Georgia H. Exposes Progressivism’s Lies (4)

The “progress” that Progressives have delivered…

---

The epicenter  of the Progressive violent earthquake has been the issue of race.  I have been discussing this epicenter for much of this year.  While there is significant overlap between my and her comments, Georgia H brings new value in at least two areas, those  being she:

1. speaks as a young person with first hand experience of how Critical Race Theory (CRT) is taught, and;
2. exposes the presence of racial sabotage in CRT.

The following quotes* are from Georgia H’s #WalkAway video.

There is a certain type of person who makes fighting racism a part of their identity.  And the problem with that is, as noble as it sounds, if you know the existence of a problem is part of a person’s identity, they become very threatened by the idea of that problem being resolved.

There is nothing theoretical about this statement.  She experienced it in the people leading and supporting the racial brainwashing sessions at her place of work.  We see it playing out in our family members, friends, coworkers and in the violent BLM/Antifa rioters.  We also see it in Democrat Party candidates and officeholders, who utilize it to terrify minority voters and shame majority voters into supporting their evil vision for a totalitarian America.

And they may even engage in like sabotage behaviors, which frankly I think a lot of this woke ideology is a sabotage effort.  And I mean that’s why you see some of these people kind of desperately trying to expand the definition of racism so that there’s always going to be a sufficient amount of it that they can like continue wallowing in their heroic identity.

Yes, their “heroic identity.”  This is an identity that enables them to transcend any moral boundary, any bond of human relationship to pursue their “socially just” end.  

And there’s a very clear distinction between those people and the real deal like Martin Luther King.  Because someone like Martin Luther King actually had a vision for a time in the future where this problem wouldn’t be there.  His goal, his vision was for the future where he did not need to have this problem.  And that is distinctly different from the crew of people I think we see today more than ever, of people who don’t really want to move past this problem because they have a lot of personal investment in the problem.

Bari Weiss in her recent article “Stop Being Shocked” summarized Dr. Martin Luther King’s vision for healing racism.  Note that this is in diametric opposition to the hatred and violence of the BLM/Antifa/Democrat position on how to deal with the diminishing remnants of racism in the Unites States.

Racism was evil because it contradicted the foundations of this worldview, since it judged people not based on the content of their character, but on the color of their skin. And while America’s founders were guilty of undeniable hypocrisy, their own moral failings did not invalidate their transformational project. The founding documents were not evil to the core but “magnificent,” as Martin Luther King Jr. put it, because they were “a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.” In other words: The founders themselves planted the seeds of slavery’s destruction. And our second founding fathers—abolitionists like Frederick Douglass—made it so. America would never be perfect, but we could always strive toward building a more perfect union.

Make no mistake, this “personal investment” to which Georgia refers isn’t just about individual feelings of superiority.  No, this “investment” is  part of a movement to bring Fascist totalitarianism into the United States of America.  

She has turned away in horror once the true nature of this movement finally became clear.  For far too many of our fellow citizens the true nature of this movement creates anticipatory joy.

---

*Note, since this is a transcript of spoken words there are verbal phrases and repetitions that would not be there had she been communicating in writing.  Also, in a few cases the verbal artifacts become confusing enough to obscure the meaning.  In those cases I have edited the transcript.

Something Wicked This Way Comes (6)

“The more I love humanity in general the less I love man in particular.” (Fyodor Dostoyevsky)

---

Are you hoping that if Joe Biden and the Democrats win the upcoming election that political violence in our nation will subside?  If so, you are living in a dangerous fantasy.  The fact is that high profile, influential Democrats are proposing to severely harass and punish anyone who is  identified as a Trump supporter should they win sufficient power in November.  They aren’t even attempting to hide their wickedness because they are out of their senses with the hatred that can only be created by totalitarian ideology.  Here are some examples.

Dick Costolo, Former Twitter CEO Threatens Firing Squad Execution of Another CEO

The former CEO of Twitter, Dick Costolo Tweeted that Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase should be lined up and shot come the revolution.  This outburst occurred because Armstrong decided to cease forcing employees to engage in social justice agendas such as Critical Race Theory.

Ask yourself what kind of evil madness has overtaken the Progressive Left when former major social media CEOs feel free to threaten violence in this overt manner.

Reza Aslan, Religious Scholar, Demands Trump and His Supporters be “Eradicated”

Religious scholar and CNN contributor, Reza Aslan, recently Tweeted that all Trump supporters “must be eradicated from society” along with Trump, and that there is “no longer any room for nuance.”

