WHAT THE GREEN NEW DEAL IS REALLY ABOUT — AND IT’S NOT THE CLIMATE

Watts Up With That?
By Allan M.R. MacRae,
B.A.Sc., M.Eng.

On July 4, 2019, I published the article “THE COST TO SOCIETY OF RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM”.
 
There was a reason why this article was published on July 4. My article begins:

Ever wonder why extremists attack honest scientists who oppose global warming and climate change hysteria? Ever wonder why climate extremists refuse to debate the science?
IT IS BECAUSE GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISM WAS NEVER ABOUT THE SCIENCE – IT WAS ALWAYS A FALSE NARRATIVE, A SMOKESCREEN FOR THE TOTALITARIAN OBJECTIVES OF THE EXTREME LEFT.

Some people may think this was statement was inaccurate, or that I was being unfair. However, one week after my article was published, Democratic New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, fully verified my statement. He said, as written in the article below:

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said… … “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” Chakrabarti added.

Following is another excerpt from my July 4 article that demonstrates how utterly impractical the Green New Deal is – the Green New Deal is energy and economic lunacy – it cannot work:

Read more

Smith: An Examination Of The Leftist Cult And Their Religion

Brandon Smith
Alt-Market.com

There is a common misconception among newer activists in the liberty movement that the idea of the “false left/right paradigm” means that there is no political spectrum; that the entire notion of left vs right is a fabrication. This is not exactly the case. When we talk about false paradigms in regards to politics (or geopolitics), what we are actually referring to is the elitist class, otherwise known as globalists, and the fact that they have no left or right political orientation. They do not care about Democrats or Republicans, they have no loyalty to either party. Their loyalty is to their own agenda, and they will exploit BOTH sides to get what they want whenever possible.

Beyond the globalists, average people do indeed fall on a political spectrum that could be broken down and simplified to a set of basic ideals or ideologies. On the left side of the spectrum we find the collectivists and socialists, who believe that society (the group) is vastly more important than the individual and that the actions of individuals must be strictly monitored and governed to prevent negative effects on the group.

The core argument of the leftists is:

“We are all a part of society and must act in harmony with society so that the system continues to function. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...”

On the right side of the spectrum we find the individualists, sovereignty activists and true conservatives. People who, in varying degrees, believe that society should be restricted from dictating the life of the individual and that group participation should be voluntary. Where leftists seek to centralize, people on the right seek to decentralize.
The argument of the conservative is:

“Without the individual the group does not exist. The group is an abstraction created in the mind. When groups do form they should only exist to serve and protect the inherent rights of individuals, not be used as a mechanism of control by weak people who are afraid to function on their own...” 

Read more

Academic Study Exposes Google's Left-Leaning Media Bias

Zero Hedge

According to data compiled by researchers from Northwestern University, Google's left-wing bias has been exposed.

Researchers from Northwestern University have used an algorithm to study Google search results - and found an overwhelming left-leaning bias towards news outlets such as CNN and The New York Times, which the search giant repeatedly promoted in November, 2017 according to the Daily Mail.

Of the 6,302 articles that appeared in Google's Top Stories box during November, 2017, 62% were from outlets considered to be left-leaning. CNN constituted 10% of the news promoted, while the New York Times and Washington Post came in at 6.5% and 5.6% respectively. 

Fox News, on the other hand, accounted for just 3% of promoted stories.

Columbia Journalism Review

Nearly all (86 percent) of the stories came from just 20 sources and of them, 62 percent were considered to be left-leaning. 

The research sheds new light on the unprecedented power the search engine has in influencing the external traffic to news sites, a hot topic in the worlds of media and politics given Facebook's recently reduced output. 
For example, the researchers found that CNN got a 24 percent bump in traffic as a result of having its stories featured in the 'Top Stories' box. 

The most featured sources, in order, were CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Fox News, BBC, USA Today, LA Times, The Guardian, Politico, ABC News, CBS News, NPR, NBC News, CNBC, Reuters, Huffington Post, The Verge, Al Jazeera, The Hill and People. -Daily Mail

In one example, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was written about in at least 38 sources, however 75% of those promoted by Google came from The New York Times and CNN, according to the study. 

What's more, Google promoted newer articles which were just a few hours old over older ones. 

Read more

‘Creepy tech oligarchs want to dictate your opinions’

spiked-online.com

Paul Joseph Watson on being banned from Facebook.

