VideoThink.net
Marxism
Woke Indoctrination Taints
Rotman MBA Business School
University of Toronto
Teach smart business? Or woke ideology? Rotman can't do both.
Radical feminism and divisive Marxist ideology will confuse Rotman's MBA students, corrupt Rotman's research, and taint the Rotman brand.
As we all know, a career in corporate management can be quite rewarding and lucrative. But how do people get started in that field? One common approach is to earn a business management degree, such as an MBA. Business management degree programs are popular among students who want to study practical subjects and learn how to make rational business decisions. Unfortunately, students don't always get what they pay for. For example, let's consider the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.
The Rotman School of Management
Rotman is a Canadian business school that offers various graduate business degrees, including MBAs. Earning an MBA can lead to a managerial job in a large corporation. For a two-year Rotman MBA, hopeful students pay upwards of $140,000, including tuition and living expenses. Much of what they're paying for is to learn how to think clearly about business.
However, compared to other business schools, Rotman may be less effective at teaching sound business judgment. The problem stems from the flawed reasoning that students may be learning at Rotman. The source of this illogical reasoning is an irrational left-wing ideology, known as Cultural Marxism. This irrational ideology has apparently taken root in the Rotman School of Management.
The Mendacity of Cultural Marxism
Essentially, Cultural Marxism is a dishonest philosophy. For example, it dismisses objective reality, and instead claims that our subjective perceptions are all that really matter. And since reality is subjective for Cultural Marxists, they feel entitled to invent whatever version of reality suits their political convenience. This is deceitful.
Also dishonest is the Cultural Marxist claim that Western culture is oppressive. In reality, we enjoy exceptional freedom here. The real oppression is elsewhere in the world, where millions of people are enslaved by their culture and tyrannized by their government.
The dishonesty of Cultural Marxism leads to a confusing tangle of false assumptions, contradictions, and irrational beliefs. Yet Cultural Marxists promote their irrational beliefs relentlessly, until they become "politically correct", and no one dares to publicly challenge them.
Cultural Marxism is Incompatible with Rotman's Mission
Being fundamentally false, Cultural Marxism undermines the realistic, practical, logical thinking that should be taught in all business degree programs. So inevitably, Cultural Marxism impairs business judgment. Any university that biases its programs in favor of Cultural Marxism is confusing and shortchanging its students.
Furthermore, the goal of Cultural Marxism is to undermine our culture and society, and establish an authoritarian Marxist regime instead. This has nothing to do with satisfying customers or increasing shareholder value, which should be top priorities for any business manager.
Since Cultural Marxism is nothing but a dishonest ideology focused on denying reality and achieving political goals, it cannot contribute constructively to the study of business management.
Unfortunately, there is considerable evidence that Cultural Marxism is deeply entrenched at the Rotman School of Management, as I will show you. However, to grasp the full implications, you'll first need to understand the context. This is because the politicization of Rotman is part of a much larger political upheaval that is spreading insidiously like a disease through our society. The consequences for our world could be dire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_philosophy
Cultural Marxism is Dishonest
To understand this, let's contrast two kinds of people: those who are honest, and those who are dishonest. Honest people believe in scientifically verifiable reality. They accept it and speak truthfully about it. In contrast, whenever dishonest people find reality inconvenient, they reject it, and pretend it's not real. In other words, they lie.
For example, Cultural Marxists claim that boys can be girls, and girls can be boys. They also claim that genital surgery can change a man into a woman. But there is no scientific basis for this claim. In reality, every cell in a man's body contains male chromosomes. Likewise, every cell in a woman's body contains female chromosomes. This is a biological reality that genital surgery cannot change.
Clearly, Cultural Marxists are out of touch with reality, and that puts them at a disadvantage: Having rejected reality, their logic is fundamentally flawed, and they fare poorly in any logical debate. So rather than debate the issues, they prefer to censor their opponents. Thus, their fear of logical debate motivates Cultural Marxists to be not just closed-minded, but aggressively intolerant.
Also motivating Cultural Marxists' intolerance is their absolute conviction that they are right. They believe they are right because they avoid considering viewpoints that differ greatly from their own. Of course, they do argue the finer points with each other, but only within their intellectual "safe space" where their core beliefs go unchallenged.
Thus, isolated in their ideological echo chamber, Cultural Marxists convince themselves that their cause is righteous. Championing such a purportedly righteous cause, they feel entitled to act unethically. For example, they feel entitled to censor opposing viewpoints, to smear opponents with false accusations of racism and sexism, and to physically assault opponents with antifa violence. Their cause is righteous, they believe, so the end justifies the means.
In fact, Marxists in general are infamous for employing whatever trickery, political coercion, or physical force they believe is necessary, to gain political power. The human cost can be devastating. We witnessed that in the 20th century, when the unrealistic utopian ideology of Marxist communism caused the deaths of as many as 100 million individuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/ideologue
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/want-to-understand-hillary-clinton-read-saul-alinsky
Universities are Enforcing Cultural Marxist Political Correctness
Currently, we are witnessing a protracted conflict between the two kinds of people – namely the honest, practical people, and the dishonest ideologues. This conflict is particularly intense on our university campuses. It would be comforting to know that our universities were unanimously supporting the side of honesty and scientifically verifiable reality, but they are not. Instead, they are typically supporting the dishonest Cultural Marxist extremists.
So, who is responsible? Certainly, many professors are to blame. They punish students for expressing views that are not "politically correct". And they coach other students to disrupt conservative speaking events. Indeed, many conservative events have been cancelled outright by university administrators. Those same administrators have also imposed regulations to severely restricted students' freedom of speech.
The authoritarianism of these professors and administrators is consistent with the advice of the pioneering Cultural Marxist, Herbert Marcuse. He advocated "intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left". In other words, he advocated censoring whomever he disagreed with.
Of course, such authoritarian censorship is necessary only because Cultural Marxists cannot credibly defend their own irrational beliefs. For example, Cultural Marxist professors cannot credibly defend their belief that reality is subjective. They cannot credibly defend their belief that our Western society is systemically oppressive. And they cannot credibly defend their belief that a person's "gender" depends not on their biology but instead on their mood.
Yet we have entrusted these charlatan professors with the task of educating our young adults and future leaders. So these professors have had a free hand at corrupting and indoctrinating countless thousands of university students with "politically correct" Cultural Marxist ideology.
Upon graduating, many of these brainwashed students have spread their subversive Cultural Marxist ideology in their workplaces. As they have risen through the ranks, they have become increasingly influential, and have collectively steered our society toward their radical Cultural Marxist convictions.
Now, there is nothing wrong with working peacefully to improve our society, but that's not what these radicals are doing. Instead, they are attempting to force their Cultural Marxist ideology on us all. Unfortunately, their pernicious ideology threatens to derail our scientific research, to corrupt our children, and to severely limit our freedom of speech.
Thus, the disturbing political and cultural changes we have been witnessing have not just happened by chance. They are actually consistent with the aims of Cultural Marxism. So, what exactly is Cultural Marxism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse
https://www.city-journal.org/html/free-speech-me-not-thee-12211.html
https://www.thefire.org/about-us/mission/
Cultural Marxism Defined
Cultural Marxism is a toxic brew of resentful ideologies and prejudices. It is a mix of Marxism, feminism, anti-white racism, and anti-male sexism. Lacking any individual leader, Cultural Marxists follow the dishonest theories promoted over the years by various Cultural Marxist professors. As they vary somewhat in their perspectives, Cultural Marxists do not normally refer to themselves as Cultural Marxists. Rather, they refer to themselves as radical feminists, LGBTQ activists, trans-gender activists, postmodernists, progressives, postcolonialists, and so on. Despite their apparent diversity, these Cultural Marxist factions share the same fundamental attitudes and beliefs: They hate Western civilization. They claim that every aspect of our culture is oppressive, including our norms, our values, and our art. And they pretend to champion the rights of women, children, non-whites, and homosexuals, while actually exploiting these people. In reality, Cultural Marxists' true aims are:
- to pervert our culture,
- to alienate us from our history,
- to extinguish our pride in our Western civilization, and
- to impose their fraudulent Cultural Marxist ideology on us all.
Actually, our Western civilization should be a source of great pride for us. It is obviously the greatest civilization in history, by far. It became great because our ancestors adopted realistic, enlightened norms and values. These norms and values have enabled us to prosper. For example, we value honesty, education, competence, initiative, responsibility, meritocracy, democracy, and freedom of speech. The prosperity resulting from these values has benefited everyone.
Yet Cultural Marxists claim that our norms and values are oppressive. They claim our norms and values are tools of a sinister conspiracy perpetrated by rich, powerful elites to dominate everyone else. The cure for this purported oppression, Cultural Marxists believe, is to destroy our culture and society, and replace it with an authoritarian Marxist regime. To accomplish this, Cultural Marxists foment distrust and animosity between our various races, between our various ethnic groups, and between the two sexes. Their intent is to weaken the fabric of our society, so that they can gain power. As Andrew Sullivan writes in New York Magazine:
"The animating goal of progressive politics is unvarnished race and gender warfare. What matters before anything else is what race and gender you are, and therefore what side you are on. And in this neo-Marxist worldview, fully embraced by a hefty majority of the next generation, the very idea of America as a liberating experiment, dissolving tribal loyalties in a common journey toward individual opportunity, is anathema.
There is no arc of history here, just an eternal grinding of the racist and sexist wheel. What matters is that nonwhites fight and defeat white supremacy, that women unite and defeat oppressive masculinity, and that the trans supplant and redefine the cis. What matters is equality of outcome, and it cannot be delayed. All the ideas that might complicate this — meritocracy, for example, or a color-blind vision of justice, or equality of opportunity rather than outcome — are to be mocked until they are dismantled. And the political goal is not a post-racial fusion, a unity of the red and the blue, but the rallying of the victims against the victimizers, animated by the core belief that a non-“white” and non-male majority will at some point come, after which the new hierarchies can be imposed by fiat."
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/obamas-legacy-has-already-been-destroyed.html
https://quillette.com/2018/06/06/liberal-democracies-rape-cultures
Why Cultural Marxists Hate Nuclear Families
To undermine our society, Cultural Marxists have infiltrated our institutions, including our news media and our education system. This has enabled them to brainwash countless millions of adults and children every year. In addition, they have infiltrated some liberal Christian churches. But for the most part, Christianity is incompatible with Cultural Marxism.
For one thing, Christianity supports our nuclear family structure, which consists of a mother, a father, and children. Since our family structure is a crucial building block of our society, Cultural Marxists want to undermine it. So they claim that our nuclear family structure makes women and children the slaves of men. This is apparently to sow distrust among children for their parents, and to provoke resentment among wives toward their husbands. No doubt, this pernicious propaganda has poisoned many marriages, and harmed many children.
Granted, some families are indeed dysfunctional. However, it is not the nuclear family structure itself that is at fault. We know this because many nuclear families do live very happily together.
Instead, the problem is that some men and women manage their family relationships poorly. Some have weak interpersonal skills, low self-esteem, or drug addictions. Others are stressed about their family finances or their careers.
Disregarding these common family issues, Cultural Marxists prefer to stir up feelings of victimhood and resentment, even if that drives families apart. After all, nuclear families are oppressive, Cultural Marxists believe. Hence, in their supposedly righteous war on our culture, broken families and ruined lives are mere collateral damage. The end justifies the means, they believe.
Cultural Marxists Hate Heterosexuality Too
To further undermine nuclear families, Cultural Marxists disparage heterosexuality. As we all know, heterosexuality is the natural biological attraction that men and women feel for each other. This attraction motivates men and women to get married and raise children. Since nuclear families are based on heterosexuality, Cultural Marxists denigrate it.
In particular, they blame heterosexual white men for oppressing everyone else. As fathers, men supposedly oppress their children. As husbands, men supposedly oppress their wives. And as leaders, heterosexual white men manipulate our culture to oppress everyone else, according to Cultural Marxists.
To atone for having perpetrated this purported oppression, heterosexual white men are expected to feel guilty and ashamed. Meanwhile, everyone else is encouraged to feel bitterly resentful. The promotion of this hateful identity politics is a key Cultural Marxist strategy, aimed at unraveling the fabric of our society.
Cultural Marxism is Addictive
So, what has caused the all this resentment? It cannot be explained by any unfairness in our society, as our society is the fairest and most prosperous that has ever existed. What has really given Cultural Marxism its extraordinary momentum is its emotional addictiveness. It's like an addictive drug that induces immediate euphoria, with little or no effort. Likewise, a similar kind of effortless euphoria can be achieved simply by signaling one's virtue, by blaming others, and by claiming victimhood.
Anyone who claims victimhood is automatically rewarded with social status in the world of Cultural Marxism. Of course, victimhood can never be claimed by heterosexual white men. They are the evil oppressors. But for everyone else, victimhood status offers satisfaction without requiring any talent or effort. Moreover, people who claim victimhood are entitled to blame their failures on their supposed oppressors, and thereby enjoy feeling morally superior. That feeling is addictive too.
Unfortunately, falsely blaming other people, or "scapegoating", can lead to horrible consequences. The malevolent scapegoating perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin are prime examples. Despite these painful lessons of history, Cultural Marxists continue to encourage victimhood, resentment, and blaming. Their chief scapegoats are heterosexual white men.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.ca/2012/08/the-minority-victim-value-index.html
Heterosexual White Men Are the Scapegoats of Cultural Marxists
Heterosexual white men are a very diverse demographic. Given that "white" normally means "of European descent", white men vary widely in appearance, ranging from blond Norwegians to dark-haired Greeks. Nonetheless, they share the same race, and are called "white" or "Caucasian".
However, heterosexual white men are also economically diverse. They include billionaire financiers, unemployed coal miners, and everything in between. But that economic diversity is ignored by Cultural Marxists. They dishonestly imply that all heterosexual white men are unfairly privileged. This doesn't make logical sense. But it does reveal the appalling sexual and racial prejudices harbored by Cultural Marxists. They blame white men simply because they are white and male. This is indeed racist and sexist.
In reality, members of every race have perpetrated evil at one time or another. White people have too. But white men have also contributed the greatest good to the world in recent centuries, by far. For one thing, white men led the way in ending the slavery that has been practiced worldwide for millennia. And thanks to the efforts of white men, we now enjoy rare individual liberty and freedom of speech. We benefit from the scientific discoveries of white men. And thanks to white men, we benefit from our highly successful free enterprise system. This system motivates entrepreneurs to satisfy every conceivable want and need of every possible consumer. In fact, our world of abundance, good health, and liberty, has resulted mainly from the hard work and ingenuity of heterosexual white men.
Sadly, it has become fashionable to disparage these achievements. But we should give credit where it is due. The achievements of heterosexual white men should be openly acknowledged and celebrated. We should recognize the good that has been accomplished, to encourage more of the same.
Indeed, to ignore the worthy achievements of white men is dishonest. It is also dishonest to blame heterosexual white men for oppressing everyone else. And it is dishonest to ignore the brutal oppression, colonialism, and slavery that has been perpetrated by other civilizations throughout history.
Clearly, these issues are not being addressed truthfully by Cultural Marxists. Their deceit is motivated by ugly hatred. For this, Cultural Marxists should feel deeply ashamed. But they don't seem to feel any shame at all. Instead, they hide from reality in their groupthink echo chamber "safe spaces". They remain willfully blind to the absurdity and immorality of their own Cultural Marxist ideology.
Cultural Marxists Politicize Sexuality
One key strategy of Cultural Marxism is to pervert our sexual norms and mores. For example, Cultural Marxists claim that a person's gender is determined not by which sex organs or chromosomes they have, but by whether the person subjectively feels that they are male or female. This is called "gender identity". Ostensibly, a person's gender identity can change from one moment to the next, depending on how they feel. Cultural Marxists call this "gender fluidity". Furthermore, Cultural Marxists claim that the sex organs we are born with are mere "markers", with no relevance to our actual "gender".
Of course, this trans-gender ideology has no basis in science. In fact, honest doctors consider such sexual confusion a mental illness. "Gender dysphoria" is the medical term for it.
Regardless, Cultural Marxists encourage school children to identify as the opposite sex. They encourage school children to take injections of opposite-sex hormones. And then they facilitate genital surgery.
To promote this trans-gender ideology, Cultural Marxist teachers start brainwashing children in primary school, long before they reach puberty. The harm and confusion inevitably caused by this deception is incalculable. After all, most young children lack the critical reasoning skills that they would need to resist this indoctrination. Hence, the lies that Cultural Marxists are teaching young children are probably interfering with their natural sexual development. Clearly, these children are being abused. Any and all Cultural Marxists who have perpetrated this abuse should be held criminally responsible. This includes politicians, doctors, and school teachers.
Naturally, sensible parents don't want their children to be exposed to Cultural Marxist ideology at any age. And they don't want homosexuals telling them how to raise their children.
Unfortunately, the insidious agenda of Cultural Marxism is presently being codified into the laws that govern us. For example, Ontario's former Premier Kathleen Wynne passed laws empowering the government to seize children if their parents try to prevent them from receiving transgender counseling, opposite sex hormones, and sex-change surgery. Quoting from Breitbart.com,
"The [Ontario] government may legally remove children from families that refuse to accept their child’s chosen “gender identity” thanks to new legislation. ... The Minister of Children and Youth Services ... [said] that a parent’s failure to recognize and support a child’s gender self-identification is a form of child abuse, and a child in these circumstances should be removed from the situation and placed into protection."