Ask yourself, what would it look like to eradicate a President, his administration’s employees and 63 million supporters?  Yes, it’s so evil that any decent mind refuses to go there.  But not so the morally superior mind of a CNN contributor and religious scholar.

Emily Freeman, Microsoft Engineer and Public Speaker, Wants to Knife Conservatives

This woman is employed (and apparently remains employed) by one of the most significant corporations in the world.  Not only that, but other Microsoft employees, including Program Manager Alex Dupler, publicly affirmed and supported this vicious murder fantasy (or is it?).

Emily follows in the footsteps of the first Janus Award Winner, Heather, by in a single Tweet displaying the hypocrisy attainable only by our Progressive moral superiors.  That is, she states that “We care about people” and we can “occasionally slide a knife between some as*****’s ribs” in a single Tweet.  For this great effort she deserves at least a Janus Award  Honorable Mention.

Conclusion

Make no mistake, the violent, totalitarian desires of the Progressives will only be encouraged by a Biden/Democrat victory.  Yes, they may riot, loot, burn and kill after a Trump/Republican victory.  But they will not have the power of the further weaponized Federal Government either enabling or actively supporting their crimes.

Vote for President Trump and Republicans like your life and our Republic depends on it, because it very well might.

Georgia H. Exposes Progressivism’s Lies (3)

… or be a social outcast.

---

This is the third post in a series about the #WalkAway video by a young woman who names herself Georgia H.  Following is a transcript* of her comments on the Critical Race Theory (CRT) brain-washing she experienced in an “educational” organization as a young person straight out of college.  She discusses the differences between the Progressive morality in which she was raised and the radically altered Progressive ideology to which she was exposed.

I thought we’d all been raised with where you’re supposed to judge people by the content of their character or basically like anything except the color of their skin. And sometimes people would say “hey shouldn’t we be doing what Martin Luther King said, like judging people by the content of their character?” And that was one of the wrong opinions. So there were right opinions and there were wrong opinions and that was one of the ones that you have to learn as a wrong opinion. We would be told something like, you know, in order to honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King we need to go beyond his prescription of focusing on character and we need to kind of dig in and really understand how race informs all aspects of American culture or American institutions.

I have on numerous occasions confronted people spewing CRT about this very contradiction with Dr. Martin Luther King’s vision.  They have never given me a substantive reply.  Here we find what they likely were thinking, but for what ever reason chose not to communicate to me.

Perhaps that’s because a mature man would laugh in their face were they to attempt this explanation.  Not only is this a direct and irreconcilable contradiction, but it is also deeply disrespectful.  We are expected to believe that (1) Dr. King is a civil rights intellectual giant and (2) this giant was completely wrong in his thinking on how to pursue a non-racist society.

I don’t hold it against a young person that this contradictory explanation was not immediately rejected, which is further discussed below.

So these things were explained with kind of academic speak that had a patina of plausibility especially for a 22 year old who didn’t have any life experience. And I mean certainly there were kind of nuggets of wisdom that were in there that would draw you in and certainly like, as a white person this ideology, sort of break you down and kind of break down your own trust in your own moral compass. Because people are telling you, you know, your opinions aren’t really as valid as someone else’s because you don’t have the correct lived experience to fully understand the situation.

As I have previously pointed out, the purveyors of CRT use their supposed academic credentials to shield themselves from debate.  They also use unfamiliar technical terms (i.e., “academic speak”) to obfuscate their true meaning and confuse their audience.  The entire purpose of this deceit is to to break down trust in their listeners own moral compass.  The frequency and depth of their success in pulling off this con, even among supposedly mature, experiences people, is terrifying.  One can only imagine how susceptible an isolated young person would be to this onslaught of manipulation and deception.

So needless to say there was a lot of crying and stress and unhappiness involved with this organization. And as an adult, you know, I look back on that and I’m like, you know, those are clear signs of a toxic work culture. But back then I was naïve, you know, we were basically told that our discomfort was part of the process, our discomfort was us clinging to our privilege or it was like our white fragility. You know, they had all these terms that functioned to normalize the very toxic cognitive dissonance that we were experiencing and this language that served to kind of make us feel shame and doubt about our doubts; made us feel bad for even having questions about the things that we were being told.