Paul Joseph Watson’s sardonic YouTube monologues against social-justice warriors, mass immigration and modern art have racked up millions of views and have even caught the attention of President Donald Trump. Last week, Facebook designated Watson a ‘dangerous individual’ and banned him permanently, alongside others on the right. spiked caught up with this ‘dangerous individual’ to find out more about social-media censorship. 

spiked: How did you find out you had been banned from Facebook?

Paul Joseph Watson: I received no notification whatsoever from Facebook. Facebook did not even send me a stock email to tell me my page had been deleted. I found out about it by media reports. I was on Twitter trawling through my feed. I saw CNN: ‘Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer and Milo Yiannopoulos have been banned.’ I thought, ‘Oh, really?’. I checked my Facebook and my Instagram and they were still up. They were still active for about half an hour after the first media reports came out. So immediately that tells you that they had given the story to the media, to get their justification out ahead of time, so that they could own the narrative.

They gave the story to the same media outlets like CNN, where their journalist Oliver Darcy has spent the past 18 months lobbying the social-media firms to ban CNN’s competition. People like Darcy have been abusing their platform and acting as activists rather than journalists, going to Facebook, YouTube and Twitter and saying repeatedly, ‘Oh, doesn’t this post violate your policy? Doesn’t this violate your policy?’. 

It’s not just Darcy. There is also the likes of Jared Holt at Right Wing Watch and Will Sommers at the Daily Beast, who have been very successful in silencing a great percentage of the online people who were instrumental in getting Trump elected. This has never been about ‘bullying’, ‘harassment’ or ‘hate’, whatever those mean; it’s about them fomenting this political purge ahead of the 2020 elections. 

Read more

Noah Carl Releases 'Devastating Point-by-Point Rebuttal of The Charges Levelled Against Him'

Chris Menahan
InformationLiberation

Social scientist Noah Carl, who was sacked last week by the University of Cambridge and stripped of his fellowship for conducting research deemed "problematic," on Tuesday released a "devastating point-by-point rebuttal ... of the charged levelled against him by the radical left."

Birkbeck University professor Eric Kaufmann shared Carl's rebuttal on Twitter, writing: "A devastating point-by-point rebuttal by Noah Carl of the charges levelled against him by the radical left, whose smear campaign is strong on religious fervour and guilt-by-association, but weak on logic and evidence."  

 As to his firing, Carl said he'll "address that question in due course" but for moment he's "still receiving legal advice."

Here's some highlights from Carl's extensive statement:

Last December, 586 academics signed an open letter accusing you of “racist pseudoscience”. That many academics can’t all be wrong, can they?

Given that the open letter demonstrated a basic lack of understanding of the relevant science, it would seem that 586 academics can indeed all be wrong. For example, as Jeff McMahan pointed out in his comments for the first Quillette Editorial:

One passage in the open letter demands that the various institutions cited "issue a public statement dissociating themselves from research that seeks to establish correlations between race, genes, intelligence and criminality in order to explain one by the other." This seems to imply that it is illegitimate to seek to explain any one of the four characteristics by reference to any one of the others, and thus that no aspect of intelligence can be explained by an individual's genes. I would not trust the competence of anyone who endorses a claim that has that implication to judge the work of a candidate for a research fellowship.

And Professor McMahan is absolutely correct: the signatories of the open letter were calling for St Edmund's College to "issue a public statement dissociating themselves" from research backed by overwhelming scientific evidence. In fact, the contribution of genes to variation in human intelligence has been widely accepted by psychologists since at least 1996, when the report 'Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns' was published by the American Psychological Association (APA). This report, co-authored by Professor Ulric Neisser and his colleagues in the aftermath of The Bell Curve debate, concluded that "a sizable part of the variation in intelligence test scores is associated with genetic differences among individuals". Evidence for a genetic contribution to variation in human intelligence has only strengthened since the publication of the APA report.

Read more

Jordan Peterson warns against liberalism's 'totalitarian tilt': 'The left has gone too far'

"I think that any attempt to pursue equality of outcome is doomed to a totalitarian tilt, because it's technically impossible to equalize outcomes across all possible identity groups". 

-----------------------

RT

Controversial academic Jordan Peterson told RT's Afshin Rattansi that the left's obsession with equality of outcome is doomed to failure, advocating instead for individuals to assume greater personal responsibility.

