite Are Engineering (15:08)

(From YouTube) Well here’s a fat bag of crazy for you, courtesy of the elites over at Davos ahead of their 2017 meeting. Add cashless in there of course, we would have but there are only so many words that will fit into a YouTube video title. If you look around at the way things are being manipulated on nearly every level right now, you can clearly see how society is being engineered for this future, as insane as it sounds…

Pushing back on Agenda 21 and 2030

Tom DeWeese – #scteaparty2016 (25:52)

(From YouTube) Tom DeWeese is President of the American Policy Center, editor of The DeWeese Report and author of the book “Now Tell Me I Was Wrong.” Tom has appeared on such national programs as Fox News and the Michael Reagan Show, and quoted in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. He was one of the first to sound the alarm against the UN’s Agenda 21 as a threat to private property rights, free markets and American sovereignty and independence.

Agenda 21 – The Ultimate Threat – Michael Shaw (26:38)

(From YouTube) Michael Shaw is President of Freedom Advocates, in Alameda County, California. The ultimate resource on Agenda 21 and all of its surrounds, Michael Shaw lays out the details and perils of regional government as expressed by Councils of Governments (COGS) and in particular, the Association of Bay Area Governments. “The Ultimate Issue Is Agenda 21.” Freedom Force International is a creation of G. Edward Griffin with the purpose of taking back our government. For more information, visit http://www.freedomforceinternational.org

Agenda 21 & Agenda 2030 Exposed ~ Rosa Koire (20:60)

One of the original whistle blowers on UN Agenda 21. She encountered this as an expert witness for the California Department of Transportation in Eminent Domain evaluations. She urges people all around the world to join in the fight against the UN’s plans for totalitarian sustainable policies.

`2030 Agenda’ – Latest UN Plan for World Government (10:30)

(From YouTube) In this week’s Analysis Behind the News video, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses how many Americans have chased Agenda 21 planning out of their communities, but now the UN is replacing the Agenda 21 terminology with “The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, how the “2030 Agenda” will lead to a UN-dominated world government, how the “2030 Agenda” is grounded on the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which amounts to saying that rights are granted by the UN, not by God as our Declaration of Independence asserts, how the “2030 Agenda” promotes world-wide migration without regard to national boundaries, and how you can obtain a copy of the UN document, “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org.

Longer presentations on Agenda 21 and 2030

California Wild Fires, Agenda 21-2030 with Debbie Bacigalupi (57:32)

A passionate lecture. (From YouTube) Debbie Bacigalupi gives a presentation explaining the cause of the California Wild Fires, and exposing Agenda 21-Agenda 2030 at Camp Constitution’s 10th Annual Family Camp. Camp Constitution is an all-volunteer association of Americanists. We run a week-long family camp, man information tables at various venues, have a book publishing arm, and post videos from our camp and others that we think are of importance.

NWO War on America Exposed, by Journalist Alex Newman (1:44:08)

(From YouTube) In this amazing presentation made in New York in 2016, international journalist Alex Newman exposes how the elite establishment is waging a war on America, humanity, and God. From the “global warming” hoax and the “refugee crisis” to the dumbed-down “education” system and the regionalization of government, internationalist extremists are using every weapon possible to come after you, your money, your freedom and your children. Often dubbed the “New World Order,” the tyrannical global system these globalists are building will be horrible. Watch, like, and share this incredible presentation to stop the NWO!

Rosa Koire – Agenda 21. Open Mind Conference 2013 (1:29:00)

(From YouTube) “Behind the green mask UN Agenda 21” Rosa Koire is the executive director of the Post Sustainability Institute. Impacting every aspect of our lives, UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is a corporate manipulation using the Green Mask of environmental concern to forward a globalist plan. Rosa speaks across the world and is a regular blogger on her website Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 dot com. Her book, BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: UN Agenda 21 is available on Amazon.com, Kindle, and Nook, and at her website. Websites: www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com www.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org.

Out on the road — evidence of Agenda 21


An immense “Stack and Pack” micro apartment complex is under construction in a totally residential section of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Done without any community involvement.

Agenda 21 Programming (Tiny Houses and Micro Apartments) (17:28)

The layouts of some new micro apartments in New York City are shown. They are contrasted with the immense homes of some stars in the entertainment business.


Driving in LA, showing development in preparation for mass immigration. Buildings built to sustainable standards.