What is being described is purposeful, cold blooded psychological abuse.  There is no human care for their victim’s well being.  There is no empathy for their pain.  No, there is only the vicious, cruel application of totalitarian brainwashing techniques.  These are evil people, be they non-profit leaders, or corporate managers.

---

*Note, since this is a transcript of spoken words there are verbal phrases and repetitions that would not be there had she been communicating in writing.  Also, in a few cases the verbal artifacts become confusing enough to obscure the meaning.  In those cases I have edited the transcript.

Don’t You Dare Tread on Us!

---

There is a recent blog post that documents the uprising of loud, proud pro-Trump / America demonstrations.  While the text is so repetitive (i.e., overuse of “organic” and occasional synonyms) that it becomes unreadable, the accumulated videos of these demonstrations are excellent.  Yes, I understand that there is a dimension of political manipulation in the mix.  However, the number, scope, diversity (yes, Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Women, Men, etc.) and enthusiasm of these many demonstrations is impressive.

While the immediate massage is obvious: “Elect Donal Trump!,” there is, I believe a secondary message being sent.  That message is:

Should Joe Biden and the Democrats win, don’t you dare tread on our Republic’s core institutions or on We the People!

All of the pro-Trump/America demonstrations have been peaceful and happy (except in a few cases where Antifa/BLM/Democrat thugs attacked).  I don’t know what forms “Commoner” response will take should the Democrat neo-Marxists take power.  But they shouldn’t doubt that any moves to destroy the foundations of this Republic will be met with determined, widespread, intense opposition.

A Timely Challenge to Christianity: “Live Not By Lies” (5)

Tastes great, destroys faith!

---

The Progressive Assault on Christianity

For many Christians whose experience of Christianity has been within a Mainline denomination, the idea that the Progressive social justice agenda opposes them is unimaginable.  From their perspective the institutional church is in complete agreement with the secular Progressive project, and, the  faithful practice of Christianity demands that they enthusiastically support it.  What they don’t understand is that secular Progressivism deeply hates Christianity, even the watered down, accommodating kind practiced in the Mainline.

This fact exists because Progressivism has become a substitute religion that rejects everything that underpins Christianity.  In particular, they reject the idea of a God who exists independently of their ideology and to whom we owe our undivided allegiance.  Any remnant of this idea  creates a competing power to that of the Progressive state.  And even this remnant must therefore be obliterated in order to enable totalitarian utopia to be attained.

Here’s how Rod Dreher summarizes the situation in his book Live Not By Lies.

In our time, secular social justice has been shorn of its Christian dimension. Because they defend a particular code of sexual morality and gender categories, Christians are seen by progressives as the enemies of social justice. Catholic philosopher Michael Hanby insightfully links sexual radicalism to the scientific roots of the Myth of Progress. He has written that “the sexual revolution is, at bottom, the technological revolution and its perpetual war against natural limits applied externally to the body and internally to our self-understanding.”  Without Christianity and its belief in the fallibility of human nature, secular progressives tend to rearrange their bigotries and call it righteousness. Christianity teaches that all men and women—not just the wealthy, the powerful, the straight, the white, and all other so-called oppressors—are sinners in need of the Redeemer. All men and women are called to confession and repentance. “Social justice” that projects unrighteousness solely onto particular groups is a perversion of Christian teaching. Reducing the individual to her economic status or her racial, sexual, or gender identity is an anthropological error. It is untrue, and therefore unjust. Moreover, for Christians, no social order that denies sin, erecting structures or approving practices that alienate man from his Creator, can ever be just. Contrary to secular social justice activists, protecting the right to abortion is always unjust. So is any proposal—like same-sex marriage—that ratifies sin and undermines the natural family. In a 1986 encyclical, Pope John Paul II denounced a “spirit of darkness” that deceitfully posits “God as an enemy of his own creature, and in the first place as an enemy of man, as a source of danger and threat to man.”

Progressive Christians imagine that they can, by accommodation with secular Progressivism, remain in good standing with this secular faith.  However, they are only delaying their destruction.  The fact is that the Progressive ideologues understand that there is no amount of cleansing that is sufficient to render Christianity acceptable.  There will always be some concept of God and some idea of unchangeable, universal truth remaining.

Progressivism, says Dreher:

regards Christians as the most significant remaining obstacles on the Grand March, bearers of the cruel and outdated beliefs that keep the people from being free and happy. Wherever we hide, they will track us, find us, and punish us if that’s what it takes to make this world more perfect. This brings us to the final factor critical to understanding the radical challenge facing Christianity and discerning strategies of resistance: the power and reach of surveillance technology.