"It seems to be very difficult for people on the left to draw a line between what's acceptable and what's unacceptable," Peterson told the host of RT's Going Underground when asked to comment on the rise in popularity of socialism-friendly politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn.

While acknowledging that the moderate left has ushered in labor laws and other reforms which have benefited society, the Canadian professor argued that the emphasis on "diversity, inclusivity and equity is a sign that the left has gone far too far."

Calls for equality of outcome, as opposed to equality of opportunity, particularly worry Peterson, who has become a pariah among liberals after he spoke out against gender-neutral pronoun legislation being proposed in Canada - an intellectual rebellion which launched 
 him into the limelight. 

Read more

ESL Students Learn New Gender Pronouns

We the Internet TV

 An English teacher tries to teach the 62 new gender pronouns to a class of foreign, non-English speaking students. Subscribe for more funny videos every week! As gender identities get more complex, people are picking their own preferred gender pronouns. How do you explain the 63 new pronouns to a class of non-native English speakers? In this sketch, an ESL (English as a Second Language) Teacher tries to do just that to a classroom of students from other countries. There's a lot to cover - from a list of genders to trans pronouns to gender neutral pronouns to people's own preferred gender pronouns. And how do you pronounce xe or ze, anyway? What do you think - and what's your preferred pronoun - he, she, they, it, ze, xe, xi, or another one? 

Let us know in the comments and subscribe for new videos every week. Follow us on social media for more videos, memes and other political comedy that makes fun of everyone! 

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WeTheInternetTV 

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/WeTheInternetTV 

Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/WeTheInternetTV 

Teacher: Shelly Shenoy Farhad: Gary Lee Mahmoud Luis: Lou Perez Yuki: Becky Yamamoto Students: Calvin Tran, Saima Huq, Daniel Folla

Liberal prof compares ideological opponents to flat-Earthers

Toni Airaksinen
Campus Reform

• A Seattle University professor claimed in a recent interview that debating whether "unconscious bias" deters women from entering STEM fields is like "debating if the Earth is flat."
• Responding to an article by Professor Stuart Reges, who argues that the evidence does not support that premise, Ruchika Tulshyan fretted that reading the article would itself make life harder for female STEM students.

Seattle University professor recently worried that women in STEM may feel bad after reading an article on innate sex differences, which she later claimed do not exist. 

The remark is the latest salvo from the academic community after University of Washington Professor Stuart Reges argued in Quillette that innate sex differences can help explain why women are less likely to study computer science.  

"Progressive ideology is so predominant on campus these days that faculty like Tulshyan are not used to being challenged."    

 

The professor, Ruchika Tulshyan, was responding to Reges’ claim that evidence supporting the “unconscious bias” hypothesis as the key explanation for the lack of women in STEM is “unraveling more day by day.”

Of the unconscious bias hypothesis, Reges said “I don’t think there’s strong scientific evidence [to support it anymore],” though he did note that the explanation is convenient because it “fits a nice political narrative that we live in an oppressive society.” 

Countering Reges, Tulshyan claimed that there is “a very, very strong body of evidence” affirming the role of unconscious bias in deterring women from entering STEM fields, though she would not cite any studies when reached by Campus Reform.

“I mean, it is extremely, extremely difficult, to argue against the evidence…I feel like we’re debating whether the earth is flat at this point,” Tulshyan told GeekWire during a recent podcast interview.

Further, she claimed that innate sex differences do not exist, saying that there are “fundamental differences between men and women in the way that they’ve been conditioned, not in the way that they’ve been hardwired.”  

Read more

A Year Ago I Wrote About Cross-Ideological Collaboration. Here’s How It’s Been Going:

"The more they can keep us factionalized, fragmented and insulated in tight echo chambers, the more politically impotent they make everyone in the world who opposes US imperialism, surveillance, CIA sociopathy and establishment cronyism. I speak from experience when I say that the walls of peer pressure, manipulation and manufactured taboos that they have erected around us to keep us from talking to each other are extremely high and very complex, but it's the only way sufficient force will ever be generated to shove any of the pillars of empire hard enough to make it fall." 

 

  "You can interact with people from other political ideologies and work with them to advance a mutual agenda. Everyone who has ever been employed in a normal job knows this for a fact. You can trust yourself to know on what issues and to what extent this can happen. You are wiser than the groupthink. Rise above it."

