All Episodes
Previous Next
June 11, 2023 - The Ben Shapiro Show
56:53
James Lindsay Knows More About This Than Anyone
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Critical theory is not a bunch of ideas.
It is a cult.
Critical pedagogy is cult indoctrination.
There's no other way to see it.
We're worried about K-12.
This is a very different situation.
These are children.
Children do not think the same way as adults.
You may forget that when you get older, but they don't.
They have an authority figure telling them these things.
We're not operating in a field of open debate.
The marketplace of ideas doesn't exist for seven-year-olds.
It just doesn't.
Mathematician, writer, and Twitter provocateur James Lindsay has his sights set on woke academia.
He's going toe-to-toe with the organizations coming after your kids.
A former liberal, Lindsey started his career writing books in support of atheism.
Then, in 2017, his writing veered in another direction entirely.
He, with two others, wrote 20 fake papers for submission to peer-reviewed scientific journals.
The papers featured purposely absurd topics, woke topics, like rewritten passages of Mein Kampf in support of feminism, and rape culture amongst dogs in public parks.
The reviewers are worried that we didn't respect the dog's privacy!
Six of the papers were rejected, but a surprising seven were accepted.
Seven more were held up under review until the ruse was discovered.
The stunt became international news, demonstrating how willing today's scientific community is to accept false narratives, so long as they are politically fashionable, no matter how absurd the premise.
After that experiment, James Lindsay co-authored the best-selling book, Cynical Theories, how activist scholarship made everything about race, gender, and identity, and why this harms everybody, as well as Race Marxism, the truth about critical race theory and praxis.
His latest book zeroes in on children's education, as he details exactly how the sector has been injected with Marxist thinking throughout the last 70 years.
The book, The Marxification of Education, Paulo Freire's Critical Marxism and the Theft of Education is available right now.
In this episode, James explains the key moments that have devastated our education system.
We discuss the shocking curriculum the UN handed to the United States.
We uncover the leading education organizations founded in New Age ideals and more.
We explore the radicalization of children, the redefinition of words like democracy and
phrases like social-emotional learning, and how you can easily spot woke ideology
in your or any kid's classroom.
Hey, hey, and welcome to This is the Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special.
Just a reminder, some of our conversation at the end will be exclusively for Daily Wire Plus members.
If you're not a member yet, click the link at the top of this episode's description to get the full conversation with James Lindsay and with every one of our awesome guests.
James, thanks so much for stopping by.
Yeah, happy to be here.
So let's talk about the Marxification of education.
This is your new book.
All about the takeover of the educational system.
A lot of us have worried about the educational system, but you've written in the past about how the educational system was actually taken over.
And I don't think people actually understand the ideas behind it or how concerted that effort is.
It just feels like all of a sudden it's woke.
So what exactly happened here?
Yeah, no, it's not all of a sudden it's woke.
A lot of people have heard the phrase, the long march through the institutions.
It's a phrase coined by Rudy Doichky, who was a communist in the 1960s, 66, I think is when he said it.
Some people have heard of this other guy, Herbert Marcuse, and he's writing in the 60s and in the 70s, early 70s, and he's saying, we've got to go into the institutions, we've got to bring the ideology into the institutions.
And the wild 68, 69, we all know about the, you know, the riots and things that broke out with the kind of critical theory revolution.
And then it kind of petered out.
People didn't like violence.
People don't like riots, as it turns out.
And they lost their momentum for the revolution.
And they said, you know, we're going into the institutions.
So from the early 1970s, there's been a concerted effort to get into education, to solve what they call the problem of reproduction in communist talk.
And the problem of reproduction is that we send our kids to school to become educated.
We define educated to mean Well, what we're going to do is teach you to do the things to make you successful in society.
You can get a good job, you can live a good life, you can navigate, you know, figure out how to balance your checkbook or whatever the old sayings are.
We're going to teach you how to participate in society successfully as a professional.
In other words, we're going to teach you to reproduce society.
And so, if the schools reproduce society generation after generation, and that's what people want out of schools, the society as it exists is going to keep reproducing itself.
So they said, how do we solve this?
We have to get into the schools.
We have to hijack it from underneath.
And they started a slow process.
And the model is really simple.
It's not hard to understand.
If you capture educational theory, then you can capture the colleges of education.
If you get the colleges of education, then you can capture the teachers.
If you capture the teachers as a kind of a generational model, then you get the students, and thus you get the future.
And this has been rolling from the 70s, trying to figure out how to do it.
And by the mid-80s, that's what Marxification of education is actually about.
They got linked up with this fellow, Paulo Freire, a Brazilian Marxist educator.
He had the model.
They figured out how to implement it.
According to a Marxist educator named Isaac Gottesman, who was at Iowa State, he wrote a book called The Critical Turn in Education, telling this history.
He says, by 1992, in colleges of education, Paulo Freire's work was where it remains today, which is everywhere.
And so, for 30 years, they've had 31 years now, they've had the colleges of education under their domain.
And so, they've just slowly started to change the educational system from within, the content, the curriculum, the pedagogy itself.
It seems like it came out of nowhere because it required some legal changes that happened, and we can talk about those, you know, and those happened in 2015 primarily, initially.
Something called the Every Student Succeeds Act is very relevant to kind of why it blossomed so quickly in the last maybe five to ten years.
So I'm going to go through every piece of that because it seems like there are three pieces of it that we're talking about here.
One is the theory, this radical education theory.
The other question is why these institutions caved so quickly?
What were sort of the holes in Western civilization that allowed for the entire superstructure to fall within a matter of, it sounds like, a decade or 15 or 20 years?
And then I want to get to the last piece that you mentioned there, this sort of radical shift starting in 2015 legally.
So why don't we start with what the actual What kind of theory of Freire is?
What exactly was he promulgating?
Freire's educational theory can be summarized very simply, which is that true education is political education.
So he says, you know, cutesy phrases like you always hear and sort of, as they call it, dialectical thought.
He says cutesy phrases like, all education is political.
You know, you always hear, teaching is a political act.
These are kind of almost thought-terminating cliches that you hear out of kind of Marxist type educators or woke educators.
And what he actually means is that a true education is a political education.
And so, it's not enough to learn the content of the academic material, to learn mathematics, to learn to read, to learn to write, to learn history.
You have to learn also the context of your lives.
And in fact, what he devised, so there's actual pedagogy, is that he devised A scheme by which you use the academic material as an excuse to have the political conversation with the children or the students.
And then the political conversation is done in a particular way that he gives a name, conscientization, to awaken a consciousness of the real conditions of their lives politically.