In this true and harrowing statement Mr. Dreher in effect admits that the Benedict Option is an impossible dream.  I’m glad he has come to his senses and welcome him to the fight.

COVID-19 Policy and Our Children

---

A friend recently sent a link to a blog titled Common Sense, and a specific post titled Children of the West.  The post discusses the cruel treatment of this nation’s youth with multiple specific examples such as COVID-19, education, violence, sexual predation and national debt.  I certainly encourage you to “read the whole thing.”

Upon reflection what struck me the most was that this post’s position is highly controversial.  For in it the author argues regarding COVID-19 policy:

In the current COVID crisis, the mortality rate among young people is practically negligible.   …   Yet, we are inflicting the burden of COVID19 on them in multiple ways. Despite the low hospitalization and mortality rate among children and teens, we are condemning them to “remote learning.” Remote learning is fairly ineffective and, among kids with special needs, simply unworkable. In certain subjects, like math, kids may never catch up. The social and mental health costs are beginning to pile up on these kids.   …   Yet, in the effort to try to protect the health of older citizens, we are shifting the costs to our children to bear.  I cannot speak for all adults, but I would happily accept a greater risk of sickness and, yes, even death to make sure that our younger generation is prepared for the challenges that are in front of them.  As a society, we have always done this—we bare costs and risks so our children don’t have to.  We sacrifice to pave the way for our children.  But our politicians have chosen otherwise.  

Here I partially part company with the author, noting that it is not just “our politicians” who have instituted these policies, but rather “our politicians” confident that these policies will be supported by a large segment of the voting public and almost universally by the media.  These destructive policies have also been almost uniformly supported by our religious institutions.

In a healthy society the difficult, painful tradeoffs between public health and our children’s futures (among many other contending issues) would have been openly debated and the ensuing policy decisions would have been acknowledged as imperfect compromises.  In our current damaged society there is no room for moral complexity, contending interests or policy flexibility.  No, there is only the headlong rush to isolate and enforce the one moral imperative that separates the “good” from the “evil” people.  

In the case of COVID-19 policy the resulting imperative was that death while infected with COVID-19 was the only outcome that warranted any moral weight.  Once identified our media, politicians and many in the general public began an enforcement strategy that beat down any dissenters as morally depraved killers.  If you brought up the devastating impact of the lockdowns on our youth you were accused of wanting to kill grandma.  If you pointed out the destruction of people’s livelihoods you were accused of putting money before lives.  If you pointed out the mental/physical health, relationship and third-world consequences you were simply dismissed and ignored.

But it’s actually much worse than this.  The terrifying fact is that, if you mouthed the COVID-19 monomaniacal party line, you could actually implement policies that led directly to the deaths of thousands of our grandmas and grandpas while maintaining public moral acclaim.  The poster boy for this appalling state of affairs is the current Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo.  He created policies that put active COVID-19 patients into nursing homes, resulting in massive death to the elderly patients.  Not only has this at best incompetent man avoided blame, but people seeking accountability are being actively suppressed.  And the final appalling straw is that Governor Cuomo has published a book (American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic) that brags about his performance.

Governor Cuomo is only the most visible example of our COVID-19 mania.  Thousands, millions of our fellow citizens gain moral prestige by acting as enforcers of each and every policy restriction.  The rest of us submit either hopefully or sullenly to the unending torrent of scare stories and associated extensions of policies that assault virtually every aspect of our lives.

The sources of this tragic failure can be traced back to social media, educational institutions, religious organizations and politicians.  But ultimately we cannot avoid the core issue, which is that we have, by our own choices and actions, allowed this process to proceed virtually unopposed for decades.

We are now facing the consequences of these choices.  We must reclaim what has been lost by speaking openly and plainly about not just this specific instance, but also about the more general social environment that has led to it.  We must openly oppose people in positions of power who use this moral failing to advance their power.  By so doing we may actually begin to properly integrate the interests of “the children” into private and public life.

A Timely Challenge to Christianity: “Live Not By Lies” (4)

Russia, 1917

---

Prescient Pre-Totalitarian Predictions

In the Rod Dreher book Live Not By Lies there is a chapter titled “Our Pre-Totalitarian Culture.” Here the author reviews the work of Hannah Arendt, particularly her 1958 book titled The Origins of Totalitarianism.  I trust the reader will agree that the word prescient would apply were Arendt’s descriptions of pre-totalitarian societal conditions highly similar to those being experienced today in the United States.  In point of fact, they are, as documented in the following excerpts from Dreher’s book.