In other words, if your 12-year-old son tells you he wants to take female hormones because he thinks he is really a girl, you must allow that. Unfortunately, such hormone treatments tend to make gender dysphoria permanent. In contrast, without any injections, gender dysphoria is typically a temporary phase that most children eventually outgrow. Regardless, you must follow your child's wishes, or risk having your child removed from your home by the government, and placed in a foster home.
The Breitbart article also notes that,
"While “gender identity” and “gender expression” are included in the new legislation as important factors to be considered in determining “the best interests of the child,” the religious faith in which the parents are raising the child—present in former laws—has been removed from consideration for assessing the child’s best interests."
Sadly, Bill 89 became Ontario law in June, 2017.
http://www.realwomenofcanada.ca/bill-28/
Another new Ontario law also "makes it far easier for the government to seize our children because henceforth we will only have a contractual — not a natural — bond to our children. As we know, contractual relationships are easy to change. ... [Politician] Mike Harris had proposed an amendment [to] allow [the words] “mother” and “father” as well as “parent,” in state-registered documents, but that amendment was voted down. ... “This bill is another example of [Ontario lesbian premier, Kathleen] Wynne’s attempts to radically alter the definition of family and sexual morality”". This is according to Jeff Gunnarson of the Campaign Life Coalition.
Bill 28 became Ontario law in November, 2016.
https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria
https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/sex-ed-curriculum
https://arpacanada.ca/news/2017/03/21/five-bills-five-years-gender-ideology-ontario/
http://www.realwomenofcanada.ca/bill-28/
https://revisesociology.com/2014/02/10/marxist-perspective-family/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_feminism
A Cultural Marxist Math Professor
Unfortunately, children are of great interest to Cultural Marxists, because they can be confused and brainwashed more easily than adults. So Cultural Marxists are very active in the field of childhood education. Here is an example cited by CampusReform.org:
In a book aimed at teachers, a math education professor has claimed that teaching mathematics perpetuates white privilege. This is because algebra and geometry use terms like "Pythagorean theorem" and "pi". These terms give the impression that math was "largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans". Therefore, the professor implies, the history of math should be suppressed, and teachers should lie to their students, for the sake of political correctness.
This dishonesty is typical of Cultural Marxists. Whenever the truth is inconvenient, they lie. Obviously, children should be taught the truth, and not be confused by lies. But Cultural Marxists believe the best interests of individuals, including children, can be sacrificed in order to promote Cultural Marxist ideology.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10005
https://www.amazon.com/Not-Out-Africa-Afrocentrism-Republic/dp/046509838X
The White Privilege Guilt Trap
Another Cultural Marxist strategy is to make white people feel guilty. For example, Cultural Marxists accuse heterosexual white men and women of enjoying "white privilege". This accusation conveniently ignores the reality that "affirmative action" quotas have given preferential treatment to non-whites for decades. Regardless, the accusation of white privilege is repeated at every opportunity.
Faced with a barrage of blame, contempt, and insults, many blameless heterosexual white men have become convinced that they must atone for the misdeeds of previous generations. To assuage their unfounded feelings of guilt and shame, these white men publicly renounce their own Western culture. They even recite self-loathing slogans such as "abolish whiteness". Indeed, they seem to believe that self-abasement is necessary for them to be socially acceptable.
The Victimhood Resentment Trap
Meanwhile, everyone else is encouraged to believe that they are victims of oppression, and to bitterly resent that. Yet they are rewarded for their victimhood with social status. The greater their supposed victimhood, the higher their status in Cultural Marxist society. In effect, this inverts our social hierarchy.
For example, an overweight black homosexual woman will enjoy very high status, because she has multiple claims to victimhood. Having multiple claims to victimhood makes her especially oppressed. This gives her a more valid "standpoint". With a more valid standpoint, her opinions automatically elicit greater respect.
In contrast, a white heterosexual woman will have low social status, because she has only a single claim to victimhood, namely, her female sex. Such low-ranking people are often admonished to "check their privilege". In other words, they are told to shut up, not because their logic is flawed, but because they are considered less oppressed. Because they are considered less oppressed, their perspective is automatically considered less valid.
The degree of each person's victimhood depends less on their individual circumstances, and more on their demographics, including their race, sex, and sexual orientation. Thus, Cultural Marxists pre-judge people according to their demographic attributes. In other words, they promote sexual and racial prejudice. They do this to divide our society and achieve their political goals.
As biology Professor Heather E. Heying writes,
"Intersectionalists have in common with one another a particular rhetorical trick: Any claim made by a member of an historically oppressed group is unquestionably true. Questioning claims is, itself, an act of oppression. This opens the door for anyone who is willing to lie to obtain power. If you cannot question claims, any claim can be made."
https://quillette.com/2018/07/09/on-toxic-femininity/
However, it is not just victimhood that is rewarded with high social status. Violence and disruption are also rewarded, because the resulting chaos and animosity helps to destabilize our society. For example, antifa thugs enjoy status not just for enforcing political correctness, but for doing so violently.
Overall, the inverted victimhood hierarchy of Cultural Marxism offers an easy way for individuals to enhance their social status and prestige. No special effort is needed; just pose as a victim. The only requirement is that one must not be a heterosexual white man.
In contrast, for anyone who wishes to resist the prevailing victimhood narrative, considerable courage and integrity are essential. One person who has demonstrated that courage and integrity is black commentator Candace Owens, who writes,
"I was a first-generation college student. This was supposed to be the ticket to prosperity. But it wasn’t. I left college with a mountain of debt and no practical skills. I had just $80 dollars in my bank account and very few prospects. I could have given up. I could have dug deep into my history and declared myself a natural product of ancestral oppression. I could have played the black card and absolved myself of all responsibility for my own stupid decisions. Except, I didn’t. Because it would have destroyed my grandfather’s legacy. I am proud that he had the fortitude to turn nothing into something; and I have no intention of reversing that something back into a nothing. My attitude comes with a price, however. Because if you are born black and you don’t accept your natural status as a victim, then the validity of your blackness is immediately called into question. Well, so be it."
As for those who promote the racist victimhood narrative, Andrew Klavan writes,
"Leftist race mongering turns leftists into political idiots. It isn't until you engage with your political opponents that you learn the strengths and weaknesses of your arguments and can therefore adjust them or even change your mind entirely. If all you do is scream racism at people, you pump yourself full of self-righteousness and become increasingly radicalized and therefore increasingly at odds with reality and common sense. ... Eventually, one hopes that insightful black Americans will begin to see that while the left's race mongering may offer them the short-term political power of victimhood, the long-term costs in inequality and social exclusion are too high. On that day, the left will have to get by on the strength of their ideas alone."
https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/the-toxic-race-mongering-of-the-left
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/no-i-wont-check-my-privilege/
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=white%20guilt
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/we-all-live-on-campus-now.html
https://quillette.com/2018/07/17/what-is-the-tribe-of-the-anti-tribalists/
Cultural Marxism Exploits Slavery
One particularly divisive false claim made by Cultural Marxists is that today's white people benefit unfairly from slavery. Of course, this is absurd. We all know that American slavery was abolished more than 150 years ago, in 1865. That's about five generations ago!
At that time, people of different races around the world commonly owned slaves. This had been the case for millennia. The tide started to turn only when certain white people started criticizing slavery, and campaigning for its abolition. Indeed, many thousands of white people sacrificed their own lives to end slavery in the American Civil War.
But do today's white people still benefit economically from slavery? Well for one thing, the Civil War likely impoverished many slave owners, leaving little wealth for their heirs to inherit. Furthermore, according to black American author Coleman Hughes,
"Slavery is hardly the root cause of America’s prosperity. If it were, then we would expect American states that practiced slavery to be richer than those that did not. Yet we see precisely the opposite. ... A recent analysis of census data found that Northeastern states, which forbade slavery, “are among the wealthiest,” whereas “states in the Southeast are among the poorest.” ... Nor can historical racism explain wealth disparities between groups of the same race. A 2015 survey of wealth in Boston found that the median black household had only 8 dollars of wealth. Newsweek reported this fact under the heading “Racism in Boston.” But the 8 dollar figure only pertained to black Bostonians of American ancestry; black Bostonians of Caribbean ancestry had 12,000 dollars of wealth, despite having identical rates of college graduation, only slightly higher incomes, and being equally black in the same city."
https://quillette.com/2018/07/19/black-american-culture-and-the-racial-wealth-gap/
Journalist Michael Medved concurs. He writes,
"The most prosperous states in the country were those that first freed their slaves. The notion that America based its wealth and development on slave labor hardly comports with the obvious reality that for two hundred years since the founding of the Republic, by far the poorest and least developed section of the nation was precisely that region where slavery once prevailed."
Medved also addresses the question of intergenerational guilt:
"Given the fact that the majority of today’s non-black Americans descend from immigrants who arrived in this country after the War Between the States, only a tiny percentage of today’s white citizens – perhaps as few as 5% -- bear any authentic sort of generational guilt for the exploitation of slave labor."
Finally, Medved states that,
"There is no reason to believe that today’s African-Americans would be better off if their ancestors had remained behind in Africa. ... [It is] obvious that Americans of African descent enjoy vastly greater wealth and human rights of every variety than the citizens of any [African nation]."
Thus, Coleman Hughes and Michael Medved argue persuasively that today's whites do not benefit from the slavery that ended five generations ago.
In any case, for 50 years now, blacks have enjoyed advantages such as affirmative action quotas in education and employment, so they have had plenty of opportunity to improve their own lives. And many blacks have indeed excelled and prospered. So have many of the immigrants who have arrived penniless in America since the Civil War. No doubt, these people feel proud of their achievements, not victimized.
Of course, all slavery is abhorrent. Alas, America was not alone in practicing slavery. In fact, slavery has been practiced by various races and civilizations throughout history. For example Asians, Arabs, and indigenous Americans have all practiced slavery. Even Africans sold their fellow Africans into the American slave trade. As black American economist Thomas Sowell writes,
"Although slavery was a worldwide institution for thousands of years, nowhere in the world was slavery a controversial issue prior to the 18th century. People of every race and color were enslaved – and enslaved others. White people were still being bought and sold as slaves in the Ottoman Empire, decades after American blacks were freed. ... Slavery was just not an issue, not even among intellectuals, much less among political leaders, until the 18th century – and then it was an issue only in Western civilization. Among those who turned against slavery in the 18th century were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and other American leaders. You could research all of the 18th century Africa or Asia or the Middle East without finding any comparable rejection of slavery there. But who is singled out for scathing criticism today? American leaders of the 18th century."
Thus, Thomas Sowell finds it ironic that the Americans who first opposed slavery are now the very people who are blamed for it.
Sadly, slavery is still practiced in some countries around the world today. But this is never mentioned by Cultural Marxists because it contradicts their claim that heterosexual white men and Western civilization are the oppressors. Moreover, Cultural Marxists don't want their followers to realize that our Western society actually treats people comparatively well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html
Clearly, the American slavery that ended 150 years ago is not benefiting today's white Americans. So it is dishonest to accuse them of "white privilege". Yet Cultural Marxists persist in making that accusation, because they want to incite inter-racial animosity.
Accusations of Cultural Appropriation are Just Spiteful
In addition to inter-racial animosity, Cultural Marxists seek to incite inter-ethnic animosity. One tactic is to excoriate white people for adopting any custom from another culture. For example, Cultural Marxists harshly criticize white people for such innocent activities as teaching yoga, wearing traditional Chinese clothes, or operating a Mexican food restaurant. The offense such white people are accused of is called "cultural appropriation". The purpose of this accusation is to incite resentment against white people.
Multiculturalism is Dividing Us
One factor that is exacerbating our inter-ethnic tensions is the Cultural Marxist policy of "multiculturalism". This word sounds positive and virtuous, but in reality, multiculturalism encourages ethnic groups to remain separate, rather than assimilating. Thus, multiculturalism has contributed to the dangerous balkanization of our society. On this point, politician Maxime Bernier has criticized Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Bernier tweeted,
"Trudeau's extreme multiculturalism and cult of diversity will divide us into little tribes that have less and less in common, apart from their dependence on government in Ottawa. These tribes become political clienteles to be bought with taxpayers [money] and special privileges. ... Having people live among us who reject basic Western values such as freedom, equality, tolerance and openness doesn't make us strong. People who refuse to integrate into our society and want to live apart in their ghetto don't make our society strong."
Bernier is implying that the various ethnic groups in our society need to assimilate. We need to live together and learn from each other, so that we can become a more harmonious, unified society. However, assimilation becomes impossible when the rate of immigration is too rapid. Furthermore, assimilation is unlikely when the government discourages it, as Trudeau is accused of doing.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maxime-bernier-extreme-multiculturalism-1.4783325
Open Borders Would Overwhelm our Social Safety Net
To further divide us, Cultural Marxists advocate "open borders". This means that we would allow billions of people from foreign countries to migrate into Western nations. Inevitably, this would overwhelm and devastate our Western culture. It would overburden our social programs and bankrupt our governments.
Obviously, the idea of open borders is naive and impractical. Less obvious is the deceit behind the claim that we need immigrant labor for our farms and factories. Here is the background:
In past decades, we were sternly warned to have smaller families, so as to limit the "population explosion". Dutifully, we complied; Western couples started having just two children.
A parallel effort was led by Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger. As an advocate of eugenics, she favored restricting population growth among people whose genes she considered less desirable. She wrote that “there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.” These days, Planned Parenthood is focused mainly on birth control and abortion.
Another reason why the birth rate has dropped is that many women in our society have been persuaded by feminists to pursue careers instead of raising children.
These are among the influences that led to lower reproduction in our society. Meanwhile, other less advanced societies continued to reproduce exponentially. Ironically, it is they who are now being welcomed to populate our nations. But why? Many of our existing unskilled workers are chronically unemployed! Yet we are told that we do not have enough workers for our farms and factories, because we didn't have enough children.
In truth, the population explosion is indeed a genuine threat to the survival of humanity. However, this is mostly a third-world phenomenon, which the third world needs to solve. A higher priority for the West is to put our own house in order. We need to ensure that the people who already live here are not crowded out of their jobs by uncontrolled immigration. Moreover, we have a moral obligation to avoid overwhelming our social programs, our culture, and our government with a massive influx of immigrants. Only when our own nations are economically and culturally stable can we assist the people of other nations – within their own countries. But we will not be able to assist anyone if our own nations collapse, culturally or economically.
Unfortunately, corporations and wealthy individuals prefer to hire desperate, poorly-educated illegal aliens. Having no bargaining power, they are cheap and docile. Meanwhile, politicians eagerly grant them citizenship, to earn their gratitude and voting loyalty in future elections. Of course, this is a betrayal of the citizens that the politicians were elected to represent.
As for our own unemployed, they are condescendingly treated as victims who are incapable of surviving without government assistance. But the problem isn't that they are incapable; it's that they can't compete with cheap foreign labor, whether here or abroad. Meanwhile, corrupt politicians who do nothing to protect jobs, claim the moral high ground for providing state-funded social assistance. What the unemployed don't get is dignity.
Thus, the selfishness of wealthy elites and politicians is causing an influx of low-skilled immigrants. This causes unemployment, and it overburdens our social assistance programs. Yet anyone who openly opposes the influx of low-skilled immigrants risks being smeared as a racist.
https://tradingeconomics.com/italy/youth-unemployment-rate
https://amgreatness.com/2018/12/16/the-globalist-mindset-they-hate-you/
Immigrants Know That We Are Not Oppressed
If our society really is as oppressive as Cultural Marxists claim, then why do billions of people around the world want to migrate to the West? Clearly, they want to share in the prosperity and freedom that Western civilization has created. Cultural Marxists know this, yet they continue to claim that our Western society is oppressive. As renowned author Heather Mac Donald writes,
"Progressives paint the U.S. as the only source of hope and opportunity for low-skilled ... Third Worlders; [The US is] a place obligated by its immigration history to take in all comers, forever. ... [Yet] progressives [also] paint the U.S. as the place where hope and opportunity die under a tsunami of misogyny and racism. ... Which reality do progressives actually believe? They likely hold both mutually exclusive concepts in their heads simultaneously, unaware of the contradiction, toggling smoothly between one and the other according to context. ... In fact, there is no place on earth less governed by tribal prejudice and machismo than the United States. The left-wing narrative is simply a form of moral preening."
That's Heather Mac Donald's view.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/america-horrible-15970.html
https://www.city-journal.org/html/whos-really-blame-border-15986.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Mac_Donald
Even though immigrants typically come to the West to enjoy our freedom and prosperity, they don't all value our culture. Instead, they hope to replace our culture with their own backward traditions. For example, Canada's Pakistan-born member of Parliament, Iqra Khalid, has campaigned relentlessly to create the false impression that Muslims are subject to "systemic racism" in Canada. She is using this as an excuse to promote laws that would limit our freedom of speech. Specifically, she wants to prohibit any criticism of Islam. Indeed, some people fear that her long-term goal is to introduce Islamic Sharia law within Canada. Critical of her subterfuge, secular Muslim-Canadian journalist Tarek Fatah has pointed out that Khalid is now handing out millions of dollars in government grants to her favorite Islamic terrorist organization, known as "Islamic Relief". Fatah writes that,
"While Islamists are eligible to receive [government] funding to conduct their Sharia agenda in Canada, Muslim critics of jihad, polygamy, [female genital mutilation] and Sharia have been left on their own to fight global Islamofascism.