In other words, to bring them to a critical Marxist consciousness and then allegedly, Sometimes this is borne out and sometimes not.
Allegedly, then you're going to go back to the academic mastery now that they have the political awakening.
So what you have is a sort of, this is why I refer to it in the subtitle of the book, is the theft of education, is you have using academic material, he says, in his words, as a mediator to political knowledge.
So you introduce a math question and use it to have political conversations.
But the goal is to make it so that education is about awakening a political consciousness, which in Marxist lingo means a Marxist consciousness of how the world works.
So to steelman that argument, is there any truth to the idea that all education is political, in the sense that there is, for Marxists, a problem of reproduction.
I mean, if you go to school and you learn within a particular framework, there is this kind of water in which we swim, and if we're fish, we don't know that it's water.
And it does teach that America is, for example, a pretty great place, or it teaches that freedom is a good—political freedom is a good thing, that we have particular rights, and that is the backdrop to all the things that we learn.
So is he wrong that Education is all political, or is where he makes the error, or the vile kind of move, where he says that, yes, it's political, but those politics are bad, and I want to substitute my own Marxist politics for those politics.
See, that's what it is.
The word politics here, or political, is playing kind of double duty.
This is what you always have.
I have a name for this technique, which is, I call it dialectical inversion.
If you don't know, the dialectical materialism was Marx's philosophy.
He gets that from Hegel's dialectic, getting old philosophy.
We don't have to get into all of that.
But with the dialectic, the idea is the opposites are to be seen as parts of a unified whole, that if you can view it from a higher perspective, what Marxists call sublated, if you can view it from a higher perspective, then you see how they're actually two parts of one whole.
And so, the dialectical inversion that's being played here is you say, well, all education And Ferreri's words, assumes a theory of man in the world, and thus it's political.
And maybe it assumes a political theory, for example, classical liberalism in the United States, or whatever, or Lockean, or Jeffersonian liberalism in the United States.
So it assumes this already.
And they say, well, you see, here's what's happening, is you're doing that, but we're doing that too.
You have politics, we have politics.
But the difference is we know we have politics, and we know where your politics are bad, Look at all the problematics.
There's racism, there's sexism, there's classism that reproduces, you know, a structure, a stratified society.
It's unjust.
They can pick out all those problematics and focus on all those problematics.
They never have to make a positive argument for their own approach.
And so they say, you're doing politics, we're doing politics, here's why yours are bad so that ours is better.
And at no point do they say, actually, why theirs is better in practice, and they get to dodge that.
But the trick is that political means more than one thing.
There's kind of like layers of political thought.
There's the substrate kind of, yeah, we make some basic assumptions about what it means to be human, about how the world works, how we're going to interact in the world.
And what kind of a political organization our society has.
And then there's the, we're going to impose a very specific political program as though those two things are the same thing.
Kind of an open and free or liberal society politic is, you can be whatever political orientation you want.
But under this, there's only one right way to be political.
So you mentioned the word conscientization.
It's hard to say, but I had to practice.
Yeah, so what does he mean by that?
The way you phrased it before, it almost sounds like consciousness raising an occult.
That's what it is.
That's exactly what it is.
It's the awakening of occult consciousness, and the cult here is critical Marxism or critical theory.
Gottesman, actually, who I mentioned a moment ago, who wrote The Critical Turn in Education, in the very first page says, you've heard of critical theory, we should call it critical Marxism.
Like, let's just say what it really is.
And I think, wow, they just give it away, you know.
It's an old meme, you know.
I spent a year working on this story and he just tweeted it out.
But it's true.
And so, what conscientization is, is a process by which you're awakened to it.
So, Ferreri, his educational approach, you don't just use the, say, math lesson.
I'll give you an example of that in a minute.
As a mediator to political knowledge, there's actually a program by which you do that.
It's very technical.
Codification, decodification.
So you show a codified version of the political context.
In other words, you tell them abstractly why things that they're looking at are political.
Then you enter into what he calls a reading phase.
The pun is obvious.
You read the political content behind the image or the idea or the abstract presentation.
Then you problematize it.
So you point out why it's political, then you point out why those politics are problematic,
exactly like I just said.
And then you personalize it or make it concrete to the learner to radicalize them.
And so the idea is to actually awaken first an awareness that there's a political undercurrent
to everything, as the Marxists would see it.
This is what Mao called adopting the people's standpoint, by the way.
Freire called his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, so we would say it's the oppressed standpoint in woke.
This is adopting that perspective.
Then you show them why the political content of their lives is problematic, why it's filled with injustices, dehumanization, domestication of, you know, the lower classes, etc.
And then you make it personal to them to actually activate and radicalize them, which is, in fact, a cult initiation.
I want to talk to you about Dailyware's most trusted privacy partner and the premier sponsor of my show, ExpressVPN.
Big tech companies today are masquerading as privacy companies.
They say things like, just fix your privacy settings, turn off app tracking, and you're all good.
Are we really supposed to believe?
Is it the big bad tech wolf has now turned into sweet grandma?
Collecting and selling off your data is not in their nature.
To protect myself against prying eyes, I use ExpressVPN.
When you use the ExpressVPN app on your computer or phone, you're hiding your unique IP address.
Websites can't use that address to find out your real location or track what you do online.
ExpressVPN encrypts and reroutes 100% of your online activity so your internet provider, Wi-Fi admin, and hackers can't see it.
One ExpressVPN subscription covers up to five devices at the same time, so you can protect your entire family, too.
The best part, though, is how easy it is to use.
It takes just one click to protect all your devices.
Protect yourself with the VPN I use and trust.
Visit expressvpn.com slash ben.
Use my link at expressvpn.com slash ben.
Get three extra months for free.
That's e-x-p-r-e-s-s-vpn.com slash ben.
I've been using ExpressVPN myself for years.
To protect my online activity, you should do the same.
Expressvpn.com slash ben.
Get three extra months for free.
So let's talk about why this stuff was able to succeed.
So the American mind is typically pretty open to critique and criticism.
One of the criticisms that I've heard from many nationalists, conservatives of liberalism itself, classical liberalism, is that because it is so free speech oriented, for example, this allows for the possibility that somebody is going to come in and they don't actually want to engage in the conversation.
They want to use the tools of critical critical theory to essentially destroy classical liberalism.
They say, oh, we're having the conversation now, now let's examine all of your sins.
And all we're going to do all day long is examine all of your sins.
And the classical liberal says, that's perfectly legit.
Let's examine all of my sins.