Totalitarian movements, said Arendt, are “mass organizations of atomized, isolated individuals.” She continues: What prepares men for totalitarian domination in the non-totalitarian world, is the fact that loneliness, once a borderline experience usually suffered in certain marginal social conditions like old age, has become an everyday experience of the ever-growing masses of our century.

 I note that one of the (surprising to some) primary consequences of our social media culture is an increase in human atomization and loneliness.  This effect has been significantly magnified by the draconian lockdowns in response to COVID-19.  Regardless of if this was all intentional or not, these conditions are supportive of a move from individual freedom to totalitarian submission.

A polity filled with alienated individuals who share little sense of community and purpose are prime targets for totalitarian ideologies and leaders who promise solidarity and meaning.

One of the primary consequences of the totalitarian temptation is a willingness to substitute falsehoods for truth in order to regain a sense of meaning and control.

You can surrender your moral responsibility to be honest out of misplaced idealism. You can also surrender it by hating others more than you love truth. In pre-totalitarian states, Arendt writes, hating “respectable society” was so narcotic that elites were willing to accept “monstrous forgeries in historiography” for the sake of striking back at those who, in their view, had “excluded the underprivileged and oppressed from the memory of mankind.” For example, many who didn’t really accept Marx’s revisionist take on history—that it is a manifestation of class struggle—were willing to affirm it because it was a useful tool to punish those they despised. Here’s an important example of this happening in our time and place. In 2019, The New York Times, the world’s most influential newspaper, launched the “1619 Project,” a massive attempt to “reframe” (the Times’s word) American history by displacing the 1776 Declaration of Independence as the traditional founding of the United States, replacing it with the year the first African slaves arrived in North America.

Readers of this blog will recognize my focus on the “1619 Project” as a source of lies, omissions and incompetence: see here (series of four posts) here (series of two posts) and here, among others.  Thus lies promulgated by  the “1619 Project” and Black Lives Matter / Antifa find a fertile ground in which to grow.

As Arendt wrote about the pre-totalitarian masses: They do not believe in anything visible, in the reality of their own experience; they do not trust their eyes and ears but only their imaginations, which may be caught by anything that is at once universal and consistent with itself. What convinces masses are not facts, and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system of which they are presumably part.

As a consequence people begin to seek out comforting ideologies as opposed to facing harsh facts.

Why are people so willing to believe demonstrable lies? The desperation alienated people have for a story that helps them make sense of their lives and tells them what to do explains it. For a man desperate to believe, totalitarian ideology is more precious than life itself.

Finally, Mr. Dreher connects the functional purpose of today’s Social Justice Warrior (SJW) class with the Bolsheviks of pre-revolutionary Russia.

In radicalizing the broader class of elites, social justice warriors (SJWs) are playing a similar historic role to the Bolsheviks in prerevolutionary Russia. SJW ranks are full of middle-class, secular, educated young people wracked by guilt and anxiety over their own privilege, alienated from their own traditions, and desperate to identify with something, or someone, to give them a sense of wholeness and purpose. For them, the ideology of social justice—as defined not by church teaching but by critical theorists in the academy—functions as a pseudoreligion. Far from being confined to campuses and dry intellectual journals, SJW ideals are transforming elite institutions and networks of power and influence.

…

Social justice warriors and the theorists of their cause are not “normal people” who live by common sense. Fanatical belief in Progress is a driving force behind their febrile utopianism. The ideology of progress, which has been with us in various forms since the Enlightenment, explains their confident zealotry. It also explains why so many ordinary people who aren’t especially engaged by politics find it hard to say no to SJW demands. We cannot understand the hypnotic allure of left-wing totalitarianism or figure out how best to resist its advocates unless we grasp its most dedicated advocates as cultists devoted to the Myth of Progress.

And this “Myth of Progress” is the basis for a new godless religion that can justify any evil done in pursuit of that “progress.”  This topic will be discussed in the next post.

Thoughts on Fighting Back

Despair is not an option…

---

What Can We Do?

I don’t have any proposals for the immediate situation other than giving, voting and otherwise supporting the only practical vehicle available that opposes the Progressive revolution, that being President Trump and the small band of non-establishment Republicans who are willing to stand and fight.