In a message to [member of parliament Iqra] Khalid, I asked her to clarify if any part of the $23 million [government grant] will be used to counter the daily denigration of Christians and Jews that takes place in mosques across Canada, from dawn to dusk. I reminded her that “most Friday sermons at mosque congregations end with a call to Allah to grant Muslims victory over non-Muslims, referred to as ‘Qawm al Kafiroon’.” “Will the $23 million [government grant] be used to de-radicalize mosque clerics and educate them to end hateful sermons from the pulpits,” I asked."
Iqra Khalid did not reply.
Evidently, Justin Trudeau has given Khalid many millions of dollars, essentially to buy votes from the one million Muslims who live in Canada. In other words, Trudeau is exploiting the ethnic balkanization of Canada to buy ethnic votes. This corruption of Canadian democracy illustrates the great damage that multiculturalism is doing to our society.
Mass Immigration Can Lead to Divisive Tribalism
Mass immigration and "multiculturalism" can lead to chronic inter-ethnic friction. Author George Gallatin writes that,
"Unlimited mass migration could cripple liberal Western powers with perpetual ethnic tension. ... This could cede the century to more unified authoritarian powers such as Russia and China who have drastically different value systems and views of human dignity. ... The truth open borders advocates miss is that human societies are tribal."
"The fundamental human social skill is the formation of groups that act with shared intentionality. The skill to coordinate intentions is what enabled our ancestors to form sophisticated social coalitions that outcompeted lower primates. ... Despite prevailing moral fashions, we are the products of this evolutionary competition."
"All too often when intentions differ, and tribes inevitably rise, differences in religion, language, and custom are the contours around which factions organize. ... History has demonstrated innumerable times that at-scale diversity doesn’t create utopia but tension."
http://quillette.com/2018/02/03/open-borders-dangerous-idea/
As George Gallatin explains, hosting incompatible cultures within one country can lead to divisive tribalism. In some cases, this can be mitigated by encouraging immigrants to assimilate, and adopt the culture of their new country. But instead, Cultural Marxists prefer "multiculturalism", which encourages immigrants to remain separate. Cultural Marxists are even inciting hostility between racial groups that have previously co-existed peacefully in America. For example,
"Last year, all hell broke loose on the campus of Evergreen State College in Washington state when Professor Bret Weinstein refused to participate in a campus event which would have barred white people from campus for one day. Now they’re at it again. ... For refusing to go along last year, Weinstein was verbally attacked by angry students who demanded his firing. Things got so out of control that student activists were reportedly roaming campus with baseball bats. Weinstein sued the school and eventually settled for $500,000. ... The entire crazy episode brought the school months of negative publicity. You would think they might have learned something from it, but it doesn’t appear so because they’re doing the same event this year."
This quote is from an article on LegalInsurrection.com, which is the website of Cornell University law professor, William A. Jacobson.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/05/evergreen-state-to-keep-day-of-absence-of-white-people-event/
Defending Our Civilization Will Require Courage
To defend and preserve our Western civilization, we need to speak out against Cultural Marxism. Fortunately, more and more people are doing so. They recognize the danger to our Western society posed by this malicious ideology. And they appreciate the many good things our Western civilization has brought us, including:
- Democracy,
- Freedom of speech,
- The rule of law,
- The separation of church and state, and
- Science.
Science has given us every modern convenience, including telephones, cars, computers, and cures for many diseases. The entire world has benefited. But further scientific progress will be impeded if the anti-science ideology of Cultural Marxism takes full control of our universities and corporations. We could find ourselves trapped in a new dark age of ignorance. And it could last for many centuries or millennia. To prevent this, we need to understand the history of Cultural Marxism, and the reasons for its increasing dominance of our culture. So let's find out how this nasty menace got started in the first place.
http://www.westminster-institute.org/articles/the-superiority-of-western-values-in-eight-minutes/
The Cultural Marxist Menace: A Brief History
The roots of Cultural Marxism go back to Italy and Germany in the 1920s. Historian Jefrey Breshears explains that, "In the aftermath of World War I, the great [European communist] revolution that many [orthodox] Marxists expected never materialized." Disappointed, many European communists sought an alternate strategy for defeating capitalism. The Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci realized that "Communism was far too radical and atheistic to be accepted voluntarily in the West". So Gramsci advocated a "prolonged propaganda campaign that would undermine people’s confidence in traditional values and religious beliefs, and make them more amenable to radical socialism."
Antonio Gramsci believed the working classes were blind to their own oppression because they were brainwashed by wealthy capitalists. This brainwashing was possible because the wealthy capitalists controlled the media and the education system. "Through constant propaganda, these traditional institutions maintained social control by promoting bourgeois values", according to Jefrey Breshears. Therefore, Gramsci believed that Marxists should infiltrate our cultural institutions to achieve cultural hegemony, which means cultural dominance. Gramsci wrote, “In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media.”
One of Gramsci's associates, Georg Lukacs (pronounced gayorg lookuch), argued that "a socialist revolution could only succeed if it were preceded by a cultural revolution. He wrote, “Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”"
Thus, these two neo-Marxists, Gramsci and Lukacs, laid the foundations for today's insidious and destructive Cultural Marxist movement, according to historian Jefrey Breshears.
http://www.theareopagus.org/docs/Culture-War-7b-A-Brief-History-1.pdf
http://www.theareopagus.org/docs/Culture-War-7a-A-Preface-to-Americas-Culture-War.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci
In 1923, the neo-Marxists established a research center in Frankfurt, Germany. It became known as “the Frankfurt School”. Historian Jefrey Breshears writes that, "The driving force behind the Frankfurt School’s research was never impartial scholarship but [instead], the aggressive promotion of a radical left-wing ... political agenda".
The Frankfurt School neo-Marxists eventually concocted a new philosophy called Critical Theory. Critical Theory held that "Western civilization was built on aggression, oppression, racism, slavery, and sexual repression", according to Jefrey Breshears.
Of course, similar injustices and worse have been perpetrated by various civilizations throughout world history, including the Roman, Islamic, and Aztec civilizations. What's exceptional about Western civilization is that we ended slavery, we treat women and minorities fairly, and our cultural and technological achievements have benefited all of mankind. Indeed, people from around the world aspire to live in the West, to enjoy our prosperity, our fairness, and our freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2390
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice
How do Orthodox Marxism and Cultural Marxism Differ?
In some respects, Cultural Marxism is similar to the original orthodox Marxism. Both forms of Marxism oppose our meritocracy. Both claim that Western society is oppressive. And both want to force their Marxist ideology on everyone. But there are some important differences.
For example, orthodox Marxists aim to seize power through a violent revolution of the working class. Hence, it is members of the working class, such as factory workers and manual laborers, that orthodox Marxists attempt to recruit.
In contrast, Cultural Marxists aim to secure power through gradual cultural change. So rather than recruiting factory workers, they indoctrinate university students. But why university students? Because after graduating, some of them inevitably secure positions of power in our institutions. From within those institutions, these radical, indoctrinated college graduates work to steer our society toward Cultural Marxism.
http://www.theareopagus.org/docs/Culture-War-8-A-Brief-History-2.pdf
It is ironic that the fabricated unhappiness of Cultural Marxism has become so pervasive at this time in history. After all, the economic problems that motivated the original orthodox Marxists were mostly solved decades ago with the rise of trade unions and government-sponsored social programs.
As historian Jefrey Breshears notes, "In classical Marxism the proletariat class was the designated catalyst for bringing down the old order and ushering in the new. But in the 1930s labor unions had entered into collective bargaining agreements with management". In other words, the labor unions had improved the workers' lives. As a result, the working classes were "co-opted by the allure of materialism and the promise of a rising standard of living".
Since the working classes had become more satisfied, they could no longer be recruited for a communist revolution. Therefore, to start a revolution, the Neo-Marxist theoreticians needed to find other oppressed people. Soon after Hitler gained power in 1933, these Cultural Marxist "critical theorists" moved from Frankfurt, Germany to Columbia University in New York. In America, they found that "racial bigotry and discrimination were pervasive and blatant. The Frankfurt scholars viewed this situation as a golden opportunity, and they effectively exploited the situation in their efforts to forge a new revolutionary alliance of victims." That's according to historian Jefrey Breshears.
http://www.theareopagus.org/docs/Culture-War-8-A-Brief-History-2.pdf
However, over the years, racial discrimination gradually disappeared from America. And it was essentially outlawed in the 1960s. This left Cultural Marxists with very little to complain about. So to sustain their campaign against Western civilization, they sought out and exaggerated whatever slight injustices or prejudices they could find within our society. They resurrected and inflamed previously settled animosities, including inter-racial discord. They also persuaded white people to feel guilty for their own hard-earned success, and for the success of our Western civilization. As well, Cultural Marxists have glamorized victimhood, making it so emotionally gratifying that millions have become addicted to it. These are among the tactics that have allowed Cultural Marxism to survive and thrive, even without any valid reason for its existence.
Clearly, this cultural revolution is very different from the violent workers' revolution envisioned by orthodox Marxism. Yet Cultural Marxism originally evolved from orthodox Marxism. And it was founded by a neo-Marxist – namely, Antonio Gramsci.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States
The Long March: How Cultural Marxism Spread
From its new base at Columbia University in New York, the ideology of Cultural Marxism spread to other American universities. As it became entrenched across America, it evolved and gained momentum.
Over the years, one key strategy that endured was for Cultural Marxists to infiltrate our established institutions, to achieve cultural dominance. Originally advocated by Antonio Gramsci, this strategy was promoted again in the late 1960s by a prominent German student leader named Rudi Dutschke (pronounced dooch-ke). Dutschke advocated a "long march through the institutions" of power, to transform our society from within. The phrase "long march" was a reference to the historic long march across China that was undertaken by Mao Zedong's communist army in the 1930s.
Dutschke's idea impressed the influential Cultural Marxist, Herbert Marcuse. In a letter to Rudi Dutschke in 1971, Marcuse wrote, "I regard your notion of the 'long march through the institutions' as the only effective way...". He later wrote that Dutchke's "long march" meant "working against the established institutions while working within them".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudi_Dutschke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_institutions
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10625650/The-Lefts-long-march-will-be-hard-to-stop.html
How Did Cultural Marxism Hijack Our Universities?
In the late 1960s, Cultural Marxism had a significant breakthrough: The first ethnic studies and genders studies programs were launched in American universities. Over subsequent decades, these "critical studies" programs proliferated.
By the early 1990s, the West had finally won the Cold War against Russia. That success lulled us into complacency. We never suspected that the fashionable new "critical studies" programs sprouting in our universities would serve as a Marxist Trojan horse. So these Cultural Marxist programs continued to multiply. They branched into variants such as women's studies, lesbian studies, gay studies, bi-sexual studies, and transgender studies.
During the subsequent decades, Cultural Marxism gradually increased in strength on college campuses. As conservative professors retired, younger Cultural Marxist professors took their place. So today, Cultural Marxists are mostly in control. With their new power, they are ensuring that students are constantly immersed in Cultural Marxist ideology. Opposing viewpoints are not tolerated.
https://www.nas.org/articles/homogenous_political_affiliations_of_elite_liberal
https://www.theepochtimes.com/harvard-student-newspaper-criticizes-campus-liberal-bias_2580641.html
How Do Cultural Marxists Intimidate Professors?
Here's an example: In 2018, Duke University refused to renew the contract of Professor Evan Charney. Having taught at Duke for 19 years, Charney was an accomplished scholar and a popular professor. In his vigorous classroom debates, he required that all opinions be supported with evidence and reasoned argument. However, it seems these rational discussions offended some Cultural Marxist students.
Consequently, Professor Charney's teaching contract was not renewed. Instead, he was offered a demotion to an adjunct teaching position, subject to annual review. But to accept even that demotion, he would be required to "undergo diversity training, cease teaching required courses, [and] accept heightened monitoring of his classes by colleagues."
So, exactly what had Evan Charney done wrong? Given that he was required to take diversity training, one might surmise that he allowed his students to discuss some forbidden topics, such as diversity quotas. But was this harmful? Surely it is better to allow discussion of all viewpoints; if some ideas are mistaken, they should be refuted, not censored. Debating skills are among the most important things that a student can learn at university, but those skills won't be learned if politically incorrect opinions are censored.
By punishing Evan Charney, Duke University made an example of him. In effect, they warned all professors that they must conform with Cultural Marxist political correctness or risk losing their jobs.
This illustrates the power that Cultural Marxists now wield. They firmly control how and what students are taught, and who will teach them. The priority is no longer to pursue the truth and teach clear thinking. Instead, the top priority is to indoctrinate students with Cultural Marxist ideology.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/02/duke_erodes_liberal_education_137167.html
Are Diversity Quotas and Identity Politics Related?
The purpose of Cultural Marxist university courses is to indoctrinate students, rather than teach them useful knowledge. So these courses are useless and harmful. Regardless, they satisfy certain "general education" requirements. For that reason, many students enroll in these worthless courses to earn the credits they need to graduate.
As Professor Bruce S. Thornton explains,
"[The university] programs of grievance politics ... had to be political. What else other than politics could provide the content of these disciplines that didn’t already exist in traditional departments? They were born political, not later politicized as history and English were. ... The next step was to integrate them into general education ... requirements, since there is no market for degrees in these majors. But all students have to take general ed, so these courses are guaranteed enrollment. If universities eliminated general education, most of these departments would disappear for lack of students."
Professor Thornton also asserts that Cultural Marxism is no longer merely the subject of study in certain university courses. It now dominates all student and faculty activity, across many university campuses. Students are subjected to identity politics and diversity propaganda everywhere they turn.
In addition, many universities apply racial quotas when accepting students. But these quotas have no educational benefits, and they actually harm the students they are meant to help, according to Professor Thornton. He writes that,
"The next development ... was the demand for “diversity.” ... Forty years later, ... there is no empirical evidence [that diversity requirements result in] “educational benefits.” If there were such pedagogical benefits from diversity, we long ago would have dismantled the 107 historically black colleges and universities that still function in America. ... On the contrary, there is much evidence that mismatching applicants to universities in order to achieve this mythic diversity damages minority students and segregates campuses into identity-politics enclaves."
Professor Thornton also implies that because diversity quotas are racist, they promote identity politics. Hence, as diversity quotas have spread, identity politics has also spread. The resulting culture of resentment and victimhood has allowed Cultural Marxism to become entrenched, and it now "permeates the university far beyond the classroom."
These are the views of Bruce S. Thornton, who is a professor at California State University in Fresno.
https://amgreatness.com/2018/04/20/want-to-shut-up-leftist-professors-first-ignore-them/
https://www.hoover.org/profiles/bruce-thornton
Why are Free Speech and Due Process Being Denied?
Renowned political scientist Peter Berkowitz has noticed a connection between Cultural Marxist brainwashing, censorship, and anti-male prejudice on university campuses. He writes that,
"Liberal education in America is in bad shape. Our colleges have exposed it to three major threats. They have attacked and curtailed free speech. They have denigrated and diluted due process. And they have hollowed and politicized the curriculum. These threats are not isolated and independent. They are intertwined. All are rooted in the conceit of infallibility. ...
[So] why has free speech fallen out of favor? [Because] many university students, faculty, and administrators suppose there is a fundamental conflict between free speech on one side and diversity and inclusion on the other. ...
Now, why does Professor Berkowitz believe that diversity requirements and free speech are in conflict? Here's why: To fill their diversity quotas, each university admits a set percentage of students from certain favored races, even if some of them are academically mediocre. To make room for these mediocre students, the university must reject some high-achieving East Asian students. In other words, coddling one group creates unfairness for another. Clearly, the Cultural Marxist diversity-and-inclusion dogma is inherently unfair. To hide this embarrassing reality, Cultural Marxists typically censor any discussion of the topic, at least on campus. In other words, to preserve their irrational diversity-and-inclusion dogma, they sacrifice our freedom of speech.
In addition, Cultural Marxist professors and administrators believe they are infallible, according to Peter Berkowitz. So they don't feel any need to verify their assumptions, or to listen to opposing viewpoints. For example, when judging the guilt or innocence of male students who are accused of sexual misconduct, they feel entitled to assume that the students are guilty, without allowing them to properly defend themselves. Berkowitz writes that,
"Universities sometimes deprive the accused of full knowledge of the charges and evidence, and of access to counsel. ... In many instances, universities withhold exculpatory evidence and prevent the accused from presenting what exculpatory evidence is available; they deny the accused the right to cross-examine witnesses, even indirectly; and they allow unsuccessful complainants to appeal, effectively exposing the accused to double jeopardy."
Here, Berkowitz is implying that Cultural Marxists do not share our sense of justice. Specifically, just because the accused students are male, they are assumed to be oppressors. Hence, even a mere accusation is sufficient to convict them, the Cultural Marxist professors assume. So the professors deprive the accused students of due process and a fair trial, in arrogant disrespect for our most basic principles of justice. Unfortunately, this miscarriage of justice is not widely questioned by other students, because instead of being taught to think critically, they have been brainwashed with Cultural Marxist ideology.
https://www.hoover.org/profiles/peter-berkowitz
Cultural Marxists Despise Our Western Culture
At present, hundreds of Cultural Marxist "critical studies" programs exist in American universities. They are based on various esoteric philosophies, ranging from postmodernism to Marxist feminism. Thus, students and professors alike are immersed in an academic culture of politically correct Marxist groupthink.