And by the time that part of the conversation is over, you never get to turn it the other way.
And so, OK, now let's examine your role.
Instead, it's already over.
Why do you think all of these institutions collapse so quickly?
Because they did.
I mean, they went down like a house of cards from the 60s to the 80s.
Oh yeah, they did.
Honestly, I think there was a gigantic desire following especially the civil rights movements in the 60s to appear progressive.
Frankly, and they wanted to be on the vanguard of this.
We're the elite.
You know, Richard Dawkins said this a long time ago.
It's funny to bring up Richard Dawkins now.
But he said, you know, you want to be open-minded, but not so open-minded your brains fall out.
Well, guess what happened?
They were so open-minded that they did.
Actually let their brains fall out and they let radicals come in who had no intention of arguing in good faith using, you know, distorted and double-meaning language.
And they let them start because it looks very progressive to have a black studies or African-American studies or women's studies or gender studies.
It looks very progressive to have these departments often emerging out of, you know, feminist circles within English departments and so on and nobody would say no.
Nobody dared to say no because they knew they were going to get accused of racism or sexism, and also just because they wanted to appear progressive.
I think Shelby Steele, for example, is very eloquent on writing about this exact, which he participated in, this exact dynamic.
And so that gave them their entry point into the door, at which point, as you know, once this stuff gets in the door, it's virtually impossible to get out.
It's like to be a little Disgusting.
It's like toenail fungus.
You just can't get rid of it.
And so I think that that desire to look liberal and open-minded, but there's another feature here I've noticed with academics, which is liberal academics, which I don't think is necessarily part of liberalism, And it shouldn't be, is that they tend not to be very discerning, and they tend to take these arguments at face value.
And so, rather than adopting even a modicum of that same critical attitude, is, do these people actually have intentions?
They read the document, say, no, let's read the argument for exactly what the argument seems to say right in front of us.
And they, sadly, when you have words that mean more than one thing, you know, the communists were very famous, Lenin did it, Mao did it, for redefining the word democracy.
Democracy only counts when everybody's truly equal, so democracy only exists under communism.
So if they said democracy, it was a stand-in for communism.
Well, it says democracy.
So they read that through their kind of dumb, frankly, liberal lens and don't perceive that there's a second meaning being used.
And by taking these things at face value, I think they've missed the boat on what Marxist writers have been doing since the beginning, since Marx.
They just completely missed it and they let a lot of this stuff in.
Because they lack that ability to or willingness to say that there might be ulterior motives, there might be double meanings, there might be wordplay going on here to distort and fool and manipulate people.
And while that seems like a virtue, It's, you know, just like Aristotle said, you know, virtue is somewhere in the middle.
And if you fail to have the virtue, you end up getting both excesses.
And this is kind of the trap that they've often fallen into.
So, what I feel like is, you know, when we look at, was it Franklin that said it's a republic if you can keep it?
And then the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
It wasn't Franklin.
I forget which one said that.
The founder said that.
The vigilance isn't there.
These people are chasing papers.
They're reading things.
Oh, this is an interesting idea.
And it's very sad.
It's almost like they live—the accusation from the Marxists that they live in the abstract rather than the concrete has allowed them to get run around.
I also wonder whether they just had no systemic immunity to an attack on the system as a whole.
They had so much faith in the system in the 60s because they were running the system.
Yeah.
And then a lot of these people came in and they basically said, you are guilty for taking part in the system.
Yes.
And instead of saying, no, the system is good.
It was just flawed and we can fix those flaws.
They went, well, the only way for me to reestablish my moral authority, this is the point Shelby Steele makes, the only way for me to reestablish my moral authority is to dissociate from the system.
And then you'll let me back in and I get to maintain my power because I will join you in the attack on the system because I wasn't part of that system.
I don't want to be a part of that system.
I will dissociate.
Shelby Seal has this really evocative story that he tells about doing these student protests
where he walked into the dean's office at the college that he was at and he's smoking
a cigarette and letting the ashes fall on the carpet and he's burning the carpet and
the dean looks at him and he thinks for a moment the dean's going to chide him and so
he needs to put out the cigarette.
It was in the middle of one of these student protests and instead the dean just sits there
and lets him burn a hole directly through the carpet.
He said we knew at that point that we had basically won because these people were not
willing to stand up even against like an actual act of aggression because they were so interested
in our approval and it seems like that is so much what is happening across society today.
People are seeking approval from people who understand that approval is a weapon.
That's right.
And they understand it more than anybody else, specifically because for so long, many of their lifestyles and viewpoints were not approved by society.
Right.
And so they were fighting for, we want your approval, we want your approval.
But in reality, they now reversed it, where now the elites in our society are seeking their approval.
Right.
And that's an endless game, because they can consistently remove that approval and then get you to move on to whatever is the next thing they want you to embrace.
Yeah, I mean, a lot of people don't realize it.
They've seen the movie maybe Flatland.
I, as a mathematician, think there was only a book because I knew about it long before it happened as a film.
But the idea is that you have these little two-dimensional characters and one discovers the third dimension and kind of jump over the flat land, right?
He goes into a different dimension.
He can move and do different things.
A different degree of freedom to be, you know, kind of very literal about it.
And if you read the critical theorists, they tell you the title of the most influential book in critical theory in the 1960s was Herbert Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man.
And he says the existing society makes you one-dimensional.
We need to be two-dimensional.
Well, that means that they are coming at, so this challenge to the moral authority that Shelby Steele is articulating, it was simultaneously being With a second dimension, which is the critical dimension in both cases, you're simultaneously dealing with two forces kind of pushing on you at 90 degree angles.
One is your moral authorities being undermined, and then they've written all this apparently complicated gobbledygook, and then they tell you you don't understand what the words mean.
So you have these very, very smart people who are desperate to prove how smart they are.
That's literally their job in academia.
They can't be the dumb guy.
That's their kryptonite, is being the person who doesn't get it.
And they have these theorists telling them, you don't understand the simple stuff we wrote.
This is what we said.
And of course they don't understand it.
It's so hard to read these things.
And they're often written basically in coded language.
And so they're hitting them with intellectual authority and moral authority at the same time, so they just fold in front of these people.
Oh, well, they have something to say.
I don't know what it is, but it must be smart.
They can get a PhD in it.
So they're very weak to that.
There's a prosaic aspect to this as well, though.
Without all of the why are they so weak, how did the moral and intellectual authority
of this whole manipulative side, there's actually just a direct action part as well
to speak the communist language.