We “commoners” also must better organize ourselves into stable, effective and visible groups of opposition. Only if we better support one another and more aggressively state our positions will the “undecideds” and “fence sitters” begin to take us seriously (and the Progressives begin to fear us).

From a more general perspective we need to play the long game of purposefully undermining the Progressive power positions in our institutions and in our personal lives.

Contemporary Progressivism is built on a foundation of appalling hubris. What other conclusion could possibly be drawn for a movement that asserts a unique, definitive claim to moral and intellectual authority? And this claim is not theoretical, but is rather enforced by intimidation and even overt violence. The recent series of posts on Repressive Tolerance and how it can be defeated shed additional light on a mindset that justifies the abrogation of any opinion that exists outside of the Progressive “party line” for any given day (since the party line can change by 180 degrees overnight if necessary to advance their power).

I believe that on this foundation is built three pillars that must be demolished over time in order to restore the Republic. They are (excerpts from my five-part blog series titled Defeating Progressivism):

Power

This pillar is central because without it the other two pillars would immediately crumble and fall. Progressives don’t view power as the exercise of a temporary responsibility. Rather they worship power as their only acknowledged reality.

It is by exercise of this power that Progressives have so successfully shaped and led public opinion. However, the public, over time, has noticed the growing discrepancy between “the narrative” and what they experience. They have also noticed how “the narrative” can flip 180 degrees overnight if necessary to advance or maintain Progressive power. Therefore, this once solid pillar is showing unmistakable signs of decay.

Prestige

It’s natural for the general public to credit prestige to those among them who have acquired power, particularly in the United States, where success of almost any type is viewed as a sign of merit. Therefore, since Progressives have risen to dominate most of our cultural and educational institutions, government and religious organizations, they have for decades accumulated the associated prestige.

But prestige is not an infinitely available resource. For, over time, if the general public begins to perceive a divergence between the elite’s claim to prestige and the actual results obtained this resource can dissipate. Thus, when parents after having paid exorbitant amounts to send a child to a university experience the results as emotional, ideology driven drivel, they begin to wonder about the “prestige” of the institution and its staff. Or, when the Progressive elites browbeat the public into accepting policies (e.g., immigration, trade, foreign policy, public safety, etc.) that result in negative consequences, they begin to doubt the “expertise” and competence of those elites.

Pretense

If, by various and sundry means, your clique has achieved almost undisputed power and prestige, the temptation arises to lean on those accomplishments. This temptation is magnified considerably if the foundation for these accomplishments is hubris. In this event the clique members begin to demand acquiescence from the public not because they have demonstrated superior ideas or performance. Rather, they put on the pretense that their ideas or performance must be accepted because they have acquired power and prestige.

The constant utilization of pretense tempts our Progressive elite to use whatever argument appears to advance their project regardless of how defective or dishonest. Thus it becomes possible to defeat this corrupt clique. All you need is the courage to demand the issue be decided on the merits and the cloak of pretense is penetrated, revealing nothingness or deception behind it.

Pretense is only potent while the victims believe that there is actual power and prestige behind it. Once this belief dissolves its power collapses.

---

For additional practical suggestions on how to fight back against Progressive ideas (particularly Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory) see here and here.  I specifically focus on these two related ideological systems because they are currently the primary vehicles for advancing the neo-Marxist revolution at play in our institutions and on our streets.

Georgia H. Exposes Progressivism’s Lies (2)

This is what Critical Race Theory tried to teach to Georgia H.

---

This is the second post in a series about the #WalkAway video by a young woman who names herself Georgia H.  Following is a transcript* of her comments on the ideological brain-washing she experienced in an “educational” organization as a young person straight out of college.  The focus of this effort was clearly Critical Race Theory with an emphasis on transforming the employees into “anti-racists.”  I have bolded  sections that contain the key insights discussed.

But very early on I was bothered and uncomfortable with the way the higher ups in this organization were framing our conversations around race. It felt unhealthy so I really didn’t like how I felt, like we were being coached to take offense at a lot of little things and to kind of sniff out racism, you know, in our peers or in other people.

This is classic police state tactics.  Nothing disintegrates civil society more completely than convincing individuals that it is an all against all ideological contest.  These “higher ups” were not just turning their employees against their families, friends and fellow citizens outside the workplace.  No, there were purposefully and cruelly turning their workplace into a nest of suspicious, hate filled snitches.