Caitlin Johnstone
caitlinjohnstone.com 

One year ago today I wrote an article titled “Lefties Need To Stop Being Shy About Working With The Anti-Establishment Right”, and Left Twitter exploded. To this day there are still some social media echo chambers in which this article is the primary thing I am known for.

I still think it was a decent article, and I stand by it. It was about how anti-establishment leftists can collaborate across ideological lines on specific points of mutual interest without compromising their principles, which to me is just an obvious no-brainer, and that people can trust themselves to know how and to what extent that collaboration can take place. Over the following few weeks, the actual contents of my article were falsely spun by Progressive Army, Counterpunch and a few other lefty thought leaders as “Caitlin Johnstone wants us to align with Nazis.”

None of the journalists or activists fanning the flames of this conspiracy theory ever reached out to me for comment, or even to try to convince me of the error of my ways. Not one private message, email or Twitter DM was ever sent to me (apart from one particularly virulent hater after I pointed this out publicly). This is because these people weren’t interested in my actual ideas or what I was actually saying, they were interested in advancing and controlling a narrative: Caitlin Johnstone wants leftists to become Nazis/facilitate Nazis, and anyone who ever suggests venturing outside their impotently small political faction to get things done is pulling a Caitlin Johnstone. My reputation in those circles now serves as a head on a spike warning off anyone from ever suggesting that leftists ever collaborate on any agenda with anyone besides (A) other leftists and (B) the centrists who are intrinsically opposed to ideas which run counter to the interests of America’s unelected power establishment.

The false narrative that a Hillary-hating leftist wants to collaborate with Nazis was shoved into mainstream attention by this faction of Left Twitter day after day after day, until eventually it caught the attention of left-punching centrists who, of course, took this false narrative and ran with it as an excuse to attack the left. The people responsible for aggressively and relentlessly promulgating this false narrative then went on to blame me for it.

Read more

Dark Ages: Scientists Are Being Purged From Universities for Doing Science

Watts Up With That?
Heather Heying, The Wall Street Journal

The postmodernist left on campus is intolerant not only of opposing views, but of science itself.

Who would have guessed that when America cleaved, the left would get the National Football League and the right would get uncontested custody of science?

The revolution on college campuses, which seeks to eradicate individuals and ideas that are considered unsavory, constitutes a hostile takeover by fringe elements on the extreme left. Last spring at the Evergreen State College, where I was a professor for 15 years, the revolution was televised—proudly and intentionally—by the radicals. Opinions not fitting with the currently accepted dogma—that all white people are racist, that questioning policy changes aimed at achieving “equity” is itself an act of white supremacy—would not be tolerated, and those who disagreed were shouted down, hunted, assaulted, even battered. 

Similar eruptions have happened all over the country.

What may not be obvious from outside academia is that this revolution is an attack on Enlightenment values: reason, inquiry and dissent. Extremists on the left are going after science. Why? Because science seeks truth, and truth isn’t always convenient.

The left has long pointed to deniers of climate change and evolution to demonstrate that over here, science is a core value. But increasingly, that’s patently not true.

The battle on our campuses—and ever more, in K-12 schools, in cubicles and in meetings, and on the streets—is being framed as a battle for equity, but that’s a false front. True, there are real grievances. Gaps between populations exist, for historical and modern reasons that are neither honorable nor acceptable, and they must be addressed. But what is going on at institutions across the country is—yes—a culture war between science and postmodernism. The extreme left has embraced a facile fiction.

Read more

Through the Looking Glass at Concordia University

Terry Newman
Quillette

It was in a class called Representations of Minorities in Documentary Film, the last elective I needed to receive my BA at Concordia University in Montreal, that I first realized something was very wrong. The class had just watched Sound and Fury, a 2000 Oscar-nominated documentary about deaf culture. The film follows a 6-year-old deaf girl named Heather and her family (several members of whom also are deaf) as they go back and forth on the issue of cochlear implants, a then-new technology that allows some deaf people to hear.

Heather wants cochlear implants so she can talk to people and hear lions. Her mother, too, opts for the implants. But when she discovers the implant will not be as effective for her, she changes her mind, and, without consulting her daughter, decrees that neither of them will be undergoing the procedure.