Kind of steering it back toward Ferreri, for example, there was this character named Henry Giroux.
He's a Canadian-American, he's still active, he's at a Canadian university right now,
outright communist, and he was trying to figure out how to solve the problem of reproduction.
He was doing all these innovative, progressive things in his classroom, teaching in Rhode Island in the 70s.
His principal was always mad at him and wouldn't let him do it.
And he gets frustrated so bad he's going to quit one day.
But somebody had just given him a copy of The Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Freire a couple weeks earlier.
So, he goes home and frustratedly reads the whole thing in one night.
Has in his own description, he doesn't say it's a religious conversion, but it's an ecstatic
religious conversion.
He doesn't sleep, manic for days.
He's got the solution, he's got the codex now.
And so, what he started to do, he called it, he brags in a talk he gave that this was his
praxis as he went to colleges of education around North America and got at least 100
professors tenured in those colleges.
In other words, in the language that we hear now was we just heard from Project Veritas,
we heard in Utah, we've also heard if you, the South Carolina Freedom Caucus trapped
somebody in one of these things.
The language we're hearing now is that the activists and the consultants from these different woke organizations are going to schools and they're recruiting a small percentage of teachers in the school system as co-conspirators.
That's literally the word they're using, co-conspirators, who help them bring it in even though they know it's against the law, even though they know they can get in trouble.
And so they get a few people in there who will do the thing to get the ideology in.
So then when Paulo Freire's next book comes out, say in this case in 1984, you have colleges of education with moles literally inside who are eagerly going to champion that book, press on doing all of these intellectual and moral Manipulations to get the College of Education to accept the book into its curriculum, and then it just kind of metastasizes until it becomes a curriculum.
And so there's a very prosaic element too, which is when they decided to march into the institutions, they literally decided, they didn't do nothing.
They started getting people tenured.
They started putting people into positions of administrative power, and you only need actually a few percent.
People always think, well, how do they get so many?
Because once you have about 3% of people who will be, it's called renormalization, who are absolutely intolerant, the entire kind of go-along-to-get-along institution bends around that intolerance.
And unfortunately, when we put all of these kinds of factors together, we get a perfect storm in an institution that had maybe the lowest possible resistance to this kind of a manipulation, and the most dedicated attack at the same time, with a very long-range generational strategy that's When you say it, if you imagine you're in 1974 or 5 and I'm telling you, oh, they're going to take over the colleges of education and they're going to get all the teachers, you're going to say, it's a conspiracy theory, right?
And so it seems very unlikely and impossible, but it turns out that that seems to be how they did it.
So you mentioned earlier the idea of sort of legal frameworks changing.
So obviously I grew up during the late 1980s, 1990s, and the education that I was given,
there were certainly tastes of this in public school, but it certainly wasn't as overwhelming as it is right now,
where it feels like every single classroom in America is now rife with Black Lives Matter flags
and Pride Progress flags and critical race theory and gender theory.
And it's now thorough going to the point where you have the major teachers unions
in the United States pushing every aspect of this, which is something they certainly wouldn't have dared
in the mid 1990s.
Our friends at GenUsel have upgraded.
Their most popular package to feature their top selling deep firming vitamin C serum,
plus ultra retinal moisturizer with natural retinal alternative.
Right now, you can take advantage of this limited-time package upgrade for 70% off.
Why waste time and money to go get work done to your face when you can just get GenuCell skincare shipped directly to your door?
Here's a review from Robert in Blessing, Texas.
Quote, I purchased GenuCell as a gift for my girlfriend.
She said she saw the results so fast.
Her skin is noticeably softer and smoother.
I can see and feel a difference, too.
She was already beautiful.
GenuCell has made her even more beautiful.
GenuCell's secret recipe is safe for all skin types.
Cruelty-free.
Perfect for both men and women.
My wife just had another baby.
I haven't been sleeping very much.
By using GenuCell under-eye treatment, it's helping me get rid of those bags under the eyes.
Head on over to GenuCell.com slash Sunday.
Try GenuCell's most popular package for 70% off.
featuring both GenuCell's Ultra Retinol and GenuCell's Firming Serum.
Get a complimentary Spa Essentials box with every package order,
plus a free upgrade to priority shipping.
Go to GenuCell.com slash Sunday.
That's GenuCell.com slash Sunday.
G-E-N-U-C-E-L dot com slash Sunday.
Okay, so let's talk about what changed, legally speaking, in the last 5, 10 years,
because something changed.
Well, I mean, the big one that I mentioned earlier is the Every Student Succeeds Act,
but that actually comes off of the back of Common Core.
And that actually comes off of the back of no child left behind.
And so you start to see these kind of legal pushes that were changing, and simultaneously you also, and it's very important, you have a slowly metastasizing problem in the Teacher pipeline, the licensure pipeline, the accreditation pipeline, all of these institutions that are related to education are slowly being taken over from within by the small percentage at first of activists who are doing their so-called praxis, which is like theory made flesh to draw off of a Christian biblical example.
And they're the facilitators that make it happen.
But what you actually have happening legally is you have this First, well, you have the pipeline.
You have more and more and more teachers that are learning this.
In the 90s, if they just get the College of Education by 92, 93, you're not pumping out fully-fledged teachers who are licensed and accredited, who are steeped in it.
They're not steeping in it deeply.
That is an increasing problem to where now it's, you know, hegemonic.
But what you have going on legally is This increasing step toward accountability standards being mandated largely by the federal government if you want federal dollars to come to your school.
And so you got them with No Child Left Behind.
We had this huge push toward, and it was W that did that, this huge push toward accountability standards because of course we want to make sure the schools are good.
We want to make them accountable.
How?
Well, we're going to have to start measuring stuff.
Well, now the schools are used to measuring stuff and reporting stuff.
Then it becomes Common Core.
And everybody focuses on the weirdness of the Common Core curriculum for excellent reasons.
It was a catastrophe.
It's a UN experiment.
A lot of people don't know that it was directly derived from what was called the World Core Curriculum created by Robert Mueller.
Not that Robert Mueller.
A different Robert Mueller spelled differently at the United Nations.
But the bigger story there was what if you talk to teachers on the ground during implementation, some of them said, you know, I don't even care about the curriculum changes that much.
It's that my paperwork quadrupled.
I have to stay over every day till 7 o'clock.
Kids go home at 2.30, 3 o'clock.
I have to stay over every day till 7 o'clock filling out paperwork, paperwork, because we have to report on how we are teaching all of this stuff.
In order for the school to qualify, so there's constant reporting.