While Cultural Marxist professors disagree with each other on some issues, they do share some core beliefs and attitudes. Mainly, they all despise our Western civilization. They want to destroy it, and replace it with an authoritarian Marxist regime. Year after year, they teach countless thousands of students to despise Western civilization, to disparage heterosexual white men, and to become revolutionary activists. Year after year, they teach the Cultural Marxist ideology of victimhood, resentment, and identity politics. This is what makes these professors Cultural Marxists, even if they don't recognize themselves as such.
In the words of Author Heather Mac Donald:
"There's a multi-million dollar diversity bureaucracy on most college campuses today that is dedicated to the very proposition that ... whiteness is a source of all evil in the world, lethal to people of color. [There is] a contempt for objectivity and truth seeking, [and] a belief that all females exist in a state of oppression by rape culture. This diversity bureaucracy hits students with this ideology from the moment they step foot on campus, putting them in the throes of a very terrible delusion. American college students are the most privileged human beings in history, simply by virtue of their access to vast educational opportunities, and yet college presidents ... tell them that they are the subject of ubiquitous racism on the college campus itself. ... I think people still don't get what's going on. ... People basically send their kids off to school and have trust that these are the colleges that they remember from growing up. They are not. They are hatred machines. ... People have to stop giving money to colleges. Don't give [money] to your alma mater, unless you've done very thorough due diligence inquiry. And [people] need to start standing up to this lie that America is a fundamentally bigoted place, because we are toying with real civil war I think at this point."
In other words, Heather Mac Donald believes that the vast diversity-and-inclusion bureaucracies on our college campuses are propagating Cultural Marxist victimhood ideology, and that is tearing our society apart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIyMEfRpN5Q
Unfortunately, the Cultural Marxist infection is spreading to other university departments. For example, our teacher training programs are now coaching teachers to brainwash young schoolchildren with harmful Cultural Marxist ideology. Even our business schools are infected, ensuring that future corporate managers are indoctrinated with Cultural Marxist groupthink. The Rotman School of Management may be one example of this.
http://ethnicstudies.berkeley.edu/about/history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_studies
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10889
Why Are Cultural Marxists Hijacking Our Language?
Unfortunately, it's not just our universities that Cultural Marxists are hijacking; it's our language too. Why are they hijacking our language? Because they want to control what we say, and even what we think. They know that by stigmatizing certain words, they can shape our public discourse. For example, Mount Holyoke women’s college has forbidden their professors to use term "women".
http://www.univsource.com/womensstudies.htm
Similarly, "Associated Press editors [recently] admonished writers to 'avoid references to being born a boy or girl'", according to Commentary Magazine. But this is not all. They are not just forbidding certain words; they are also replacing our words with whatever alternative terminology they deem politically correct. For example, "Instead of the expressions 'sex change' or 'transition,' [Associated Press] writers are to use 'gender confirmation.'" Commentary Magazine describes this as "a deep kowtow to the transgender movement, which believes that physicians don’t alter anything essential or fundamental when they perform a sex-change operation".
Cultural Marxists have even enacted laws that force us to use their invented words. For example, Californians can now be imprisoned for refusing to use certain invented gender pronouns, such as Ze and Zir.
Requiring people to say certain words against their will is known as "compelled speech". Similar compelled speech laws have been enacted in New York State and Ontario. In addition, Justin Trudeau has taken the first steps toward enacting nation-wide compelled speech laws across Canada.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/
The Crazy New Language Cultural Marxism
On a superficial level, Cultural Marxism seems to address the world's injustices. Consequently, people with the best of intentions get drawn into it without understanding its hidden agenda. Its agenda is hidden partly by the obscure jargon that Cultural Marxist professors are infamous for. Even the prominent feminist Gloria Steinem has complained that feminist academics "write in language no one can understand so that they get tenure" as university professors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_feminism
https://quillette.com/2018/10/07/the-devolution-of-social-science/
Actually, much of what Cultural Marxist professors write is based on false assumptions. So it is nonsense. This was proven in 1996, when a postmodernist academic journal published a nonsense research paper. It had been submitted as a hoax by a physics professor named Alan Sokal. Evidently, the academic journal could not distinguish between fake Cultural Marxist nonsense and genuine Cultural Marxist nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
To explain their genuine nonsense, Cultural Marxists employ invented jargon. Some of their most commonly used invented words are "gender fluidity", "cisgender", "heteronormativity", "cultural appropriation", and "intersectionality".
Let's consider the word "intersectionality". As of early 2018, the Wikipedia article devoted to intersectionality contained 38 occurrences of the word "oppression". Yet the article does not even hint at the atrocious oppression of women in Muslim countries. Specifically, the article does not mention female genital mutilation, stoning women to death, and throwing acid in women's faces. By ignoring such horrific brutality, Cultural Marxists show that they do not really care about justice.
In fact, Cultural Marxists would find it very inconvenient to acknowledge the truly horrific oppression of women in Islamic culture. To acknowledge this would be to admit that some men with colored skin are in fact extremely cruel to women. In comparison, Western men tend to treat women very well, and do not oppress them at all. But Cultural Marxists refuse to admit this because it contradicts their oppression-and-victimhood narrative. To hide the truth about this, Cultural Marxists censor our speech, and disguise their own nonsense with invented jargon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_movements_and_ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
https://www.unicef.org/protection/files/00-FMGC_infographiclow-res.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_studies
Unfortunately, despite their illogical nonsense, Cultural Marxists are succeeding. They have already brainwashed millions of students, and they are brainwashing millions more. Their success is almost assured, because they already control many of our universities, our schools, our corporations, our news media, our entertainment industry, and much of our government. Their success has been facilitated by the countless millions of victimhood addicts and compulsive virtue signalers. To enjoy their dishonest self-indulgences, these people have sacrificed our freedom of speech.
Why Did the New York Times Hire Cultural Marxist Bigot Sarah Jeong?
Let's consider the infiltration of Cultural Marxists into our news media. In July 2018, the New York Times hired left-wing racist Sarah Jeong as the lead technology writer for the newspaper’s editorial board. This hiring decision was widely criticized because Jeong had a long history of vindictive, anti-white tweeting. Despite the public controversy, the Times refused to fire Jeong. Yet they had recently fired their previous technology writer, Quinn Norton, when they discovered she had in the past tweeted some racist and anti-homosexual remarks. So Quinn Norton and Sarah Jeong had both tweeted hateful comments. Yet the New York Times fired only Quinn Norton. But why? Apparently because Sarah Jeong’s racist tweets were directed only against whites, so the Times considered them acceptable. Here are some examples of Jeong's spiteful tweets: “#CancelWhitePeople”, and “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men”. If these malicious tweets had been directed at any other race or demographic group, the Times would have fired Jeong, just as they had fired Quinn Norton. Clearly, there is a double standard.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-hires-writer-racist-past/
http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/02/new-york-times-editorial-board-just-hired-virulent-racist/
However, for this kind of spiteful racism, the Cultural Marxists have already invented an excuse. Their excuse hinges on a new definition of the word "racism". For Cultural Marxists, the word "racism" no longer means prejudging people according to their race. Instead, it means that white people are preventing everyone else from acquiring power. Since only white people dominate our society, only they are able to be racist. Thus, no matter how much hatred other races direct against whites, they are not being racist. The word "racist" no longer applies, because it has been redefined. Since there is no such thing as racism against whites, Sarah Jeong's tweets were not racist.
In effect, Cultural Marxists no longer have any vocabulary to describe hatred against white people, so the topic can't even be discussed. In other words, they have censored it. This illustrates how Cultural Marxists are attempting to control our conversations and even our thoughts by controlling our language.
Here is Jonah Goldberg's view:
"The notion that racism is solely about institutionalized white power simply doesn’t compute for most Americans. In common parlance, racism means prejudice or bigotry on account of race or skin color. Period. ... If a neo-Nazi paints a swastika on a Jew’s front door, no decent person withholds judgment pending an audit of the victim’s social or institutional power. We just call it anti-Semitism. ... Even if we were to collectively accept that “racism” means structural oppression by whites, we’d still need a word for hating or degrading people solely on account of their race."
Jonah Goldberg is implying that the new definition of the word "racism" is dishonest. Nobody accepts the new definition, but Cultural Marxists are promoting it anyway, to avoid admitting their own hateful prejudice against whites.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/left-redefinition-of-racism-double-standard-sarah-jeong/
Ultimately, Sarah Jeong's racist tweets might not be especially significant in themselves. What really is significant is that the New York Times refused to fire her for her spiteful comments, which is clear evidence of their Cultural Marxist anti-white bias. Also significant is the fact that Sarah Jeong's attitude is very common among university graduates, which shows clearly that our universities are brainwashing our young people. Commenting on this, author Heather Mac Donald writes,
"Both the Times and Jeong blamed her [racist tweets] on . . . you guessed, it, whites. Her status as a “young Asian woman,” in the Times’ words, made her a subject of frequent online harassment, to which she responded “for a period of time” by “imitating the rhetoric of her harassers.” [However, Sarah] Jeong’s five-year tweet trail is much longer than a mere “period of time” during which she allegedly experimented with counter-trolling. But most important, her tweets are not imitative of anything other than the ideology that now rules the higher-education establishment, including UC Berkeley and Harvard Law School, both of which Jeong attended. ...
The key features of Jeong’s worldview are an obsession with whiteness and its alleged sins; a commitment to the claim that we live in a rape culture; and a sneering contempt for objectivity and truth-seeking. These are central tenets of academic victimology. From the moment freshmen arrive on a college campus, they are inundated by the message that they are either the bearers of white privilege or its victims. [Even] college presidents ... teach students to see racism where none exists, preposterously accusing their own institutions of systemic bias. ...
As [the graduates] of the victimology university enter the workplace, they are bringing their ideology with them. A lawsuit against Google filed by computer engineer James Damore reveals an employee culture that mimics academic social-justice principles. (Damore was fired for questioning Google’s feminist orthodoxies.) ...
Google is hardly unique. Human-resources departments in corporations across the country are pervaded by the view that the corporation’s white-male employees are incapable of fairly judging females and underrepresented minorities without large dollops of diversity training. Race and gender quotas, whether in publishing, the media, or scientific research labs, are becoming more extreme and more [inescapable]."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/sarah-jeong-boring-typical-product-higher-education/
In other words, what Heather Mac Donald finds most significant about the Sarah Jeong scandal is not Sarah Jeong's racist tweets, but what the story tells us about our society. Specifically, our society is increasingly dominated by Cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxist victimhood ideology dominates our university campuses, and has now infected our news media and the top management of our leading corporations. Sarah Jeong herself is just a typical, brainwashed university graduate. She is the product of our leading universities, which are focused on transforming students into radical political activists, rather than teaching common sense and critical thinking.
https://twitter.com/APStylebook/status/917821858728341504
https://twitter.com/APStylebook/status/917825102233980934
https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/transgender-ideology-hurts-kids
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270958/debased-politics-debased-language-bruce-thornton
https://quillette.com/2018/08/17/a-closer-look-at-anti-white-rhetoric
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-anti-white-racism.html
How Cultural Marxists are Censoring Us
As previously discussed, Cultural Marxists falsely claim that our Western Culture is oppressive. The truth is that Cultural Marxists themselves are oppressive. For example, they aggressively censor our speech on the Internet. They do this from within social media companies such as Facebook, Youtube, Google, and Twitter. They also censor us from positions of power within our corporations, governments, and universities.
Besides direct censorship, Cultural Marxists also manipulate our news media to make particular topics seem too controversial to discuss. Anyone who dares to discuss such forbidden topics risks being publicly shamed and smeared. In other words, Cultural Marxists personally attack those with whom they disagree, because they lack the ability to debate the issues logically.
For example, after Donald Trump implied that unchecked Muslim immigration was a national security risk, he was accused of racism. This was a form of censorship, intended to disparage and silence any such politically incorrect opinions. In fact, Muslims are not a race. And in fact, most terrorist violence in recent decades has indeed been perpetrated by Muslims. But these realities contradict the Cultural Marxist narrative, so Trump was personally smeared for voicing legitimate concerns about the terrorist threat facing America.
Actually, in breaking Cultural Marxist rules, Donald Trump has shown rare courage. More commonly, politicians tend to stay within the "Overton Window", to avoid being smeared by the news media. The "Overton Window" is the range of topics that are considered acceptable for public discussion. This range of topics is not static, but shifts over time, as certain topics gradually fall out of favor and start to be ridiculed by journalists. For example, these days, journalists tend to ridicule and shame anyone who openly opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, transgender ideology, or mass immigration.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/facebook-finally-censors-baby-photos
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/the-progressive-patriarchy/
Cultural Marxists also censor people at work, by intimidating them into silence. For example, merely for expressing politically incorrect views, people can lose their jobs or lose their customers. To avoid these consequences, people tend to self-censor their own speech. Unfortunately, this climate of fear undermines research and teaching at many universities, and possibly at the Rotman School of Management too. Indeed, this climate of fear has permeated much of our entire society.
To excuse their censorship, Cultural Marxists piously claim that they need to be "intolerant of intolerance". In other words, believing they are morally superior, they feel entitled to accuse their political opponents of intolerance, and then silence them.
How are People Resisting Cultural Marxism?
Concerned by the growing strength of Cultural Marxism, and its insidious perversions of our language, some people have decided to resist. For example, they are boycotting Google and Youtube ads by refusing to click on them. Also, to counter hateful Cultural Marxist slogans such as "abolish whiteness", some people are adopting more sympathetic and encouraging slogans such as "it's okay to be white". (hashtag: #ItsOkayToBeWhite) And in defiance of hostile feminism, thousands of men have joined the #MGTOW movement, which means "men going their own way". It's sad that so many men feel alienated from women, yet it's understandable, given how hostile some women have become, under the influence of Cultural Marxism.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/12/15/criminalizing-sexual-harassment-fosters-witch-hunts/
In addition, to resist Cultural Marxism, some people are refusing to use ideologically-laden words, such as "gay", "straight", and "LGBT". Instead, as an act of defiance, they have reverted to the former terminology, such as homosexual and heterosexual. This is not to disparage homosexuals, but merely to use the correct words, and to reject any ideological bias. I too have adopted this former terminology, for the same reason.
http://aberrosexualism.blogspot.ca/2014/03/normal-0-21-false-false-false-en-us-x.html
How do People Denigrate Cultural Marxism?
The intense scorn people feel for Cultural Marxists has resulted in some derogatory slang words. For example, the term "cuck" means a white male Cultural Marxist. "Cuck" is short for cuckold. So the term "cuck" implies that Cultural Marxist men are beta males who have repressed their masculinity to appease feminists. Ostensibly, feminists tend to reject "cucks" as reproductive partners. Instead, what feminists really do crave – secretly – is to copulate with the very alpha males whom they claim to hate. Instinctively, they know that reproducing with a dominant male will produce healthier offspring. In other words, their biological instincts overrule their Cultural Marxist ideology. Well, that seems to be what's implied by the term "cuck".
An alternate term for cuck would be "quisling", which means a traitor who assists an occupying enemy force. This seems a suitable term for men who betray their own sex by promoting anti-male Cultural Marxist rhetoric.
In any case, most insults directed at Cultural Marxists are actually quite mild and innocuous. For example, "political correctness" means conformity with Cultural Marxist ideology. A "snowflake" is a person who cannot bear to hear opinions that differ from her own. Upon hearing such opposing views, she retreats to a "safe space". A "social justice warrior" is someone who campaigns relentlessly for Cultural Marxism. And one of the strongest terms is "feminazi", which is a woman who hates men and censors their speech.
Unfortunately, some common terms, such as "political correctness", "social justice", and "progressive", have positive connotations, if taken literally. Of course, these terms are meant sarcastically – to be critical, not complimentary – but that might not be immediately obvious to everyone. For example, to be derided as a "progressive, politically correct, social justice warrior snowflake" could even be interpreted as a compliment. This is because the words themselves are not inherently insulting. Indeed, these mild, harmless words make it more difficult to warn the general public about the danger of Cultural Marxist ideology. No doubt, public awareness would spread faster if the terms used to describe Cultural Marxism were less bland and more obviously critical.
In Sharp Contrast, Cultural Marxists Spew Vicious Insults
Cultural Marxists routinely smear their opponents with obvious insults such as bigot, racist, or Nazi. The meaning of those words is absolutely clear and unambiguous. When publicly smeared with these words, a person can lose his job, his customers, and his friends. Yet Cultural Marxists spew these dreadful insults without hesitation, leaving the unfortunate opponent with the arduous task of restoring his damaged reputation.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/quisling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidkun_Quisling
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Feminazi
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Snowflake
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Social%20Justice%20Warrior
The Concealed Treachery of Cultural Marxism
Cultural Marxists are very adept at keeping their treachery concealed. For example, they have tried to deprive us of the very words we need to describe and discuss their nefarious political activity. Specifically, in late 2014, a Wikipedia editor – a self-described Cultural Marxist named RGloucester – decided to categorize Cultural Marxism as a mere conspiracy theory. Other Wikipedia editors objected, but they were overruled. So the term "Cultural Marxism" is now, in effect, ridiculed and stigmatized on Wikipedia.