A drive around San Diego, pointing out Agenda 21 policies being implemented.


(From YouTube) More insanity out of these people who are creating a future of poverty. Their actions are telling us everything. Why on Earth would we need “bike sharing” networks if we aren’t going to have mass poverty in the future?


Exposing the reach of UN Sustainability into unincorporated communities in San Bernardino County. Unelected bureaucrats imposing their jargon and will onto unsuspecting and ill-informed local residents.

Informative podcasts concerning Agenda 21 and 2030

What Is Agenda 21 2030 Sustainable Development Please Circulate (1:12:24)

Podcaster James Corbett presents a comprehensive report on some of the devastation caused by implementation of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. Among guests are anti-Sustainability authors Rosa Koire and Patrick Wood. Stories of the uprooting of aboriginal tribes in Africa in UN land grabbing, transforming a peaceful human population into utter poverty and dysfunction.

AGENDA 21 Infiltrator Spills NEVER Before Heard Secrets-The ‘Great Replacement’ Has Kicked-Off (28:14)

Patrick Wood, of Technocracy News, and author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse Of Global Transformation is interviewed concerning Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030.


An index of hyperlinks for this eBook, organized by chapter and section can be found here.


[1] A. Gramsci, Cronache torinesi (Turin: Einaudi, 1980), 329.  English translation by J. V. Femia, Gramsci’s Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process (New York, Clarendon Press, 1981

[2] Malachi Martin, “Keys of This Blood”, Simon & Schuster (1991) 250

[3] Malachi Martin, “Keys of This Blood”, Simon & Schuster (1991) 251

[4] Ralph de Toledano, “Cry Havoc! The Great American Bring-down and How it Happened”, 25

[5] Christopher Turner, “Adventures in Orgasmatron: How the Sexual Revolution Came to America“, New York: Farrar & Giroux (2011)

[6] Ralph de Toledano, “Cry Havoc! The Great American Bring-down and How it Happened”, 91

[7] Wilhelm Reich, “The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Governing Character Structure“, New York: Pocket Books (1975) 28

[8] Donald DeMarco and Benjamin Wiker, “Architects of the Culture of Death,” Ignatius Press, 2006, 227

[9] Donald DeMarco and Benjamin Wiker, “Architects of the Culture of Death,” Ignatius Press, 2006, 227-228

[10] Ralph de Toledano, “Cry Havoc! The Great American Bring-down and How it Happened”, 38-39

[11] See Kirsten Lise Fermaglich, “The Comfortable Concentration Camp: The Significance of Nazi Imagery in Betty Friedan’s the Feminine Mystique (1963),” American Jewish History 91, no. 2 (June 1, 2003), 205–232

[12] Paul Kengor, “Takedown – From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage”, WND Books (2015) 158

[13] Mallory Millett, “Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives,” Front Page Magazine, September 2, 2014

[14] Mallory Millett, “Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives,” Front Page Magazine, September 2, 2014

[15] Mallory Millett, “Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives,” Front Page Magazine, September 2, 2014

[16] Michael Lowy, “Georg Lukacs – From Romanticism to Bolshevism”, 112 (1979). See footnote 75, referring to: Lukacs, “Elöszó” or “Preface” to his writings on Hungary (1969), pp.13-14

[17] Fulton J. Sheen, “Communism and the Conscience of the West”, Refuge of Sinners Publishing, Inc. (1948), 143

[18] Paul Kengor, “Takedown – From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage”, WND Books (2015) Chapter 14

[19] Saul Alinsky, “Reveille for Radicals”, New York: Vintage Books (1989) 125

[20] Martin Jay, “The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research 1923-1950”, (1996) 55

[21] Jonah Goldberg, “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning” (2008) 287

[22] Max Horkheimer, “Eclipse of Reason (1946)”, Martino Fine Books (2013) 17

[23] The original location for this quote was http://rangescc.org/2008/04/18/social-justice-in-the-vineyard/.  However, the domain name rangescc.org is no longer accessible.  The quote can currently be found at http://thebereanwatch.org/wordpress/?page_id=96


[24] Ronald Kessler, “Inside the White House”, Simon & Schuster (1995)

[25] Maurice Cranston, “The New Left”, London: Bodley Head (1970) 87

[26] Alasdair MacIntyre, “Marcuse”, London: Fontana (1970) 89-90


[27] Thomas Sowell, “Discrimination and Disparities”, Basic Books (2018) 118-119