Well, ESSA comes in, the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015, it's a bill this thick, and adds that you have to start reporting on non-academic competencies.
And now all of a sudden you start getting the social and cultural competence requirement.
And meanwhile, there's an organization, it promotes the biggest thing in education, hottest thing in education right now, called Social Emotional Learning.
The organization is called CASL, the Collaborative for Academic Social Emotional Learning.
It was founded in 1994 under very weird circumstances, literally at like a New Age theosophical cult organization called the Fetzer Institute.
And by the way, anybody who goes down that rabbit hole is going to find demons, and I'm not kidding.
Very weird story, but tangential to our purposes for the moment.
CASEL was ready with materials, with lobbying.
Actually, they helped lobby to get ESSA passed and to make sure that provision was in ESSA.
And then so suddenly the schools have this new thing.
You want federal dollars.
You have to keep doing your Common Core style reporting even though Common Core is failing.
But now you have to report on non-academic competency and all of a sudden consultants and worksheets and everything go out all over the country.
Here's a program that will allow you to do this easily.
And you can see this is a classic, you know, fraud is what this was.
There's a classic setup, make the federal bureaucracy require something and then have
the product ready to fill the gap and capture the whole market.
And I just testified in writing to a subcommittee in Iowa that's fighting SEL and CASEL right
now.
And a CASEL representative also testified and I saw her comment.
And she said that 99% of school districts in the country right now are using CASEL and
their products and means in one mode or another, trying to convince Iowa that they should keep
it because if everybody jumps off a bridge, so should you.
So the law created a requirement that was quite open-ended, but the product was ready to go to fill the need immediately.
And of course, schools are bureaucratic.
Schools are also, you know, slow to change.
You implement something.
You don't want to go re-implement something new a year later if you find out it's bad.
You have to admit you implemented something bad.
So they started implementing this, and then they're just kind of hooked.
They're just kind of stuck in it, and it's grown and grown and grown.
So what's in social emotional learning?
People hear that, and they immediately think, oh, well, maybe we're teaching kids to be nice, or maybe we're teaching them to get in touch with their emotion.
What exactly is that?
Why is it sinister?
Let me just be a little colorful for you at the beginning.
Everything that Marxists sell you comes in a very, very pretty box.
Great, shiny wrapping paper, excellent bow, perfect corners.
Whoever wrapped it is a professional at the mall or whatever.
Great-looking thing and you open it up and there's a turd in it.
Every single time.
And that's social-emotional learning is the same thing.
Social-emotional learning, at least from CASEL, which is the biggest organization that does it, is a focus on teaching social and emotional skills.
And they have this neat little bait-and-switch game they play or false advertising.
They say, well, we have all this research showing that kids with better social-emotional skills get better grades and do all this stuff better.
They never actually established that their program improves those.
They just let it be assumed.
But what they teach is these five core competency areas, and there's your reporting on non-academic competencies, and they are, if I can remember them off the top of my head, self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision-making, relationship skills, and social awareness.
Woke-ified environment.
The second you hear social awareness, you're like, wait a minute, what are you guys doing?
But we've not always been so alert, right?
Those all sound really good.
Self-awareness, now with the trans thing, we're all like, oh, what do you mean?
But two years ago, nobody would have thought that.
Relationship skills, etc.
But the trick is, because of that friary stuff, and by the way, this woman, Linda Darling Hammond is her name, She's one of the architects of SEL.
She's now an executive emeritus, emerita, I guess, from CASEL.
She worked with Obama's and Biden's education transition team.
She's not a small fry.
She actually wrote the foreword to the book called The Handbook of Social Emotional Learning in Research and Praxis back in 2015.
And in her foreword, she says that a school that's socially and emotionally competent is in line with Ferreri's project of transformation and humanization.
Which, those are Marxist words that mean that you're making people into Marxist consciousness.
And so, social-emotional learning is a brainwashing program, frankly.
And the way that it works is because of Ferreri's model, which we now know in writing that it's based upon, explicitly.
They don't hide it.
They don't try to hide it.
The idea is that you're going to use academic material.
Math is going to be taught through an SEL lens to teach, say, relationship skills or self-management.
You get stressed out when you do math.
Math's hard.
I'm a mathematician.
Believe me, math's hard.
And so you get stressed out.
Kids get stressed out.
So we're going to have self-management, right?
But then what you do is you use that as an excuse to start to have a particular political conversation about what it means to manage yourself in a woke or sustainable or whatever the buzzword of political reference is.
And they're therefore turning, using social-emotional learning as the entry point to turn every academic subject into a social-emotional subject.
And then when they turn it into that, it actually becomes taught through an equity lens, an inclusion lens, or a sustainability lens.
The Sustainable Development Goals from the United Nations are actually a huge thing that's moving into the SEL space right now.
UNESCO's been writing about it for a few years in very kind of creepy ways.
The NEA has started to write about it explicitly and deliver model curriculum to teach children from A through 12 to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, and social-emotional learning is the tool by which they're being taught to do it.
And so it's literally a brainwashing tool.
That comes in a nice beautiful package of we're going to teach kids to be nice and manage their emotions and so on.
So do teachers know that they're doing this sort of stuff?
Like how conscious are the people who are actually implementing this stuff?
That this is what they're implementing or is it mostly, you know, good hearted third grade teacher, they go into school, this is the program they're given by the principal and so you do what the principal tells you to do.
I think there's a lot, a lot of that.
I think there's also some knowing, again with the co-conspirator thing, we know that there's a small percentage who know very deliberately that they're doing what they're doing.
From people I've spoken with, I haven't spoken directly first-hand with anybody from CASL, but I have a second-hand, a couple of second-hand accounts from very smart individuals for, you know, institutional DC types.
I won't name any names at the moment, but they've gone and had meetings with the CASL, and the people at CASL even don't seem to have any idea of what they're actually implementing in many cases, except if you get maybe up to the executive level.
So there's this idea with all cults that they actually work like onions.
There's an inner circle in any given cult, and they actually know what's really going on.
In a communist situation, that's your party leaders.
And then around that, there's like a shell of the party, and those are actually fully committed.
It's not quite the inner circle, but it's still kind of disciple level.
And then outside of that, you have what's literally sometimes called, at least in China, the inner school.
In Chinese, it's 内教, the inner school, which is the people who have studied.
It's 学习 in Chinese.
They've studied the relevant doctrine.
Then outside of that, and this is most of the people that are involved in the cult and the people who are mostly being exploited by the cult, you have what's called the outer school.
In Chinese, it's 外教.