After the film ended, our professor asked students for their thoughts. When called on, I said that parents should try to make their children’s lives easier. If I remember my words correctly, I added: “They shouldn’t hold their children back from something that will help them grow.”

“You just feel that way because you’re white, cisgendered, abled, and privileged,” came the snarl from somewhere below. I looked down a few aisles to the front of the dark screening room. I saw the back of a mostly shaved head, with a lock of hair tied on top. I had never seen the back of this head before. And I never saw the front of it either, because the responder didn’t bother to look at me.

You don’t know me, I thought. What gives you the right to comment on who I am? My inner monologue started racing in my privileged Cape Breton accent. Ya, I’m right some privileged, b’y. I was abandoned by my mother, y’arse! I never knew my father. I grew up under a staircase, like Harry Potter. My hand shot up so I could respond. The professor ignored it. I kept it up and locked eyes with him, agitated. He looked away. The last few minutes of the class rolled on, with others talking about things I can’t even remember. The attack on my identity just hung there over the space, unchallenged, floating, settling into the upholstery of the chairs. Then the class was dismissed.

I walked out of the screening room feeling kind of shell-shocked. What was I to take from this? What were the other students to take from this? That the attack on my character warranted no rebuttal? That my race, my gender, and my sexual identity had all disqualified me from participating? The lesson seemed clear. My status as a mother of two young girls—unimportant. My opinions—unwanted. I learned the lesson so well that I did not again participate in that class for the rest of the semester.

My experience in that undergraduate film class was just a taste, an appetizer if you will, for the full-fledged graduate feast I was to consume at Concordia once my undergrad was finished. 

Read more

Neuro-Hacking the Mass Mind

Comment: For those who don't know Lucien Cerise's work (especially French speakers) here is the link to a two-part article I wrote last year on Cerise's book 'Neuro-Hackers: Reflections on Social Engineering'.

-----------------------------

M.K. Styllinski
Infrakshun.wordpress.com

[...]   One man who has explored the many-headed hydra of mass mind control is French author Lucien Cerise his essays of which have appeared predominantly on Alan Soral’s Égalité & Réconciliation website which offers a fusion of left-right politics and activism. (Remember Dieudonne M’bala M’bala?) These essays have been collated, updated and arranged by Cerise into a book Neuro-Hackers: Reflections on Social Engineering (2016) (Neuro-Pirates Reflexions Sur L’Ingenierie Sociale) published by Kontre Kulture.  He notes that “it is not really a collection, but rather a book written over four years [between 2012 and 2015] and in successive layers”. 

Obviously much of the book draws from a French perspective and how social engineering operates in the French culture. The author provides rich and detailed insights, both philosophical and dialectical, into the causes and effects of our mass mind paralysis in the face of a predominantly Western-backed “soft” totalitarianism.  Thus whether you are an American or a European, the revealed dynamics apply across all cultures. In this book you will read about the widespread and systemic use of cognitive infiltration or more appropriately, “neuro-hacking” which describes the institutionalised colonisation of our minds by pathological constructs designed to engineer conformity and compliance to social, cultural and geo-political directives.

I have translated key passages from the foreword  so that readers can gain an introductory flavour of his work.  It might be as well to start with the back cover which provides a synopsis of the contents:

“The first question that runs through this collection of texts is: ‘How to hack a brain?’ The second, essential question then immediately follows: “How to protect it?” This is because brain-hacking through social engineering and other processes is already a reality, and hackers are our brains. This ‘neuro-hacking’ can involve acting on the hardware, that is to say, on the biological and genetic substrate of the brain, but it can also involve acting on the software, that is to say, on the communication code that we learn from society. This code of epigenetic origin – this language, or software – comes to us from the socio-cultural bath into which we are plunged since childhood, imprinting on the brain its neuronal architecture. The study of social groups, their mode of construction and the links which structure them has allowed those who want to control crowds to act on its members, to modify their behaviour or even destroy them as individuals and groups – the ones most dependent on others. For individuals disconnected from any group, hierarchy, representation, or stereotype can only survive by developing symptoms of psychosis. By attacking the natural links, Oedipal ties of the masculine / feminine differentiation, but also of the parent / child hierarchy, by abolishing the notion of limits, whose overcoming in psychology is called perversion, it is society as a whole that is attacked. Destructured and made malleable – one can speak of a ‘liquid society’ – it will then be the plaything of a small oligarchy which will have nothing more to fear from the people whose souls it has appropriated.”