Stigmatizing the word itself has no doubt shifted the Overton Window away from the topic. After all, most people want to avoid ridicule, so they avoid discussing any topic that seems to attract scorn. Moreover, since Cultural Marxism is now portrayed as a ridiculous conspiracy theory on Wikipedia, readers will tend to feel skeptical and dismissive of the topic. So they will overlook the very real danger of Cultural Marxism. Thus, stigmatizing the necessary vocabulary has inevitably slowed the spread of public awareness, enabling the Cultural Marxists to continue their perfidy, largely unnoticed by the general public.
The Term "Cultural Marxism" is Actually Very Useful
In reality, even if the term "Cultural Marxism" is not approved by Wikipedia or the intellectual elites, it is nonetheless widely used – because it's a very useful term. It's the best way to describe the insidious left-wing movement dedicated to undermining Western civilization. Compared to academic terms such as "postmodernism", "Marxist feminism", "progressivism", "Cultural Studies", or the "New Left", the term Cultural Marxism is more helpfully descriptive. This makes it suitable for use by ordinary people in everyday conversation.
In any case, the facts are widely documented: What is now referred to as Cultural Marxism started with Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs at the Frankfurt School in Germany. It continued with Herbert Marcuse and his fellow neo-Marxists in the USA. They conspired to infiltrate our institutions, and work from within them to achieve cultural dominance. This was their strategy for imposing Cultural Marxism on us all.
Following this strategy, Cultural Marxist professors and administrators have effectively hijacked our universities in recent decades. They have been implementing Antonio Gramsci's ideas by indoctrinating countless thousands of college students with Cultural Marxist ideology, year after year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaBpVzOohs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3f6fey/wikipedias_sjw_crowd_manages_to_delete_the/
https://web.archive.org/web/20140519194937/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism&oldid=812387075
http://forums.amerika.org/index.php?topic=830.0
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/it-time-debate%E2%80%94and-end%E2%80%94identity-politics-32702
How Your Taxes Support Cultural Marxism
It is astonishing that our tax dollars and philanthropic donations continue to fund the subversive political activism of Cultural Marxist professors. Comfortably ensconced in lucrative, tenured positions, these charlatans wage their endless war on heterosexual white men, our families, our freedom of speech, and our culture. If their funding were cut off, their sedition would largely cease. That's obvious, yet we continue to support them with countless millions of tax dollars and donations every year. And so they are thriving.
For example, gender studies professors at the University of Toronto earn as much as $165,000 Canadian dollars per year. Likewise, American gender studies professors typically earn over $105,000 US dollars a year. This is about $15,000 more per year more than biology, math, and science professors earn, according to CampusReform.org. And it's more than double the $48,000 that firefighters normally earn. So, is a gender studies professor really worth twice as much as a firefighter? Not for most people.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11213
However, it's not just Cultural Marxist professors who are paid exorbitantly; it's the administrators too, and some of them are paid even more extravagantly. Author Heather Mac Donald, writes that,
"In 2015, UCLA created a vice chancellorship for equity, diversity and inclusion, funded at $4.3 million. ... Over the last two years ... the diversity vice chancellor’s total pay, including benefits, has averaged $414,000, [a year, which is] more than four times [as much as] many faculty salaries. ... Various schools at UCLA, including medicine and dentistry, have their own diversity deans, whose job includes making sure that the faculty avoid “implicit bias in the hiring process”."
Yet, as Heather Mac Donald notes, there is no evidence of any discrimination or implicit bias at UCLA that would justify this enormous expense. In fact, MacDonald writes that, "UCLA and the University of California are among the most tolerant, welcoming environments in human history for all races, ethnicities and genders." She concludes that "It does not do UCLA’s students any favors to teach them to see bias where there is none. UC’s diversity bureaucracy is a costly diversion from the true mission of higher education: passing on to students, with joy and gratitude, the treasures of our cultural inheritance and expanding the boundaries of knowledge."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mac-donald-diversity-ucla-20180902-story.html
An even more astonishing example is the diversity, equity, and inclusion program at University of Michigan. Its funding was analyzed by Mark J. Perry of the American Enterprise Institute. What he found was stunning. He writes that:
"The University of Michigan currently employs a diversity staff of ... 91 full-time diversity administrators, officers, directors, vice-provosts, deans, consultants, specialists, investigators, managers, executive assistants, administrative assistants, analysts, and coordinators. ... 26 of these “diversicrats” earn annual salaries of more than $100,000. ... The total payroll for this small army [exceeds] $11 million [including their very generous fringe benefits]." This [would be] enough money to fund "765 in-state students per year with full tuition scholarships!"
Thus, rather than helping hundreds of students pay their tuition, the University of Michigan is funding Cultural Marxist victimhood ideology on a massive scale. But that's just one university. If we multiply these figures by the thousands of universities located in the USA, or even just a few hundred of them, the vast scale of the fraud becomes apparent:
Funded by one billion dollars or more annually, a vast army of administrators nation-wide are working every day to enforce Cultural Marxist victimhood ideology on our university campuses. In addition, generous salaries are paid to countless Cultural Marxist professors whose job is to invent nonsense and brainwash our young university students. This army of fanatical ideologues is indeed well-funded, which explains how they are able to inflict so much damage on our society, year after year.
https://www.aei.org/publication/more-on-my-efforts-to-advance-diversity-equity-and-inclusion/
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84
http://www.ontariosunshinelist.com/positions/xkhzq
https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/43736/
The Growing Power of Cultural Marxism
Cultural Marxists are already dominating our society, just as Antonio Gramsci wished. And their power is still growing, politically, culturally, and economically.
As you know, their political power has enabled them to create laws that force their ideology on everyone. People can be fined and even imprisoned merely for refusing to use invented gender pronouns. Children can be taken from their parents if they are not raised according to government-imposed Cultural Marxist standards. And male college students risk being expelled from university, merely for being accused of sexual assault, without any proof.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/06/california-can-now-jail-people-for-misusing-gender-pronouns/
These examples illustrate the oppressive political control that the Cultural Marxists have already achieved. Their rise to power has been facilitated by university administrators and politicians who are either Cultural Marxists themselves, or who lack the courage to resist, or who have simply sold their souls to keep their lucrative jobs and stay in power.
In the corporate world, Cultural Marxist college graduates have risen to senior executive positions, replacing older baby boomers as they have retired. Now, after quietly gaining power for decades, Cultural Marxists control some of our largest corporations, including Google, Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. With this economic power, they exert an enormous influence on our culture. They promote Cultural Marxist propaganda relentlessly, and they silence anyone with whom they disagree.
In addition to their political and economic power, Cultural Marxists also have cultural power. This cultural power stems from their growing influence in our education system, our liberal churches, our news media, and our entertainment industry. One result is that the plots of many Hollywood movies have been twisted to communicate politically correct Cultural Marxist values.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/22/political-correctness-ruined-disneys-recent-princess-movies/
With its ascension to cultural dominance, Cultural Marxism has become fashionable. So its code of political correctness has been adopted by poseurs who want to appear fashionably virtuous in public. Movie stars and popular singers sanctimoniously espouse Cultural Marxist values when they want to signal their virtue. In turn, their preening narcissism captivates their fans, who mindlessly adopt the same values, in hopes of appearing equally fashionable.
Meanwhile, anyone who breaks the rules of political correctness risks being fired from their job. For example, after Google employee, James Damore, attempted to constructively discuss women's employment issues, he was fired by Google for supposedly "advancing harmful gender stereotypes".
Disagreeing with Cultural Marxists can also result in being beaten by antifa thugs, and being smeared as a bigot, a racist, or a Nazi.
https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/james-damore-official-fundraiser
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-11/james-damore-explains-why-i-was-fired-google
Most People Are Oblivious to the Cultural Marxist Threat
In effect, Cultural Marxism is driving an insidious, slow-motion revolution. This has transformed our society. Yet much of the change has occurred out of public view, on university campuses and within organizations. Moreover, the change has been gradual, especially compared to the rapid technological changes of recent years. Besides, many people are just too busy to notice, because they are struggling to pay their mortgages and raise their children.
Compounding the problem, we have neglected to foster respect for our Western civilization. As a result, too many people have been left culturally anchorless, drifting and disoriented. They are incapable of appreciating the enormity of our loss, as our enlightened Western culture disintegrates before our eyes. Even those who have noticed the transformation don't necessarily understand why our culture is changing, who is promoting the change, and what their pernicious goals are.
As the Cultural Marxists have neared their goal of total dominance, they have started using their political power to impose their version of Marxism on our society. One example is the perverse sex education policies of Ontario's lesbian former Premiere Kathleen Wynne. Other politicians who have forced us to adopt their Cultural Marxist agenda include Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau.
https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Barack-Where-Christianity/dp/0983068046
Cultural Marxism in the Rotman Management Magazine
To better understand the insidious process of political indoctrination, let's consider the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. We can't all enroll in the school to verify whether the students are being indoctrinated, but we can look at some publicly available evidence.
Consider, for example, the Autumn 2017 issue of the Rotman Management Magazine. It is devoted to the topic of inequality. More specifically, the focus is not on inequality of opportunity, but rather on inequality of outcome. This is a topic favored by the left, and especially by Cultural Marxists. There is little in the magazine to represent any conservative viewpoint, other than an illuminating article by Professor Lawrence Booth. Essentially he argues that, economically, a rising tide lifts all boats.
To see for yourself how the Rotman Management Magazine has become politicized, click this link and read the Fall 2017 "Inequality" issue:
https://issuu.com/rotmanmag/docs/fall_17
Let's open the front cover of the Rotman Management Magazine. What we see first is a large photo of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, flanked by two reporters from the leftwing New York Times. Directing their respectful gaze toward Trudeau, the two reporters certainly seem supportive, if not reverent. It's a picture of coziness between the government, the news media, and the University of Toronto, that does not bode well for our democracy. What this picture seems to indicate is that they are colluding on their shared political agenda, which is highly inappropriate for a publicly funded university.
The caption for the photo describes Justin Trudeau as a self-proclaimed feminist. Trudeau is quoted as saying that, "getting women to succeed in business is not just the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do for economic growth." Of course, success in business is a worthy goal, whether it's achieved by men or women. But the condescending phrase "getting women to succeed" implies that women cannot succeed on their own. Instead, Trudeau thinks they need government assistance. He also apparently believes the government should be picking winners in the private sector, but this rarely ends well. However, Trudeau's evident preference for micromanagement is not surprising, given his publicly expressed admiration for the authoritarian leaders of Cuba and China.
Trudeau has been Canada's prime minister since 2015. While his personal popularity helped him win the 2015 general election, he could not have succeeded without the hard work and individual victories of Liberal candidates across the country. If they had not won the most seats in the Canadian parliament, Trudeau would not be prime minister today.
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/results-2015/
Furthermore, almost three quarters of those winning candidates were men. So Trudeau could have shown some gratitude by appointing his cabinet in the same proportions: three quarters being male, and one quarter being female. Better still, he really should have ignored sex entirely. For the sake of all Canadians, Trudeau should have chosen his cabinet members strictly based on their talent and track record. Even if he ended up with 100% men or 100% women, he should have used merit as the sole criterion, as that would have resulted in the most competent cabinet. Choosing the most capable MPs as cabinet members would have been in the best interests of all Canadians.
But Trudeau didn't want that. Instead, he preferred sanctimonious political posturing, so he could pander to his feminist admirers. Therefore, he enforced a diversity quota, to ensure that exactly half of his cabinet would be female. Thus, he prioritized sex over competence. This probably resulted in his cabinet being less capable than it could have been. Probably some highly capable men were passed over for less capable women. By appointing a less capable cabinet for the sake of his Cultural Marxist ideology, Trudeau cheated all Canadians. Clearly, it was unethical and irresponsible for him to indulge in such narcissistic virtue-signaling at Canada's expense.
Indeed, Trudeau's poor judgment and lack of integrity on this issue make him a very poor role model for young Canadians aspiring to success in business management. Why then is Trudeau featured so prominently and favorably in the Rotman Management Magazine? Is Cultural Marxist ideology now in the driver's seat at the Rotman School of Management?
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/results-2015/
Rotman Management Magazine Espouses Cultural Marxist Ideology
If we turn a few pages in the magazine, we see how the editor-in-chief, Karen Christensen, sets the stage for the articles that follow. She notes that in the advanced economies, the gap between rich and poor individuals has widened. Now, to ordinary people, it's obvious that one significant cause of this widening income gap was the loss of millions of jobs, as America's factories moved offshore to China. Meanwhile, the elites who benefited from this globalization prospered. The plight of the displaced factory workers was widely ignored, because it did not fit the identity-politics narrative of the Cultural Marxist news media. But in the 2016 election, Donald Trump did address this issue, which helped him win the American presidency.
Regardless, globalization is not even mentioned by the magazine's editor Karen Christensen. Instead, what she does blame is discrimination against various demographic groups. Specifically, a person's "gender, sexual orientation, [and] family background" determine what opportunities are available, she writes. This implies that discrimination against women and homosexuals is responsible for the widening income gap between rich and poor. It also implies that women and homosexuals are oppressed. This victimhood narrative is consistent with the identity politics of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau, and Cultural Marxism.
But in fact, there has been no significant drop in women's wages in recent years. On the contrary, women's wages are coming closer to parity with men's. And there has been no decline in the female labor force participation rate. Clearly, women are succeeding, and their situation is improving. So, how can this improvement in their situation be worsening the income gap between rich and poor? Obviously, it can't. We cannot attribute the widening income gap to gender oppression, because the statistical facts indicate otherwise. Thus, Christensen's article points us in the wrong direction, and that's because her assumptions are apparently based on Cultural Marxist identity politics.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/12/11/on-pay-gap-millennial-women-near-parity-for-now/
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015009-eng.htm
Furthermore, there is no mention anywhere in the entire magazine that, in our society, women are relatively well off, on average. Yet, according to the BMO Wealth Institute, "Women currently control 51 percent ... of personal wealth in the U.S. ... [And they] now hold ... 52 percent ... of management, professional, and related positions in the U.S." This reality contrasts sharply with the opinions expressed in this issue of the Rotman Magazine. One is left with the impression that the authors have succumbed to academic groupthink.
http://www.businessinsider.com/women-now-control-more-than-half-of-us-personal-wealth-2015-4
Regarding homosexuals, they actually tend to earn more than heterosexuals. Looking at actual financial statistics, Experian.com reports that "Lesbian women earn more than heterosexual women regardless of relationship status. ... Married or partnered gay men personally take home nearly $8,000 more, on average, than their straight counterparts." Additionally, the household income of male homosexual couples is almost $22,000 higher than the household income of heterosexual couples, according to Experian.com. Of course, heterosexual couples typically bear the considerable financial burden of raising children. So evidently, homosexuals are significantly better off financially than heterosexuals. In other words, homosexuals are not oppressed.
Disregarding these verifiable facts, Karen Christensen instead espouses the usual Cultural Marxist victimhood narrative. She implies that women and homosexuals are economically oppressed, which is supposedly contributing to rising income inequality. But this is factually incorrect. Women and homosexuals are not economically oppressed. In reality, the situation of women is improving, and homosexuals are prospering. They are not experiencing any economic decline that would worsen the income gap between rich and poor.
Evidently, politically correct Cultural Marxist ideology has muddled Christensen's thinking. This illustrates the danger of prioritizing ideology over logic, objectivity, and science. And it raises the question, if universities are no longer dedicated to the objective, verifiable truth, then why should our hard-earned tax dollars be funding them at all?
Are Women Oppressed Even When They Succeed?
Let's look at some interesting statistics:
According to Pew research, women believe that men have unfair advantages – in general. However, women don't perceive any such unfairness in their own workplaces. In other words, their own personal experiences at work don't match the pervasive propaganda that claims gender discrimination is rampant. And in fact, the pervasive propaganda is wrong.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/12/11/on-pay-gap-millennial-women-near-parity-for-now/
Even a dozen years ago in 2006, women dominated university programs in psychology, pharmacy, biology, and the social sciences. Conversely, men were underrepresented in these fields. So why is there no sanctimonious handwringing about men being underrepresented? Why are there no pious crusades to entice men back into these fields?
If equal representation in every career path is so vital for women, then why is it not important for men? The reason is simple: Cultural Marxists want us to think that women are oppressed. White heterosexual men are the supposed oppressors, so they don't matter. Even non-white men don't matter much, because their rank is lower than non-white women, in the inverted victimhood hierarchy of Cultural Marxism.
http://bluemassgroup.com/2016/02/why-the-gender-card-isnt-working-in-nh/
In fact,
"women are outperforming men in school by a large margin, according to The New York Times. Not only are women getting far better grades than their male classmates, but they are also more likely to graduate with a degree than their male peers. Ten women graduate for every eight men who do. ... Where most colleges used to be male dominated, men made up [only] 44 percent of all college students in the United States in 2017, according to Department of Education data."
These statistics were reported by DailyCaller.com.
Career Interests Vary by Sex
Statistics show that women have different career interests than men. Specifically, when entering university, young women tend to choose different majors than men do.
Within the STEM fields, which are science, technology, engineering, and math, women typically prefer the social sciences and biology.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/truth-women-stem-careers/
Even within the field of engineering, women prefer some specialties over others. For example, they prefer chemical engineering over mechanical engineering. In contrast, for men, mechanical engineering is quite popular. This illustrates the reality that men and women tend to be interested in different subjects. Like men, women follow their own natural inclinations, and choose careers that interest them. That's why they are not equally represented in all fields.