And those people don't usually know.
They have morally committed.
They've socially committed.
Sometimes they perceive, in fact, often they perceive that there's something wrong with what's happening.
But that perception of having something wrong is often turned through the inner school cult doctrine into convincing them that they're just not committed enough, and that they're bad people, and that their doubts are part of the problem.
And you can start to reminisce on your DEI, unconscious bias, white fragility trainings, and see what role those play.
But you have also teachers who are uncomfortable with it and speaking out, others who think it's just a good thing, others who are, it's just my job, man, I'm just here to do my job.
The banality of evil, and unfortunately, there's this very ambiguous and vague characterization.
You can't pick out any given teacher and say, oh, you're a bad person because you're participating.
They very well may not know.
Some of them perceive it, and then that's used against them.
Some of them perceive it and speak up, and they are often punished for it.
And it can be very subtle, too.
It's sold as a means of engagement, of getting the kids more interested.
It's a great time, actually, to give you that example of how they can weave it into a math lesson.
This is a real example from a real SEL training that a real teacher who really got fired for calling out SEL in her school told me from one of her trainings.
I've said this in a million places.
Everybody needs to hear this, though, because this is how subtle it can be.
It doesn't have to be as exorbitant or overt as a drag queen in your library or something, which is the same thing.
But it can be this subtle.
The word problem.
Second grade subtraction.
Don't sweat.
Math is hard, but you got this.
Johnny is riding with his mom and dad in the car on the way to the amusement park.
The amusement park is 50 miles away.
They've already driven 30 miles.
How much further do they have to drive?
Okay, and so you think, imagine seeing that in your children's homework.
Okay, who's going to object to this?
Well, it turns out, Ferreri's project is that you pick certain words and use them as generative themes to generate political conversations off of that.
So, a teacher being trained in this SEL method or cultural competence method or culturally relevant teaching method is going to look at that, give it to the class and say, before we answer the question, let's do this.
Who's been to an amusement park before?
See, now you're just getting them engaged.
You're getting second graders interested.
Some kids raise their hand, some kids don't.
You say, well, why is it that some of you have got to go to amusement parks and some of you haven't?
Why are some reasons why kids maybe wouldn't get to go to amusement parks?
And you're taught in the teacher training to keep pressing until somebody says, well, maybe not everybody can afford it.
Or, well, my parents won't let me.
So now you're ready to have a political conversation you've generated out of the word amusement park.
You've generated a political conversation about socialism, redistribution, or parental authority, which is a major theme that we're seeing now.
Well, maybe some parents, should the school be making maybe some of these decisions instead?
Don't you think you should be making decisions instead of your parents?
Or you could go off of obviously riding in a car, you're having an environmental conversation, mom and dad, which no normal person two years ago would have thought mom and dad there is a trigger.
But it's a generative theme, as Freire would call it.
Do all families look like that class?
Does everybody have a mom and dad?
No, I only have a mom.
Now you're having a conversation about feminism.
No, we have two moms.
Now you're having a conversation about all the sexuality stuff.
Does anybody else feel this way?
Is that okay?
And they are led into this equity-framing or sustainability-framing dialogue.
And the math lesson just kind of got set over here and forgotten about.
And allegedly, it's supposed to make the kids more interested in learning math lessons.
So what they're being taught in education schools Under the Freerian model and what they're being taught in their professional development training, as in this exact example, is this will make the kids do better in math because it'll make them want to learn math because it'll relate to the real context of their lives.
And that's the sales pitch and that's the hook.
But what you've actually done is hijacked a math lesson and instead of working out that problem and maybe 10 others for practice, you've now had a 45-minute conversation about feminism in your math class and called it math.
Did you know it takes up to 11 weeks on average to hire for an open position?
That's almost three months.
If you're hiring for a growing business, do you have that kind of time?
Well, I have some advice for you.
Stop waiting.
Start using ZipRecruiter.
ZipRecruiter can help you find qualified candidates for all your roles fast.
ZipRecruiter uses a powerful matching technology to quickly find and send you the most qualified people for your roles.
When you find a candidate you like, you can personally invite them to apply with one click.
which may make them apply even sooner.
Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within day one.
Right now, you can try it for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash BenGuest.
So, speed up your hiring process with ZipRecruiter.
See why 3.8 million businesses have come to ZipRecruiter for their hiring needs.
Try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash BenGuest.
Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash B-E-N-G-U-E-S-T.
ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
That's why I've been using it here at Daily Wire for years.
The fact is, very hard to find the best employees, but ZipRecruiter makes it easy.
Head on over to ZipRecruiter.com slash Ben Guest.
That's ZipRecruiter.com slash Ben Guest.
Try it for free.
Okay, so let's talk about the best way to fight this sort of stuff, because you have seen this battle sort of break out on the right between, I'd say, the libertarian right and the sort of more traditionalist conservative right.
So Florida's actually a great example of this.
You have the new college, which is now being taken over, essentially by conservatives, who have said, okay, we're not interested right now in Let a thousand flowers bloom.
This is a left-wing organization.
We are cleaning it out and we are putting in a bunch of people who are going to teach
more traditional ideas about the United States and American history and economics.
We're not going to do DEI.
We're not going to do equity.
We're not going to do any of the SEL stuff that you're talking about.
No critical race theory.
None of that.
We are just going to teach you what you traditionally would have learned in a United States college
in 1960, plus all subsequent developments.
That's what it's going to be.
We're going to teach traditional philosophy.
And then you have some people who are sort of on the libertarian right who say, no, no, no, no.
It has to look more like University of Austin, right?
The ideal institution is an institution that's open to all and where you have the critical pedagogy at the institution, but you also have people who are critical of the critical pedagogy at the institution.
The suggestion that you seem to be making is that the former approach may be better than the latter approach, because you're assuming in the latter approach that the people who are teaching critical pedagogy, or who are teaching based on Freire, that they actually want to be part of the game, and they fundamentally do not want to be part of the game, so what you're really doing when you say, let's open it up to everybody, is you're allowing people who want to destroy the institution into the institution.
That's right.
I actually tend not to, in my own personal leanings, I think many people know that, Lean very strongly conservative in these regards.
But in this case, the people who, as you said, they don't want to be a part of the game.
They want to break the game.
In fact, they want to break your children as part of their game.
And they have to be removed from the position of power that they're abusing.
People have to understand.
This is that same thing we talked about with academics before.
Critical theory is not a bunch of ideas.
It is a cult.
It is—critical pedagogy is cult indoctrination.
There's no other way to see it when you actually understand what they're doing.