The author takes his inspiration from Neuro-Slaves, by Palo Cioni and Marco Della Luna, a work of cognitive science and social psychology which reviews the various methods of reducing a population to slavery by targeting the brain and bypassing its defence mechanisms.  From a macro-social perspective, one of the most importance principles he believes will counter the present directives of social engineering is the maintenance of a healthy, balanced national self-interest since a national health cannot be secured if we are at the behest of globalist visions, their economic warfare and all that comes with it. In fact, any individual, business or grouping that wishes to maintain a healthy psycho immunological system and to keep alive its spiritual and cultural traditions needs to develop true autonomy, sovereignty and self-determination before it can reach out and engage in the ideal of an “international altruism,” and indeed to allow an emergence of true community at home. In effect, without this independence of mind and natural political pragmatism we are prey to a continual hacking of our neurology, a psycho-virus that seeks to subvert, disinform and hijack constructive forms of perception which would otherwise, quite naturally lead to activities that would denote a rise in public awareness and critical thinking.

Read more

1968: The Birth of New Conformism

"... the movement that emerged in response to postwar conformism was to realise a new form of conformism. In the period between 1970 and 1990, most of the ideas associated with the countercultural movement became absorbed by mainstream society. The 1960s obsession with individual self-fulfilment and emotional and personal issues was thoroughly written into society’s cultural script.

***

Frank Furedi
Spiked

From the standpoint of history, 1968 represents a brief interregnum. It did mark the end of the apathetic era of the 1950s. But it also foreshadowed the era of depoliticised conformism that kicked in in the early 1970s.

To understand the meaning of 1968, one has to understand that, during the late 1940s and 1950s, Western societies were haunted by the legacy of the interwar era – an era in which the social structure, and the largely liberal values on which it was purportedly based, were called into question. Such was the postwar fear of drawing attention to what amounted to a crisis of legitimacy that critical thought was banished to the margins of intellectual life. The marginalisation of critique and dissent was aided by the postwar boom, which served to distract society from the political impasse prevailing over public life. The Cold War was useful in this respect. It reinforced the mood of political passivity, channeling the public’s attention towards uniting against an external enemy.

But suddenly, out of nowhere, the 1960s countercultural movement appeared on the scene. To many at the time, it seemed as if the world had been turned upside down. As the head of the conservative Adenauer Foundation in West Germany put it, ‘The revolt of 1968 destroyed more values than did the Third Reich’. The 1960s countercultural movement succeeded in forcing significant sections of society to question the values that underpinned their daily existence.

The highpoint of the countercultural moment was the revolt of French students in May 1968. Their revolt, which helped mobilise French workers and precipitated a general strike, appeared to many as the precursor of an era of radicalism. With good reason: in the months after May, student protests proliferated, the civil-rights movement grew further, and mass demonstrations against the war in South-East Asia continued to dominate the headlines. Yet, in spite of what appeared to be a building momentum, the radical moment soon passed away. By the early 1970s, the counterculture had become de-radicalised, and it gradually entered the mainstream in the form of youth culture.

Read more

Course Claims 'Objectivity' Is A 'White Mythology'

Toni Airaksinen
Campus Reform

Hobart and William Smith Colleges is offering a course next year to teach students how “objectivity” and “meritocracy” function as “white mythologies.”

“White Mythologies: Objectivity, Meritocracy, and Other Social Constructions” is a sophomore-level course taught by Kendralin Freeman and Jason Rodriguez, who are sociology and anthropology professors, respectively.

“This course explores the history and ongoing manifestations of ‘white mythologies’—long-standing, often implicit views about the place of White, male, Euro-American subjects as the norm,” explains the course description, which adds that students will also “explore how systematic logics that position ‘the West’ and ‘whiteness’ as the ideal manifest through such social constructions as objectivity, meritocracy, and race.”

Though neither Freeman or Rodriguez responded to a request for more information from Campus Reform, both professors have worked together for a few years, and notably co-authored an article in the journal of Whiteness and Education together.

Read More 

The Perilous State of the University: Jonathan Haidt & Jordan B Peterson

Comment: If you haven't managed to catch this conversation between Peterson and Haidt, this one's essential viewing. 

-------------------