In fact, women earn more STEM degrees than men do. On the other hand, men earn more STEM graduate degrees. Of course, these career choices reflect not oppression, but the personal preferences of individual men and women. These individuals are exercising their own freedom of choice.
http://higheredlive.com/missing-men/
How Cultural Marxism Exploits Women
Freedom of choice is not oppressive. On the contrary, it's empowering. Women are empowered by their freedom to choose whichever careers interest them. In contrast, what actually does oppress women is Cultural Marxist ideology.
For example, Cultural Marxist dogma requires women to be equally represented in all professional fields. This rigid dogma is unrealistic, because not all fields appeal to women. The male-dominated field of electrical engineering is one example. Men are interested in this field, but most women are not. Yet despite their evident lack of interest, young women are encouraged by educators to pursue such male-dominated fields anyway. In other words, their best interests are sacrificed for the sake of Cultural Marxist ideology.
Sadly, women who are coaxed into careers that don't suit them may end up with a lifetime of dissatisfaction and regret. They might end up even unhappier if Cultural Marxist propaganda persuades them to postpone having children until it's too late.
But such individual misfortunes are considered a price worth paying, if they help Cultural Marxism defeat Western civilization. After all, it's not individuals that matter; it's the demographic groups they belong to, such as male, female, black, white, heterosexual, or homosexual. A person's demographic group is what determines their all-important victimhood status. The illusion of victimhood is crucial, because it motivates and aggravates the animosity that sustains Cultural Marxism.
Since their victimhood propaganda is based entirely on demographic groups, Cultural Marxists have little concern for individuals. Hence, the happiness of individuals can be sacrificed. Likewise, for women who are guided into inappropriate careers, their happiness can be sacrificed too. They don't matter as individuals; they matter only as a class of ostensibly oppressed victims.
Thus, as Cultural Marxists seek to impose their ideology on everyone, the inevitable adverse consequences for individuals are simply ignored.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2013001/article/11874-eng.htm
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/04/19/a-gender-reversal-on-career-aspirations/
Justin Trudeau: Smug and Vacuous
Now, back to the Rotman Management Magazine. Turning the page, we come upon the largest lettering in the entire magazine. The headline boldly declares, "Because it's 2017". This is a hideous allusion to the smug, vacuous reason that Justin Trudeau gave for appointing a gender-balanced cabinet in 2015. "Because it's 2015", is all he said.
Thus, he cited an arbitrary, whimsical criterion for the very serious business of choosing his cabinet. This was an insulting betrayal of all Canadians.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-trudeau-liberal-government-cabinet-1.3304590
Yet this smug, vacuous statement is emulated in the title of the Rotman Magazine article. This aroused my curiosity about the author's perspective. She is not only a Rotman professor, but also the director of the Rotman Institute for Gender and the Economy. As the director, she is no doubt responsible for the Institute's website. Clearly, this author, Professor Sarah Kaplan, is exerting a significant cultural influence at the Rotman School of Management. So let's visit her Institute's website, and learn more about how she thinks.
https://www.gendereconomy.org/
https://web.archive.org/web/20171001113228/https://www.gendereconomy.org/
How Cultural Marxists Are Making Homosexuality the New Normal
On the Institute's website are a number of articles related to feminism and homosexuality. One article discusses the challenges that homosexuals face when revealing their sexual orientation in the workplace. The author implies that revealing one's homosexuality enables a person to be more authentic. This is good, she implies, because in a workplace where authenticity is accepted, employees will feel more engaged and purposeful.
But in reality, there are limits to how much "authenticity" people really want from their coworkers. For example, not everyone wants to know the details of their coworkers' sexual preferences. An employee who reveals their personal sexual proclivities can seem self-absorbed and inconsiderate. The resulting social discomfort and resentment certainly won't help employees feel purposeful and engaged.
Anyway, people can feel engaged and purposeful without revealing their personal eccentricities. For example, throughout history, people have achieved great success without discussing their sexual preferences at work.
So then, why is Professor Sarah Kaplan trying to redefine what's acceptable in today's workplaces? Apparently to undermine heteronormativity. And what is heteronormativity? Heteronormativity is the belief that heterosexuality is the normal and ideal sexual orientation. This Cultural Marxist buzzword is typically used to express resentment against heterosexuality.
However, heteronormativity is actually a correct belief, because it's true that the vast majority of people are indeed heterosexual. That's fortunate, because heterosexuality is what allows humans to have children. It's what has allowed our species to survive. And it's why we are all alive today. Even homosexuals owe their very existence to the heterosexuality of their parents. Without heterosexuality, mankind would not exist.
Thus, heterosexuality is indeed the ideal sexual orientation. So naturally, heteronormativity is widely accepted throughout the world. And it's a core part of our Western culture, as it should be.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/02/16/transgenderism-semantic-contagion-or-biological-fact/
But Cultural Marxists claim that heteronormativity is oppressive. So to eradicate heteronormativity, they are trying to normalize sexual perversion in our workplaces.
https://www.gendereconomy.org/the-challenges-and-opportunities-of-being-out-and-a-leader-at-work/
One key obstacle for Cultural Marxists is that many Muslims, Christians, and Jews don't approve of homosexuality. Other people are convinced for scientific reasons that homosexuality is a maladaptation.
Hence, drawing attention to one's homosexuality at work can make coworkers feel that they are being forced to offer their sympathy and support, against their will and against their beliefs. These coworkers might prefer not to know about each other's sexual preferences at all. And why should they?
Surely, it is the quality of a person's work that matters, not their homosexuality. It is through their achievements and their contribution to society that homosexuals earn genuine respect. Indeed, homosexuals have contributed much to our world. For example, singer Elton John, journalist Dave Rubin, and composer Tchaikovsky are respected not for their homosexuality, but for their outstanding work. Indeed, it is demeaning to suggest that the identity of homosexuals should revolve around their sexual orientation rather than their accomplishments.
Clearly, revealing one's homosexuality at the office is not as advantageous for homosexuals as the article suggests.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/summary.html
http://www.equip.org/article/is-homosexuality-an-illness/
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_Statistics
https://medium.com/@robertstacymccain/gender-sexuality-and-psychological-maladjustment-91593a656b8e
http://genderwholeness.com/lds/understanding/what-causes-male-homosexuality/
http://www.biographyonline.net/people/famous/gay.html
https://americansfortruth.com/
So, if Sarah Kaplan's article does not actually help homosexuals, then what is its purpose? Well, it seems the true purpose of her article is to advance the Cultural Marxist agenda. Here's how: Revealing one's homosexuality in the workplace tends to make coworkers feel obliged out of politeness to openly approve of homosexuality, even if they disagree. This establishes a new social norm. As similar cultural shifts occur across thousands of other companies and institutions, our society incrementally adopts Cultural Marxist values.
In the short run, each incremental shift in values may seem harmless. But in the long run, the cumulative effect is proving disastrous for our society. For example, Cultural Marxists now claim that a person's gender fluctuates with their sexual mood. A person can be a woman today and a man tomorrow. In other words, a person's biological sex is inconsequential.
This confusing gender identity dogma is now being taught to young children in our primary schools. Thus, our own young children are being brainwashed, confused, and corrupted with harmful propaganda that might be interfering with their natural sexual development. If so, their entire lives could be ruined. The psychological damage might even be passed on to future generations. Clearly, Cultural Marxism is causing considerable harm.
https://arpacanada.ca/news/2017/03/21/five-bills-five-years-gender-ideology-ontario/
http://libertyinstitute.ca/the-clear-and-present-danger-of-ontarios-depraved-sex-ed-curriculum/
Actually, Professor Kaplan's article is little more than manipulative, exploitive propaganda. The pop psychology it offers might be suitable for a consumer website aimed at homosexuals, but it's not suitable for a business school at a taxpayer-funded university.
http://www.cision.com/us/2012/06/top-10-gay-and-lesbian-magazines/
Of course, Cultural Marxists want to make it appear that they are liberating homosexuals. But in reality, homosexuals are already liberated. They already have the right to same-sex marriage, and they earn more income than heterosexuals on average. Regardless, they are typically portrayed as victims in Cultural Marxist propaganda. The purpose of this is to foment resentment against Western culture. In other words, Cultural Marxists are exploiting homosexuals to achieve Cultural Marxist political goals.
Why Cultural Marxists Promote Homosexual Alliances at Work
Let's consider another article on the website of the Rotman Institute for Gender and the Economy. Entitled "Allyship is Leadership", this article explains how homosexuals can recruit sympathetic company leaders as allies. Once recruited, those allies can persuade the company's senior management to sponsor gay pride parades, according to the article.
https://www.gendereconomy.org/allyship-is-leadership/
Gay pride parades typically include at least a few stark naked men exposing their genitals in public. This is amusing for some people, but it's offensive for others. Indeed, many people feel uncomfortable about being a customer or employee of any company that sponsors gay pride parades. Hence, sensible company managers should avoid sponsoring such controversial events.
However, alienating customers and employees is a price worth paying, according to the article. It states that, during a panel discussion co-hosted by the Institute,
"One speaker described the customer and employee pressure that came from a corporate decision to support the Toronto Pride Parade. Competitors campaigned against the organization; some customers defected; [and] employees complained when it affected their ability to hit their sales targets. But this leader ... feeling that inclusiveness was a core value, refused to back down." He even "went as far as suggesting [that] employees resistant to those values [should] leave the organization."
What this implies is that, in order to be "inclusive", senior management had no choice but to support gay pride parades. But in fact, sponsoring the parades was not necessary at all. To be inclusive, the company only needed to give the same opportunities to homosexuals as they gave to heterosexuals. No doubt the company was already doing that, so they were already being inclusive.
Regardless, the company president insisted on sponsoring gay pride parades anyway. This needlessly alienated some customers and employees. Alienating these people harmed the company, and actually made it less inclusive. What caused this harm was the president's controversial decision to use the company to promote his own pet project, which was to sponsor gay pride parades. This seems an appalling abuse of his power as president, and an egregious betrayal of the company that employed him, and its shareholders.
Apparently to whitewash his decision, the company president offered the corporate-speak excuse that "inclusiveness is a core value". But what exactly is "inclusiveness"? Well, to begin with, the word has become so fashionable that merely by saying it, a person can immediately acquire an aura of moral superiority. That's why "inclusiveness" is such a popular word among people who enjoy signaling their virtue.
However, what Cultural Marxists mean by the word "inclusiveness" is not virtuous at all. What it really means is to coddle anyone who is deemed a victim, while excluding heterosexual white men. So the term "inclusiveness" is just as hostile as expressions such as "white privilege" and "abolish whiteness".
So it seems the pious declaration that "inclusiveness is a core value", was merely a ploy to claim the moral high ground, even while promoting resentful identity politics. This was done at the cost of alienating customers and employees, and sacrificing sales and profits.
Regardless of these costs, Professor Sarah Kaplan's article advocates sponsoring gay pride parades anyway. It states that, "by supporting the Pride Parade, leaders can make their allegiance known to their investors, clients, and the community." In other words, the investors should be told that the company's highest allegiance is not to them, but to homosexual activists.
This perverse advocacy reveals the true goal of Rotman's Institute for Gender and the Economy. It is apparently not to study and promote effective management, but instead to advance the insidious political agenda of Cultural Marxism.
Should TD Bank Support Gay Pride Parades?
The controversial company leader who was quoted in Professor Sarah Kaplan's article is a man named Ed Clark. He is a former president of the Toronto Dominion Bank, and he subsequently worked as a senior advisor to Ontario's leftist lesbian premier Kathleen Wynne.
Featured in the second article in the Rotman Management Magazine, he seems a very nice person. Clearly, he wants to help homosexuals, but he may have defeated his own purpose. His controversial and divisive political activism has demonstrated that it can be risky to appoint a homosexual as a company president. For one thing, it now seems a homosexual president might divert a company away from its legitimate mission in order to promote Cultural Marxism. Of course, such controversial political activism can alienate customers and employees, and harm profitability. Thus, Ed Clark's political activism may have convinced boards of directors everywhere to henceforth avoid appointing homosexuals to senior positions.
While Ed Clark must have had some ability as a leader, his success as the TD Bank president stemmed partly from luck. He was the president of a stable Canadian bank when the US banking system nearly collapsed in 2008. This gave the TD Bank a historic opportunity to acquire US banking assets at bargain prices. By acquiring American banks, TD Bank grew, even while Clark alienated customers and employees with his divisive political agenda.
Over time, customers and employees will inevitably become more alienated if additional Cultural Marxist laws are passed by our government. These kinds of laws are already forcing ordinary people to use invented gender pronouns. Meanwhile, young children are being indoctrinated with confusing gender identity ideology at school. As more people become aware of this, many will feel that the TD Bank has helped undermine their personal freedom and the safety of their children. This will corrode the TD Bank's brand and goodwill, and may limit its future profitability.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/justin-trudeaus-values-test-is-offensive
On the other hand, TD Bank is not alone in sponsoring gay pride parades. Corporate sponsors of the New York gay pride parade include Coke, Delta, Hilton, Liberty Mutual, Facebook, Nissan, Wells Fargo, Citibank, Nordstrom, and Microsoft.
Even the Toronto District School Board supports the Toronto Gay Pride Parade, and has had a float in it since 2000. They claim their participation helps discourage bullying. But of course, bullying can be more effectively deterred by other means.
In reality, the School Board's participation in the Gay Pride Parade is a politically motivated Cultural Marxist tactic. It is confusing for school children, and it abuses the trust parents have placed in the School Board.
Now, does any of this help homosexuals? No it does not. Sadly, with all its nudity and bizarre antics, the Toronto Gay Pride Parade creates the impression that homosexuals are foolish clowns, intent on debasing themselves. They seem to be overcompensating for their own inner doubt. Moreover, there is no reason to be proud of being a homosexual – or a heterosexual. One's sexual orientation is not an achievement, so it's nothing to be proud of. Moreover, participating in gay pride parades is absolutely not an effective way to earn the respect of heterosexuals. It does, however, help advance the Cultural Marxist agenda.
Anyway, as Milo Yiannopolis says, "Identity politics is so poisonous [because] it seeks to establish separate rules for separate groups based on perceived, or ... imaginary, victimhood. Gay people should be held to the same standards as everyone else."
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/02/mercer-dumps-milo-severing-all-ties/
http://fortune.com/2015/01/14/why-so-few-women-ceos/
http://tdsb.on.ca/About-Us/Innovation/Gender-Based-Violence-Prevention/Pride
Homo charts https://www.statista.com/topics/1249/homosexuality/
Even Children Are Exploited by Cultural Marxists
Homosexuals are not the only demographic that is exploited by Cultural Marxists. Children are exploited too, as we can see on one of Rotman's MBA course webpages. The subtitle of the page is "Create Lasting, Disruptive Change". At the top of the page, we see a photo of four young girls who are holding up feminist slogans on placards. Perhaps the use of these young children is intended to disarm us, in case we find the article's topics too controversial. However, I find the photo not disarming, but disturbing.
https://www.gendereconomy.org/designing-for-equality/
One of the slogans, "Viva the vulva", is held up by a girl who appears to be only about four years old. This reflects the Cultural Marxist belief that it's okay to exploit anyone, even young children, as mere pawns in the struggle to achieve political and cultural dominance. In addition, another young girl in the photo is holding a placard that proclaims, "Girls just wanna have fundamental human rights". Well, it's hard to imagine what fundamental human rights this girl does not already enjoy.
In fact, in our advanced economy, we are all extremely fortunate to enjoy unprecedented human rights and prosperity. We enjoy all this because our ancestors struggled for centuries, and many of them sacrificed their lives. Yet our children are being taught to feel discontented and resentful. They are being taught to despise the very culture and institutions that guarantee their rights. And they are being taught that posing as victims is an easy way to attract attention and gain power.
Overall, the Institute's website coddles women and homosexuals, and criticizes heterosexual men. Given the site's blatant bias, its slogan seems disingenuous. It boasts of "Using rigorous research to change the conversation on gender equality". Yet there's no evidence of rigorous research in the two articles I read. Nor did I find any evidence that the website is changing the conversation on gender equality. Instead, the website merely espouses standard Cultural Marxist ideology, and encourages radical political activism.
https://www.gendereconomy.org/men-and-pricing-bubbles/
Inciting such political activism is highly inappropriate for the University of Toronto. After all, the university is a public institution, funded by our hard-earned tax dollars. Moreover, the blatant bias of this Rotman website tends to undermine the credibility of all research done at the Rotman School of Management. With the Rotman logo prominently displayed on every page, this website certainly contaminates the Rotman brand.
Given that Professor Sarah Kaplan is the director of this institute, you have now had an introduction to her thinking. So let's return to her own article in the Rotman Management Magazine.
Sarah Kaplan's Article: Because It's 2017
In this article, Professor Kaplan considers why fewer women than men are appointed to senior leadership positions in business. The cause of the problem, she claims, is that business leaders tend to have an unconscious bias against women. "Implicit bias" is what she calls this. This "implicit bias" supposedly prevents women from succeeding on their own merit. For example, because of their purported "implicit bias", venture capitalists tend to deny funding to female entrepreneurs, according to Professor Kaplan.
Frustrated by this alleged "implicit bias", Professor Kaplan scorns our meritocracy as a sham that benefits only men. This meritocracy sham leaves women underrepresented on corporate boards, she complains.