And I really didn’t think it was healthy the way my black peers were coached to or pushed to kind of dredge up generational grievances and interpret sort of benign interactions as microaggressions. I mean I can’t really think of anything more sort of psychologically abusive than training people to live in a state of resentment, and I kind of felt like this organization was pushing that on my black peers.

These are important insights.  For the longest time I’ve struggled with just how Progressivism manages to harm the minority communities while simultaneously pretending to help them.  Perhaps I’m a dim bulb on this one, but these statements crystalized what had been only vague concepts into a practical understanding.

If you want to hobble a group of people while pretending to support them then convince them that everyone outside of Progressivism hates them and is actively attempting to prevent their success. Thus, while your words are suffused with caring and support, the practical consequence is to sabotage the trust and hope necessary for advancement.  This can only be accurately described as “psychologically abusive” by training people to “live in a state of resentment.”  

Think of all the lives that these Progressive “higher ups” were intentionally ruining in order to advance their own power.  For when a group of people becomes convinced that they are helpless to advance on their own efforts then they become easy prey for elites who claim to be their protectors and saviors.

And of course if you’re white like me you just become accustomed to, you know, everyone just like bumps on your race all the time and it’s irritating and not constructive at all. But you are trained to think that there’s something sort of valuable or moral about doing that and all of this felt to me alien and backwards from the morality I had been raised with.

It is not only the minorities who are victimized by this evil ideology.  No, the majority community, in our case white people, are also assaulted by feelings of guilt and  resentment.  This result tends to increase feelings of racial animosity rather than the claimed goal to decrease.  For if you feel constantly attacked because of your race you (1) become far more aware of racial differences and (2) can come to see people of other races as the source of your constant irritation.

But, because you are being brainwashed as well, you too come to believe that the ideas assaulting you come from a place of value and morality.  This happens even though you feel that these ideas are “alien and backwards” from the morality in  which you were raised.

I will continue discussing this line of thought in the next post.

---

*Note, since this is a transcript of spoken words there are verbal phrases and repetitions that would not be there had she been communicating in writing.  Also, in a few cases the verbal artifacts become confusing enough to obscure the meaning.  In those cases I have edited the transcript.

Georgia H. Exposes Progressivism’s Lies (1)

This young, articulate woman has exposed many of the lies that undergird Progressivism.

---

A #WalkAway video by a young woman who names herself Georgia H. has  “gone viral,” and for good reason.  In the 47 minute video she explains in detail the experiential and intellectual process by which she eventually decided to abandon her Progressive ideology and publicly embrace Conservatism.  Along the way she manages to identify and define some of the primary lies of Progressivism with stunning clarity.

These are issues with which I’ve been struggling for years, and nothing I’ve come up with matches some of the penetrating, concise insights of this young lady.  So, I’ll be sharing some of them with you along with my own commentary.  

One of the main challenges for non-Progressives is accepting that what elite Progressives show us is the truth.  They show us stunning levels of cruelty, hypocrisy and even violence; and we, rather than looking straight into it turn away in fear.  For to face the facts would call into question our assumptions about the stability and safety of our lives.

Early in the video Georgia describes this powerful desire to ignore the clues, the cracks, in the Progressive party line rather than face up to them.

[Note, since this is a transcript of spoken words there are verbal phrases and repetitions that would not be there had she been communicating in writing.  Also, in a few cases the verbal artifacts become confusing enough to obscure the meaning.  In those cases I have edited the transcript.]

I was totally pro-gay marriage and so that was basically the thing that made me decide that I was going to be a Democrat. And to be honest, not too much else about the platform even from the start, and certainly during my early years in adulthood; there were kind of cracks in this story and things that made me have my doubts. And my whole walk away story is basically the story of me ignoring those clues, ignoring the cracks and just putting them aside until I reached this point in 2018 that I couldn’t anymore. It was like it was too much; it’s almost embarrassing to tell you about all the things that I ignored.

On a more hopeful note, it’s clear that Georgia H. was brought up in a Progressivism that yet loves human beings in spite of their differences.  She comments that:

I have the most wonderful family you can imagine, but this is just the reality of being the black sheep during a tense time. Considering how much they disagree with me my loved ones are heroically supportive. However, I don’t want to do things that will jeopardize my most important relationships.

This also describes my experience as a “black sheep” in a Progressive family.  My hope and prayer is that this understanding of Progressivism will someday reassert itself so that we can return to passionate debate of the issues as opposed to our current mad rush towards totalitarianism.