This isn't—and this isn't a situation where it is a university.
I mean, we are talking about New College here and University of Austin, so we are talking specifically, but we're worried about K-12.
This is a very different situation.
You're going to bring in—you hear this argument made all the time.
Oh, teach the critical race theory and teach them why critical race theory is wrong.
Really?
First of all, there's not enough time.
Second of all, they can't even teach these kids arithmetic.
You're going to now get into this.
Third of all, these are children.
Children do not think the same way as adults.
You may forget that when you get older, but they don't.
They have an authority figure telling them these things, some of which are very emotionally resonant, very psychologically and socially resonant.
We're not operating in a field of, you know, open debate.
The marketplace of ideas doesn't exist for seven-year-olds.
It just doesn't.
Children need boundaries.
They have to grow up within boundaries.
They, of course, have to, as they age, they have to be able to press on the boundaries.
And then we figure out, as adults, how to responsibly expand the boundaries according to their, you know, their ability and their demonstrated prowess and whatever else.
Sometimes we have to restrict some of the boundaries.
This is the job of parenting.
And so when you have teachers, they're not parents, they're acting in loco parentis, they have a similar responsibility placed upon them.
You're not dealing with a situation where it's like, oh, let's just have an open debate with seven-year-olds.
Where you have, obviously, an adult and a bunch of kids.
They talk in critical pedagogy about the democratic classroom, and the teacher is a student, and the student are the teachers, and they learn from each other reciprocally.
Actually, Polifari literally calls this in Pedagogy of Freedom almost a dozen times, and I quote, the Gnostic cycle.
They give you no bones about what's actually – when I say it's a cult, I literally
mean it is a cult.
This is the Gnostic cycle.
They say that.
You have an adult and seven-year-olds.
You are not talking about a conversation between equals.
That's why the word groomer is so appropriate because when you have an adult coming down
and breaking down the boundary of authority between adult and child, which is a boundary
that gets blurry at the end of adolescence by nature but it isn't blurry with adults
and children and it must be maintained even through the challenges of adolescence.
You have a person breaking that down and then adding in the suggestion that maybe your parents won't understand, maybe your parents aren't the people to go back to, and then they're Using a blatant political lens through which to interpret the entire world, that's ideological grooming.
We don't have to get to the sexual side, which of course it opens the door for.
Just as the simplest, least accusatory way, how are you going to screen for sexual misfeasance?
If you can't even tell, if the whole game is to break down boundaries between the adult and the child, how are you going to screen for it?
And so what do you expect is going to happen?
The incentives are there, people are going to go into the profession, and the next thing you know you're going to have, just like we see in the news finally now, not a year ago, I got grilled by the Washington Post.
Where's the evidence that there's real grooming?
I said, it's coming.
And what do we see now?
Story after story after story.
Loudoun County.
Horrific.
Same thing outside of Chicago.
Horrific.
We're seeing it all over the country.
Of course it is.
Because you have no screening mechanism.
And that's the least of the worries.
But that's why grooming is the right word.
Ideological grooming is the right word for this practice.
This doesn't belong in K-12 schools.
If you want to make a case that maybe it fits in a university, I think you are erring, but we're now talking about adults.
Young adults in a life-changing situation college, so they're vulnerable adults for ideological capture.
But they're still at least adults.
When we're talking about children, that argument makes no sense whatsoever.
Even in the context of college, the big problem with critical race theory is, as you've mentioned before, it's a practice.
It's not about a theory.
It's not a theory of how the world works in which you can critique the theory or say that the theory has errors here or errors there.
The only way to truly attack critical race theory is to point to the intentions of the people who are promulgating it.
And that is inherently unstable, and so what you end up having is critical race theorists claiming that the system that is the United States is motivated by evil, and then you have those people who are responding saying, no, you're motivated by evil.
So it's just an argument about motivation, so it's not actually an intellectual argument at all.
Correct.
It's mainly just a series of accusations about character.
To get back to the groomer debate, there's been this whole debate inside right-wing circles over maybe we shouldn't use the word groomer now.
Let's be real about how this started.
It started as a meme.
It was clearly a meme.
People on the left were saying, okay, boomer, and that was just widely used.
And people started saying, okay, groomer, to refer to people who are on the left and who are recruiting kids into particular ideology.
And the left, because they didn't like being memed, decided that when people on the right said groomer,
what they meant was, we are accusing you of raping our children.
And that is not what anyone meant by groomer originally.
The notion that the core of that meme was that there were teachers who were attempting
to groom seven-year-olds so that they could have sex with them.
That is not what that meant.
What that meant was you are taking kids away from their parents and you are teaching them
that their parents are bad and that the teachers are good.
And that you are essentially indoctrinating them into a system of thought their parents would not agree with.
You are grooming them in a particularly ideological way.
That's right.
And so, ideological was always written into the word groomer.
It was only that the left then tried to play this game of, well, it's transphobic or homophobic, and what you're really saying is that a gay teacher is trying to rape a child.
It's like, that's not what anyone was saying.
You guys deliberately do what you always do, and you did a linguistic switch here,
and you relied on the semantic overload that the word groomer can support
in order to argue against that.
And that's what that Washington Post piece was.
It was asking you, substantiate your use of the term groomer.
Show me all the cases of teachers who are attempting to groom kids for sex.
That's not even what I was talking about in the first place.
That's what I told her, yeah.
That's what I said.
It is.
It's exactly about the ideological grooming.
And Drag Queen Story Hour actually becomes perfect to talk about this,
because first of all, it's glaring.
But, you know, it raises so many questions.
Why a drag queen?
Well, it turns out they wrote a paper about this.
I did my best work possible.
I did a podcast on it.
I did two giant threads on Twitter.
I wrote an essay.
I did the best work that I possibly could to popularize this academic paper.
It's called Drag Pedagogy.
It's written by a trans educator by the name of Harper Keenan and one of the drag queens who goes by Lil Miss Hot Mess.
That's what's on the academic paper byline, Loomis Hot Mess.
And they explained that, first of all, I said that word generative with Ferrari, right?
They explained that the presence of the drag queen and his performance is a generative practice, provocative, evocative for the children and into
what? Into queer ways of living and being. They say that it's less a sanitizing force against
drag, to answer that criticism people give of it because it is to bring it into a
kindergarten, they have to act a little bit differently or they did it first, sanitizing drag from
its gnarly roots. It's less a sanitizing force and I quote, then it is a preparatory introduction,
call it initiation, a preparatory introduction into alternate modes of kinship, which they
then follow by saying drag is family friendly in the sense that we mean family.