In reality, however, many women do succeed on their own merits, within our meritocracy. For example, women have achieved notable success as doctors, veterinarians, and politicians. But in some other fields, women are less successful than men. This is likely because men and women have different interests and talents, so naturally, they succeed in different fields.
So, is corporate management one of the fields in which men naturally excel? If it is, then this would undermine Cultural Marxist ideology. For Cultural Marxists, women must be as capable as men in every respect, and therefore men cannot be inherently better at anything – especially if it involves power.
Indeed, any suggestion that the natural aptitudes of men and women might differ tends to elicit furious accusations of sexism. This fury reflects the anger and frustration that Cultural Marxists feel at being unable to debate the issues logically. They cannot debate logically because their ideology conflicts with reality. So, lacking the persuasive power of logic, they resort to dishonesty, hysteria, shaming, bullying, censorship, and violence.
The Implicit Bias Trap
To suppress the idea that the two sexes might have different natural aptitudes, Cultural Marxists have invented an excuse. Their excuse is that men dominate the upper echelons of the business world not because they are more capable than women, but because they oppress women. They oppress women by being biased against them. And they do this unconsciously. This unconscious bias that men supposedly have against women is called "implicit bias", according to Cultural Marxists.
By claiming that men have a bias that is unconscious, Cultural Marxists have set a trap. Since male bias against women is ostensibly unconscious, men can't by themselves be aware of it, so they can't easily deny having it. It's as futile as trying to deny an accusation that you have bad breath. Only other people know whether you have it. Likewise, it can be just as futile for a man to deny an accusation that he is guilty of "implicit bias".
Inevitably, some men find it easier to just accept their purported guilt, without any argument. Unfortunately, those who do want to resist can be required by their employers to attend mandatory retraining sessions. One purpose of these retraining sessions is to convince men that they are guilty of "implicit bias" against women. Another purpose is to brainwash these men with the politically correct dogma that women have the same natural talents and interests as men.
How Cultural Marxism Corrupts Research
To support her accusation of implicit bias, Professor Sarah Kaplan mentions several studies. For example, one study shows that people are more likely to approve an investment project if the sales pitch is read by a man, rather than a woman. But some variables are not accounted for by the study. For example, perhaps the men in the study spoke with superior enunciation and vocal resonance, which inspired greater trust in their listeners. Or perhaps the listeners were biased against high voices, regardless of the speaker's sex. As well, it's possible that a significant percentage of the participants were from the Middle East or other Third World countries where women are not accorded much respect. But none of those factors are even mentioned in the study.
Furthermore, in the original research paper, the final chart caught my attention. For one thing, the bottom of the chart is cut off. This exaggerates the apparent difference in success rates between the male and female entrepreneurs.
Also, the chart reveals that it's not so much the men who were more persuasive than the women, it's the attractive men. They were head and shoulders above everyone else, including the un-attractive men.
Of course, women tend to like attractive men. Since women comprised a 58% majority of the audience in the study, their fondness for attractive men likely impacted the study results. So it's no surprise that the study results show a higher success rate for the "attractive" men. Evidently, women are more easily persuaded by men who are handsome. So if there really is a bias against women in the business world, women seem at least partly responsible for it.
Written by four women, this research paper is clearly intended to support the dogma that women are oppressed. And of course, the assumption that women are oppressed is a core tenet of Cultural Marxist ideology. Apparently corrupted by this Cultural Marxist bias, this research paper lacks credibility. It should be challenged, but it probably won't be, because any academic who dares to deviate from Cultural Marxist groupthink risks being ostracized, or even fired. So until this topic is open for honest debate, we should remain skeptical.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that Professor Sarah Kaplan is correct, and that men really do have an implicit bias against women. In that case, what might cause such a bias? Well, some career-women believe they are victims of oppression. Others have a hidden agenda: to promote Cultural Marxism. Hiring or promoting such paranoid, bitter, resentful women could lead to workplace conflict. Thus, in some cases, women can actually defeat their own career aspirations.
Another cause of bias might be that some men simply prefer working with men, much as some women prefer working with women.
Yet another source of bias could be that people instinctively prefer business leaders who are tall. Given that men tend to be taller, this might explain why more men are promoted to leadership positions. However, if this is true, then the real bias is against shortness, not against women.
In any case, what solutions to implicit bias does Professor Sarah Kaplan suggest? Well, she does offer a couple of promising ideas. But she also advocates government-enforced diversity quotas, requiring that corporate boards are comprised of at least 40% women. That is consistent with her enthusiasm for Justin Trudeau's gender-balanced cabinet. And it's also an admission of defeat. After all, if Professor Kaplan really believed that women are truly capable of competing with men, then she would not think that women need coddling with "affirmative action" diversity quotas.
Prosperity Results from Meritocracy, Not from Diversity Quotas
The purpose of diversity quotas is to ensure equality of outcome. For example, a diversity quota might require that, in every engineering firm, 50% of all civil engineers must be women, even if very few women are interested in becoming civil engineers. With a scarcity of female civil engineers, the only ones available might be incompetent, yet the company would be forced to hire them anyway. So we could end up with bridges that collapse, and buildings that fall over.
One problem with diversity quotas is that they are unfair. For example, for many young Asian-Americans, "excelling academically is the only way ... to get out of poverty and achieve their American dreams. They get into elite high schools through sacrifice and hard work, not handouts", according to author Helen Raleigh. Thus, many young Asian-Americans achieve excellent grades, and are well-qualified to enter top universities such as Harvard. Yet Harvard favors other less-qualified minorities instead. So it enforces race-based diversity quotas when deciding which students to admit. These diversity quotas have limited Asian-Americans to 19 percent of admissions. If it weren't for these quotas, and if admissions were based on merit alone, "the Asian-American share of the class would rise to 43 percent." Clearly, "Asian Americans have demonstrated that minorities can thrive in a [meritocratic] society despite political and economic barriers", writes Helen Raleigh. However, their success "defies the racial grievance industry’s narrative that all minorities are hopeless and powerless victims", according to Raleigh. Indeed, Harvard's diversity quotas are very unfair to young Asian-Americans, whose undeveloped talent is a loss for us all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEmPLWzc4N8
Another problem with diversity quotas is that they make everyone poorer. This is because employees are hired and promoted not for their talent and achievements, but instead, for their race and sex. So inevitably, many less-competent people are hired and promoted, while some of the more competent individuals are excluded. As more and more mediocre individuals are hired and promoted, our corporations, our government, and all our institutions become less efficient and less capable. This kind of enforced equality of outcome was tried in the past by communist governments, but it only contributed to their nations' poverty.
In contrast, our own free-market economy is less egalitarian, but more prosperous. Wealth and success vary from one person to the next. This is known as inequality of outcome, but this inequality of outcome is not oppression. Inequality of outcome is the inevitable result of our meritocracy. That is, in a meritocracy, everyone should have the same opportunity to succeed on their own merits. In particular, children should have the same opportunities as each other. Then, as they mature and become adults, they should be recognized and rewarded according to their achievements and competence. Their achievements and competence will inevitably be unequal, because people vary in their motivation and natural talent.
Granted, our meritocracy does not function perfectly. For example, children don't all get the same opportunities, which is indeed unfair. As well, some people succeed not by their own merit, but by being well-connected. Despite these shortcomings, our meritocracy has functioned very well, and it has brought us enormous prosperity. Indeed, our meritocracy has proven to be the best way to fill the most demanding jobs with the most talented people.
In fact, our meritocracy has allowed many hardworking, talented women to become successful business leaders, without needing quotas. Examples can be found in the lists of the female business leaders published annually by magazines such as Forbes and Fortune. Women have also succeeded in politics. Examples include Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, and Golda Meir.
Anyway, our meritocracy is an integral part of our free enterprise economy, which has fostered the entrepreneurship of Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, Sam Walton, Ray Crok, Steve Jobs, and many others. These men were not pampered and coddled with diversity quotas. Instead, they succeeded on their own merits. Their contribution to our world proves that our meritocracy does work – for the benefit of our entire society.
As Heather Mac Donald writes,
"Sometimes meritocracy will yield diversity; sometimes it won’t. The point is that it doesn’t matter. Diversity should not be an end in itself; excellence is the goal. ... Gender and racial quotas have been the order of business for the last three decades. The #MeToo movement has only intensified pressures on public and private organizations to hire based on sex and skin color. The result: wasted resources, the sidelining of merit, and ever more virulent and irrational identity politics. ... Treating people the same way regardless of their race or sex used to be considered the definition of fairness; now it is understood to be vicious and intolerable."
https://www.city-journal.org/html/reject-diversity-mandate-15792.html
Meritocracy Versus Marxism: Which is Better?
Our society is not perfect, but it does allow us all to live freely and prosper. Certainly, whatever unfairness exists is not sufficient to justify abandoning our highly successful meritocracy to adopt Marxism. Marxism may seem fair in theory, but in practice, it deprives everyone of their liberty and freedom of speech, and it creates poverty. In contrast, in a meritocracy, everyone is better off, assuming that there are government social programs to assist the poor. Even the poor are better off than they would be in an egalitarian Marxist state.
Regardless, Marxists oppose meritocracies. For one thing, they believe that it's unfair to reward people according to their natural talent, because they were born with that talent by sheer luck.
However, our meritocracy rewards talented people not just for being talented, but for accepting greater responsibility, and for making a more valuable contribution. This is fair. Besides, filling each job with the most competent employee allows our society to function optimally. And our meritocracy rewards people for acquiring the skills they need to qualify for well-paying jobs. This benefits everyone. Indeed, the better our meritocracy functions, the better off we all are.
However, even though our meritocracy leads to prosperity, it also results in inequality of outcome. This is inevitable. But it is not unfair. Regardless, Cultural Marxists exploit this to incite resentment among people who are less successful. For example, Cultural Marxists claim that our meritocracy is biased against everyone who is not a heterosexual white man. Professor Sarah Kaplan even goes so far as to call our meritocracy a "myth".
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr253/callinicos.htm
However, sensible company managers accept the reality that people's abilities vary. So they hire and promote employees according to their competence, not according to their sex or skin color.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/mediocritytoo-15705.html
Why are Most CEOs Men?
We know that women can succeed in business, because many women have done so. However, achieving a top corporate position typically requires years of sacrifice, and many women have other more appealing opportunities. For example, attractive young women typically have the opportunity to marry upwards in the dominance hierarchy. Supported by a financially successful husband, a sexually attractive woman can live comfortably without having to struggle to earn a living. Even if she does work, she might become so comfortable that she loses her ambition.
In any case, whether they are rich or poor, some women choose to stay home and raise children, instead of pursuing a career.
As a result of these factors, fewer women end up having the knowledge, experience, and burning ambition to compete successfully for senior corporate positions. So it's inevitable that fewer women become corporate leaders and sit on corporate boards. This is fair. After all, women are adults who are responsible for their own choices.
Hence, it would not be fair to enforce diversity quotas. Given the relative scarcity of qualified women, quotas would force companies to hire women who are less qualified than the available male candidates. Meanwhile, many highly qualified male candidates would be unfairly excluded. Thus, quotas would be unfair to both the employers and the employees. Hence, it would be counterproductive and unfair to use quotas to enforce gender parity in the upper echelons of business and politics.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/04/08/after-decades-of-decline-a-rise-in-stay-at-home-mothers/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Capital
http://fortune.com/most-powerful-women/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination
No doubt, many women have the ability to make a valuable contribution at senior corporate levels. However, if an exceptionally high IQ is what's really needed, perhaps men have an advantage. According to renowned intelligence researcher, Richard Lynn, "women are on average about 4 IQ points less intelligent than men. “At the near-genius level ... brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by eight to one. That’s statistics, not sexism. ... When it comes to IQ, men and women.....simply are not equal.”" This is Richard Lynn's opinion, as quoted in Forbes magazine.
Furthermore, mathematician Theodore P. Hill writes that,
"In the highly controversial area of human intelligence, the ‘Greater Male Variability Hypothesis’ (GMVH) asserts that there are more idiots and more geniuses among men than among women. [Charles] Darwin’s research on evolution in the nineteenth century found that ... there is generally more variability in males than in females of the same species throughout the animal kingdom.
Evidence for this hypothesis is fairly robust and has been reported in species ranging from adders and sockeye salmon to wasps and orangutans, as well as humans."
https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/
An alternate viewpoint is that IQ tests do not measure all aspects of human intelligence, according to some psychologists. They argue that there are different kinds of intelligence besides IQ, and they can be complementary.
Anyway, Forbes magazine also reports that scientists have discovered "striking differences in the pattern of connectivity in our brains between females and males." Specifically, "Females boast more connections between the right and left hemispheres, whereas males have more connections from front to back within the same hemisphere." Perhaps this explains why men and women pursue different careers, and excel in different fields.
Biology Rules
As Milo Yiannopoulos puts it,
"We know gender equality efforts in STEM [fields] are foolish, because in a free society, women choose the subjects they are most interested in. The high IQ outliers among women will continue to enter STEM, as they always have. [But] forcing those who are not elite to compete with those who are is not empowering. It’s just cruel. And lowering the bar to accommodate mediocre talent is just as bad. How far do feminists want us to fall behind Asia, exactly?"
"The point here is not to denigrate women, but rather to remind feminists who insist on quotas, affirmative action and various other batty methods designed to artificially level the playing field, that they’re doing so, not to redress any injustices perpetrated by a sexist system, but merely to meet arbitrary ideological objectives that run counter to biology... It’s IQ skills that are required to solve the hardest puzzles in mathematics and physics. ... The work that drives society and technology forward looks a lot like an IQ test, and men simply do better at them."
That's Milo's opinion.
Why Might Male and Female Intelligence Differ?
Obviously, IQ statistics do not indicate that all men are smarter than all women. In fact, many women are extraordinarily intelligent. However, intelligence studies have indeed shown that men have a higher IQ than women on average. This difference between the sexes is most pronounced at genius IQ levels. But again, IQ is a narrow measure of intelligence, so it's safer to say that men's and women's intellectual abilities tend to differ.
Perhaps this difference can be explained by evolution. Over the eons, men have hunted large, dangerous animals and fought deadly wars. To survive this brutal life, men needed strength, agility, and intelligence. Men who lacked these traits would tend to die young, before being able to propagate their genes. Those who did survive would pass their strength, agility, and intelligence to the next generation of men. Thus, natural selection shaped the evolution of men, giving them a higher average IQ.
In addition, the evolution of men has been shaped by the mating preferences of women. Women would tend to prefer alpha males who were rich, powerful, and intelligent enough to ensure the survival of their offspring. This again favored the genes for male intelligence.
In contrast, women's lives were not constantly endangered by war and hunting. Instead, what mattered greatly for women was to attract a healthy, capable mate, whose genes would give the children the best chance of surviving. In this genetic sorting process, women's physical beauty has been crucial. That is, a woman's beauty advertises the scarce resources she has, which are her eggs and womb, and her ability to bear healthy children. The more beautiful she is, the choosier she can be about whom to mate with. So beautiful females have been able to mate with the healthiest and most capable males. This has favored the survival of female genes for physical beauty.
As for intelligence, women seem to have evolved more social aptitude and verbal fluency, enabling them to cooperate with each other effectively, and to compensate for the superior physical strength of men.
On the other hand, some men seem to be just as intelligent, socially and verbally, and they have a high IQ as well. They are also willing to take big risks. And they work tirelessly at unpleasant tasks. Perhaps among these exceptional men are those who are best able to manage a large company.
Exactly how the intelligence of men and women evolved over the eons is open to debate. But undeniably, men and women tend to think differently and have different talents and interests. So we should not expect women to be equally represented in every occupation. They are just not interested. But it is not politically correct to discuss this, because it contradicts Cultural Marxist dogma. So our public discourse on the issue is limited. This may prevent us from ever honestly, accurately, and scientifically evaluating the innate intellectual and leadership abilities of men and women, and how they differ.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social construct
https://www.nas.org/articles/modern_vs_western_thought_postmodern_subjectivism
An Example of Research Corrupted by Cultural Marxism
Moving on through the Rotman Management Magazine, we come across another article, which is entitled, "Whitening And Self-Presentation In The Labour Market". Here, "whitening", means modifying a person's resume to appear white, or Caucasian. This is explained further by the article's subtitle. It claims that, "Job candidates who whiten their resumes to avoid racial discrimination have a better shot at getting a callback, even among diversity-centric organizations."
Thus, this article implies that whites tend to be favored by employers. But is this true? Consider that diversity quotas exclude whites from many jobs. And where diversity quotas are not enforced, East Asians may have an advantage, as they are widely considered highly intelligent and hard-working.
However, the article claims that "Resumes containing ... [an] Asian name lead to 30 to 50% fewer callbacks from employers..." This implies that Asian Americans are being oppressed by racial discrimination in favor of white candidates.
But the facts contradict this implication. Here's how: Asians and Asian-Americans already dominate Silicon Valley tech jobs. So by that measure, they are not oppressed. On the other hand, because they already dominate the industry, hiring Asian Americans will not help company managers fill their diversity quotas. Instead, they need to hire other races. So there is no point in replying to job applicants who have Asian names.
Since the diversity quotas are the result of Cultural Marxist political correctness, it is the Cultural Marxists themselves who are responsible for oppressing Asian Americans. Hence, the real oppressors of Asian Americans are not whites, but Cultural Marxists. The unfortunate consequence is that talented, hard-working Asian Americans are being blocked from the high tech jobs that they deserve. We will all be poorer as a result.
Furthermore, the article's use of the term "whitening" illustrates a common double standard. Specifically, if the article discussed "yellowing" your resume for China, or "blackening" your resume for Africa, that would likely be considered a racial slur. So then, why is it okay to so casually use the term "whitening"?
While it's unlikely that white people would take offense, the authors clearly made no attempt to be polite. Indeed, Cultural Marxists routinely disparage white people, so perhaps the authors of this article are Cultural Marxists. Or perhaps they are just so immersed in Rotman's Cultural Marxist echo chamber that they never thought to question their own double standard.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2012/11/29/asian-workers-now-dominate-silicon-valley-tech-jobs/
Is Cultural Marxism a Substitute for Religion?
In the magazine's final article, Professor Sarah Kaplan interviews a white, male professor named Jan Mahrt-Smith. Professor Mahrt-Smith seems a nice fellow, but he also seems too eager to please. Moreover, something about this interview is vaguely reminiscent of the "struggle sessions" that were a core element of China's oppressive Cultural Revolution. Struggle sessions were a form of public humiliation, intended eradicate from the victim's mind all traces of counter-revolutionary thinking. On the other hand, this interview also bears some resemblance to a religious conversion. In any case, it's fascinating to see how Professor Mahrt-Smith is learning to think as a Cultural Marxist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jplehmann/2015/07/13/chinas-elusive-quest-for-values
Professor Mahrt-Smith's first comment demonstrates admirable humility: "I don't think I could have come from a more privileged position in society – yet I never even realized that I was privileged. I guess true privilege is when you don't even recognize that you're privileged", he says. So apparently, he believes he has entered a new state of awareness, and he is convinced that his prior assumptions were wrong. This awakening has a religious parallel in being "born again", or in the ceremony of baptism.
Professor Mahrt-Smith also says, "I want to have a conversation about how much less stressful and how much richer my life is when I address my privilege." This comment suggests that after realizing he was privileged, he felt guilty about it, which caused him stress. In other words, his new feelings of white guilt were not compatible with his belief that he was a good person. This caused painful cognitive dissonance. He alleviated this by admitting his privilege and repenting. This act has a parallel in the religious ritual of confessing and atoning for one's sins.
But what about the 10 Commandments? Well, whatever the rules are, Professor Mahrt-Smith seems unsure of them. He says, "It's the fear of messing up – of saying something that indicates that I'm still full of learned biases and prejudices."
Mahrt-Smith's lack of confidence is exacerbated by a fear of excommunication. He says, "What if I say the wrong thing and you turn around and report me to my boss? Are you going to not talk to me for a couple of weeks because I've used the wrong terminology?" But fortunately, he's gradually learning what behaviors will appease the authoritarian Cultural Marxist god, and avoid its dreaded condemnation.
What Would You Do For $400,000?
Clearly, Professor Jan Mahrt-Smith is eager to please, and anxious not to offend the wrong people. No doubt he wants to keep his job. After all, he is likely proud of his work, and finds it satisfying. He may also depend on his salary, which in fact is quite substantial. As director of the Rotman full-time MBA program, Professor Jan Mahrt-Smith earns a salary that tops $400,000 Canadian dollars a year. Almost certainly, this munificent salary is heavily subsidized by our tax dollars, and so his salary likely comes with political strings attached. Hence, an implicit requirement of his job must be to please the university's senior administrators. Are they Cultural Marxists? It certainly seems so. And the Professor seems highly motivated to please them.
http://www.ontariosunshinelist.com/people/sbcjhf
Perhaps that's why Professor Mahrt-Smith keeps probing for assurances that he is on the right track. Apparently hoping to ingratiate himself with Professor Kaplan, he admonishes that "One of the reasons some people say equity and inclusion are important goals, but then don't act on it at all, is because deep down they do not believe that this is the best way to run society."
Well, deep down they're right. While the slogan "equity and inclusion" may sound virtuous, it is actually being used to promote transgender ideology, resentful victimhood, and white guilt. It also represents a false claim to the moral high ground, from where Cultural Marxists are enforcing political correctness and censoring our speech. Cultural Marxism is not good for our society at all.
Yet Professor Mahrt-Smith, oblivious to the grand plan, continues to seek validation. He even offers to prove his good faith by taking personal risks for the Cultural Marxist cause. He says, "First, I actually need to keep getting more involved. ... Second, I have to start taking some real risks. I have to put something of myself out there and be willing to go and to be criticized."
But what risks is he considering? Should he risk trying enforce political correctness among whichever Rotman faculty members have not yet been intimidated into compliance? Should he risk enforcing political correctness among the students too? Perhaps, but that would ultimately prove pointless. Unfortunately, no amount of evangelizing, supplication, or repentance, will suffice. He is guilty of being a white man – perhaps heterosexual too – and for that sin, no forgiveness will ever be granted. In the brave new world of Cultural Marxism, the role of heterosexual white men is limited to self castigation, self abasement, penitence, and subservience. Alternatively, cowardly white people can prove their hatred of their own race by joining a violent antifa gang. However, that choice would be too risky for a well-paid professor.
Therefore, Professor Jan Mahrt-Smith has but one hope for true redemption. He must work up some courage and resolve, and stop groveling to the authoritarian Cultural Marxists. Instead, he should make a significant and very public donation to a truly worthy cause. For example, he could help to end the Muslim tradition of female genital mutilation, which is practiced widely in the USA and around the world. He could also help to ensure honesty in government by donating to Judicial Watch. Publicly directing his energy toward a truly constructive cause would not only assuage his feelings of guilt, but also make him unassailable to the false moralizing of the Cultural Marxists.
https://www.theahafoundation.org/advocacy/
https://www.judicialwatch.org/
In addition, Professor Mahrt-Smith should eschew identity politics and Cultural Marxism. Instead, he should work to establish more enlightened values and norms for the Rotman School of Management. The new values and norms should be based on respect for meritocracy, freedom of speech, and objective, scientific research. And above all, Professor Jan Mahrt-Smith should educate himself, to understand the dire threat that authoritarian Cultural Marxism poses to Western civilization.
Likewise, the Dean, Tiff Macklem, bears the same responsibility, especially since it was under his watch that Rotman's Orwellian new Institute for Gender and the Economy came to exist. He can redeem himself only by promptly shuttering this pernicious Institute before it causes even greater harm.
http://www.ontariosunshinelist.com/people/ksmjgx
How Feminists Can Handle Career Frustrations Constructively
In the interview article, Professor Sarah Kaplan recounts some of her career frustrations. One comment she makes is particularly illuminating. She says, "I've spent my entire life having to take on board weird critiques, sexist comments, not getting a promotion, [and] being sidelined." In other words, she feels oppressed and resentful. Such paranoid feelings are common among Cultural Marxists. After all, their ideology encourages feelings of resentment and oppression.
Now, without ever having met Professor Kaplan, one can only assume that she is a delightful person. However, generally speaking, most people experience disrespect at some point in their lives. It's very common to feel that one has not been awarded the promotion to which one feels entitled. But in these situations, it's prudent to consider one's own shortcomings first, before blaming the purported implicit bias of other people. For example, by being too abrasive and adversarial, or by acting entitled, we can inadvertently provoke abusive comments from others. Indeed, abrasive and adversarial behavior can certainly disqualify us for promotion to senior executive positions.
On the other hand, Professor Sarah Kaplan's salary exceeds $300,000 Canadian dollars a year, which is no doubt subsidized generously by Canadian taxpayers. This puts her comfortably in the top 1% of income earners. So even if she's angry, she is certainly not oppressed.
http://www.ontariosunshinelist.com/people/skjhpc
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-are-canada-s-top-1-1.1703321
The Cultural Marxist Feminist Persecution Complex
Cultural Marxism encourages women to feel oppressed. It encourages them to worry that the "patriarchy" is conspiring against them. But can such a persecution complex help a woman's career? Probably not. It will more likely alienate her coworkers, and curtail her prospects for career advancement.
Instead of feeling persecuted, she should remind herself of the many women who have successfully advanced to the highest levels of business and government. And she should study their example. For one thing, truly successful women don't normally project an image of paranoia, resentment, or self-entitlement. Instead, it's qualities like dedication, competence, and modesty, that earn respect and career advancement.
With Their Goals Achieved, Homosexuals Should Stop Campaigning
Homosexuals have worked hard to be accepted. And they have won that battle. Now they should be careful not to undo what they have achieved and not to stir up renewed hostility. Advocating for laws that force everyone else to use invented gender pronouns is sure to invite widespread resentment. Lobbying to have unscientific gender identity ideology taught to young children is also sure to stoke antipathy. Is it their deeply conflicted feelings about their own sexuality that are motivating homosexuals to pursue these divisive political tactics? Whatever their motives, provoking bitter animosity cannot serve their best interests in the long run.
Hence, homosexuals should vocally oppose the ongoing campaign to force homosexual ideology on everyone else and their children. Tammy Bruce puts it this way:
"As a gay woman who has been involved in efforts to ensure the equal treatment of gays and lesbians, I remain appalled at how the liberal gay activist agenda has become exactly the same thing [that] the original gay civil rights movement fought against. The gay rights movement originally was an effort for us to be left alone and to not be punished for who we are. We simply wanted to be able to live our lives without fear of arrest, or our businesses raided or destroyed, because of who we were.
Fast forward from 1969 to the 21st century. It is now gays and lesbians targeting other people for punishment and destruction, simply because of who they are. ... Now, it’s Christians being hounded by a liberal elite in power in government and society who are demanding, ironically, that Christians should be harassed, punished, fired or lose their businesses because they’re different and don’t conform. This much we know: Supporting the spark of freedom that fueled every civil rights movement requires supporting Christians who are targeted for their faith ..."
Those are the views of author Tammy Bruce.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/17/jack-phillips-in-colorado-who-prevailed-in-the-sup/
Overall, the best way forward for homosexuals is to stop incessantly promoting their ideology, and instead, focus exclusively on contributing to our society. This is the way to earn goodwill and genuine respect.
Animal Farm and 1984: Our Forgotten History Lesson
Unfortunately, Cultural Marxists actually prefer to stoke resentment. That's why they promote identity politics. They relentlessly shame heterosexual white men, while encouraging everyone else to feel oppressed, victimized, and resentful. And they reward victimhood with high social status. For this, millions of precious snowflakes compete avidly on social media. When they perceive any deviation from their conformist ideology, they react with mutually reinforcing self-righteous outrage and mass hysteria. This intimidates corporate leaders and politicians into compliance. Meanwhile, Cultural Marxist professors coach their gullible students to shout down conservative speakers on college campuses, to censor any logical, realistic viewpoints.
The purpose of all this is to undermine and weaken Western civilization and replace it with a Marxist regime. But to achieve the perfect fairness demanded by Cultural Marxists, an infinite number of laws would be needed. Obviously this is not feasible. Hence, the rule of law will not enable Cultural Marxists to achieve the supposedly perfect world they seek. So to achieve their goal, Cultural Marxists will inevitably require a totalitarian dictatorship. Indeed, this would be compatible with their authoritarian tendencies, which are already amply evident.
Unfortunately, as we know from history, Marxist dictatorships have never delivered the perfect world they promised. Rather, they have always become corrupt, cruel, and terrifying. And they always will.
It was to make this lesson crystal clear that George Orwell wrote his political novels, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four. This is a lesson we must not forget. If Cultural Marxism triumphs, the achievements of our Western civilization will be erased, starting with our freedom of speech, our democracy, and science. We and future generations will be trapped in a dark age of oppression and ignorance, from which escape may never be possible.
So it's crucial that we face reality: Nature is not fair, and life is not fair. Some people get sick and die, while other people win lotteries. Biology itself is not fair. Differences in our intelligence, strength, appearance, and sex, all influence the course of our lives. Thus, inequality is inevitable. However, we have already mitigated the most intolerable economic unfairness, by means of our many tax-supported social programs. This much is good. What's not good at all is Cultural Marxism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm
Rotman Needs Courage, Integrity, and Intellectual Diversity, Not Cultural Marxism
Cultural Marxist ideology appeals to people who are ignorant of history, and who resent our Western society. Cultural Marxist ideology also appeals to unsuccessful people who want a convenient shortcut to social status through victimhood. But such an irrational ideology as cultural Marxism cannot appeal to the truly rational people who are interested in alleviating the injustices in our society. For such sensible people, the discourse needs to be logical, philosophically diverse, and free from political posturing.
But even assuming that Rotman researchers are rational and sensible, can they really feel free to pursue the truth in an environment that is politicized with Cultural Marxist ideology? Could they even get funding, if their research topics were politically incorrect?
For example, could Rotman professors research how the interests and intellectual capabilities of men and women differ? Or would that be considered "advancing harmful gender stereotypes"?
Could Rotman professors honestly research any variations in natural talent across different races? Surely we should recognize and appreciate whatever intellectual diversity mankind possesses, and make the best possible use of it.
Unfortunately, Harvard psychologist Richard Herrnstein's book on this subject, The Bell Curve, was criticized so harshly that other researchers have likely been discouraged from pursuing the topic. But it is worth understanding why African-Americans are so talented at jazz and sports, whereas East Asians have a reputation for mathematical ability. After all, the various races have inhabited different climates for millennia, so our brains have likely evolved and adapted accordingly, becoming specialized as a result. Our bodies have evolved differently, so obviously, our brains have likely evolved differently too.
Since this topic is relevant to discrimination, inequality, affirmative action, and the optimal allocation of human resources, more scientific study is needed. Yet at most universities, researching this topic honestly would likely be considered politically incorrect, and therefore forbidden. Anyone who attempted such research would be accused of racism. Yet ironically, it is the Cultural Marxists who have revealed themselves to be the true racists and sexists, focusing their hostility almost exclusively on heterosexual white men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0684824299
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_firsts
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/121615/top-10-africanamerican-owned-businesses.asp
http://quillette.com/2018/05/14/the-racism-treadmill/
Well then, could Rotman researchers investigate any other controversial topics? For example, do feelings of oppression tend to undermine workplace productivity? Do employees feel less oppressed when they contribute to charities that combat the human slavery currently practiced in countries such as India, Pakistan, and Iran? Do they feel less oppressed when they contribute to charities that fight to end female genital mutilation, which is practiced widely in Asia, Africa, and even in the USA? Do they feel less oppressed if they recognize that some conquered or enslaved people have actually ended up being better off in the long run? Examples might include indigenous North Americans who integrated, African Americans, and the Japanese and Germans after World War II.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
The point is, important but awkward topics such as these cannot be discussed frankly in an environment where the researchers are intimidated by authoritarian ideologues. Political correctness only leads to ideology-driven groupthink. Sadly, such pernicious groupthink is abundantly evident in the Rotman Management Magazine.
Inevitably, the social sciences are rife with controversial topics. Researching these topics in a balanced, unbiased way requires courage, integrity, and intellectual diversity. Does Rotman have that? Evidently not. Cultural Marxist ideology dominates the fall 2017 issue of the Rotman Management Magazine, and its discussion of social issues is mostly biased and ideological.
Is The Rotman Curriculum Corrupted With Cultural Marxist Ideology?
This disgraceful issue of the Rotman Management Magazine is convincing evidence that the Rotman School of Management is infected with Cultural Marxism. This suggests that Cultural Marxism is integrated into the students' lectures and curricula too. If so, it will inevitably prevent them from thinking clearly about business. In other words, if Rotman's students are being indoctrinated, then they are being cheated out of the education that they are paying so much for.
How To Save The Rotman School Of Management
If Rotman's Cultural Marxist ideology is contaminating its curriculum, then it is probably also corrupting its research. In any case, it is certainly tainting the Rotman brand.
Moreover, corrupting the Rotman School of Management with Cultural Marxist ideology is an egregious insult to the entire Rotman community, including students, alumni, and benefactors. No doubt, alumni who become aware of this foolish foray into political ideology will stop donating to Rotman. As well, prospective students may choose to enroll in other business schools, to avoid the stifling political correctness that apparently prevails at Rotman.
Ultimately, there is only one way to save the Rotman School of Management: Rotman should focus on practical business management, and nothing else. In particular, Rotman must reject Cultural Marxist ideology altogether, and close down its pernicious Institute for Gender and the Economy.
Furthermore, Rotman should stop researching controversial topics that it's too ideologically biased to tackle with any credibility. Gender studies is one such topic. The field itself is hopelessly corrupted with Cultural Marxist ideology. It is irrelevant to rational business management, and researching it will never benefit a practical business school like Rotman.
Instead, the Rotman School of Management should devote itself entirely to scientifically researching and objectively teaching nothing but practical business management.
*********************
We respect the valuable contribution made to our society by women, men, heterosexuals, homosexuals, blacks, whites, Asians, Christians, Jews, and people of all faiths that explicitly reject violence.
*********************
Keywords: Rotman School of Management, MBA Program, University of Toronto, Institute for Gender and the Economy, Cultural Marxism, gender identity, political correctness, victimhood, oppression, Marxist ideology, compelled speech, invented gender pronouns, gender neutral pronouns, feminism, LGBT, homosexuals, gay, straight, transgender, Christianity, western civilization, western culture, Rotman alumni, donate to Rotman, business school, prospective students, benefactors, ranking, sjw, social justice warrior, #itsokaytobewhite, #itsokaytobeblack, #NotAllMen, feminazis
************************
© 2017, 2018, VideoThink.net