Wink.
We mean family in the sense of the queer family you find on the street.
And it's like, holy moly, what word do you use for this, right?
I know a G word that you should use for this.
The last sentence in the paper says, we'll leave a trail of glitter that will never come out of the carpet.
But the carpet's your children's brains.
What word do you use for this, if we're not allowed to use the word that I got kicked off of Twitter for?
I might have started the OK Groomer thing to at least popularize it.
Some radfams got really upset when I think I took credit for it.
And they've said, no, we were doing it on our forums.
And I'm like, I'm sorry, nobody reads your forums.
They're a little catty, but they are.
So at any rate, What word fits?
This is obviously, what does queer ways of living and being mean?
What does alternate modes of kinship refer to when they say that the goal is to induce children into strategic defiance and rule breaking?
With adults, men dressed as women who want to be around children doing provocative Edgy, maybe even sexual performances.
Rule-breaking?
Alternate modes of kinship?
What are we doing here?
So it becomes very clear, but the other G word, like I said though, is generative.
The goal is to get them to want to ask the question, is it okay for a boy to dress as a girl?
Why do boys have to dress like boys and girls dress like girls?
Let's talk about gender.
Let's talk about gender constructs.
Oh, there's the GSA club after school.
And if you're having some questions, we will affirm you I'd love bomb you, in other words, and start bringing you in, and then we'll teach you to criticize, you know, yourself for your past transphobia, blah, blah, blah.
And you can see the whole grooming cycle into this ideological cult.
It's a perfect example, and that could be if every drag queen that shows up in a classroom is perfectly clean and sanitary and well-behaved, not just within the law, but has no even ill intent, no pedophilic intent.
It's still very blatantly, even the way they word it and phrase it, Of course, they also say in the paper that all transformative practice is driven by desire, which again, you wrote that down and somebody published it, not in a fringe, by the way, in a major curriculum journal, Curriculum Inquiry, one of the largest.
I mean, it is astonishing stuff.
And the fact they say it out loud and people are just kind of okay with it because it's put in academic language is really an amazing thing.
And this is something that I've been sort of re-terminating.
I've been coining or pushing the rebranding of progressivism into transgressivism because there is a big difference between people who argue in favor of bad socialistic economic ideas and what
we're seeing now, which is essentially the idea that all rules must be transgressed.
That's right.
And that true authenticity lies in how many rules you do transgress.
And therefore what you're actually doing when you ideologically groom small children is
you're liberating them from the boundaries of the rules and roles and responsibilities
that their parents are placing upon them.
And so it's an active good to put confusing things and upsetting things in front of children
specifically so that they will be confused and upset and so they will ask all the sorts
of questions that you're talking about.
And so the burden of proof is now placed on the parents to defend the traditional and
the normal and yes, the natural.
It is natural for men to dress as men and women to dress as women.
The burden of proof has now shifted to the parent as opposed to the person who wishes to break all of the systems.
So explain why is it an affirmative good for men to dress as women?
Explain why is it an affirmative good for a man dressed as a woman to twerk in front of a child?
Explain why all of these things are positive for society.
The burden of proof has completely shifted to Why are you arguing that it's... Are you trying to say something bad about gay people if you say that men shouldn't work in front of children while they're dressed as strippers?
What are you saying about yourself?
What are your intentions?
Yeah, that's the dialectical inversion.
That's the term.
I mean, it's a very technical-sounding term, but that's what's happening.
The thing I described at the beginning, the dialectical inversion technique, that's what they're doing to you.
And it is a manipulation.
It's a very strategic manipulation.
They're very good at it.
And it's kind of...
Get the hang of it.
It's very heady.
You get a lot of power.
There's a lot of draws to it.
The buzzword in the academic writing about what they're doing with that when you're liberating the child is giving them autonomy.
The more rules you break, the more autonomous you are.
Rules are you following the strictures of society that you're being dictated to by the social constructions and their social and political enforcement.
So when you break the rules, you're becoming more autonomous.
Rather than growing into a mature autonomy, Where you're actually a functional person within the boundaries of reality and truth.
They're teaching them, as you said, I think transgressive is an excellent way to frame this because they use that word all the time.
They're transgressing boundaries.
That was Alan Sokol's hoax papers titled Transgressing the Boundaries.
Literally, but it's in there.
They say that they want to be transgressive because ultimately what they want to do, and I'll use the word that they don't usually use for this, is transmute, which is an alchemical word, transmute society into something different.
So to do that, they have to transmute the economic structure and transmute the people who are going to fill that economic structure simultaneously.
And so now you see the big picture.
Why are all the corporations going woke and why are all the schools going woke?
Because you're going to have kids who have woke competencies as their main academic credentials getting plugged into companies that are hiring off of woke credentials with a new, you know, whatever ESG or whatever model they happen to have.
So they're building out the economy and the people are going to plug into it.
Why?
Because they understand that the problem of reproduction will then make their hegemony solid.
And so that's what their objective is.
And that's why education is in such a dangerous state, not just in terms of how do you get parents to fight back against this, because that starts with even just being able to see what's happening, which is why I wrote Marxification of Education, because nobody can see what's happening.
It's a magic trick.
Once you see the magic trick, then you can see what the guy did with the card, unless he's really good at it.
It also is going to take these kinds of steps like figuring out who are the people, at least, who are these people that the activists are calling co-conspirators?
Get them out.
They're gone.
That's it.
You lose your job for that.
Whatever political changes about teacher tenure or whatever have to come to facilitate, they've got to go.
Your average person implementing it?
Eh, we'll see.
That's another question.
That's another layer.
But the co-conspirators?
Gone.
Outright activists, the kind of things that, like, Libs of TikTok regularly documents, those people who need to at least be in inquiry, probably gone.
The administrators that are backing this up, gone.
They've got to be removed from the positions of power that they're abusing, and there's no other way.
I wish there was another way, but this is well within our rights as a society to say, we've trusted you with, frankly, because it's in loco parentis, a sacred Responsibility and you are throwing it back in our faces in obviously very transgressive ways.
This cannot be.
This cannot continue.
Folks, this conversation continues for another 30 minutes over at dailywireplus.com.
We discuss if the radical left's cultural transgressivism—Drag Queen Story Hour, BLM, and the like—are no longer a means to an end goal, but rather the end goal themselves.
Plus, how corporations weaponize woke ideology, and if corporations have their own kind of quasi-deep state.
Click the link at the top of the description to join us.
▲
Export Selection