
Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics. He is the author of several books, including "_[We Have Overcome: An Immigrant's Letter to the American People](https://www.amazon.com/We-Have-Overcome-Immigrants-American/dp/1682617300)_" (Bombardier Books/Post Hill Press). Follow him on _[Twitter](https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6)_.


Jason D. Hill

Somewhere deep underground there's a guy throwing darts at a big dartboard.


	Who's going to be the next victimhood group?


	Apparently,<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/doctors-move-end-bias-overweight-patients-rcna29680"> fat people</a>.&nbsp;

<blockquote>
	
		Doctors often approach the practice of medicine with&nbsp;an anti-fat bias&nbsp;and struggle to communicate with patients whose weight exceeds what’s considered the normal range.
</blockquote>


	There's no such as "anti-fat bias".It's an unhealthy condition, much like any other, and the job of doctors is to point that out to patients.


	If someone is smoking two packs a day, is the doctor guilty of an "anti-smoking bias"? If they insist on having promiscuous unprotected sex, are the doctors "slut shaming" them?


	If the AMA doesn't want doctors to do their jobs, they can just jettison actual medicine and attribute everything to social conditions and capitalism.


	Like they're<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10187303/American-Medical-Association-condemned-Orwellian-new-equity-document-pushes-CRT.html"> already doing</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		The American Medical Association has come under fire for publishing an 'Orwellian' guide to 'equity' that promotes&nbsp;critical race theory&nbsp;and pushes Marxism.

	
		AMA bosses published Advancing Health Equity on October 28, complete with a list of 'problematic' words physicians should stop using such as 'vulnerable,' 'high risk' and 'minority.' The document also criticizes meritocracy and individualism.&nbsp;&nbsp;

	
		The 54-page guide argues that physicians are obligated to eliminate 'health inequities' by considering their language and the political circumstances behind certain groups, rather than focusing on individuals.
</blockquote>


	So it's time for more equity.

<blockquote>
	
		To counter that, the Association of American Medical Colleges plans to roll out in June new diversity, equity, and inclusion standards aimed at teaching doctors, among other things, about respectful treatment of people diagnosed as overweight or obese.
</blockquote>


	DEI. Is there anything it can't fix?


	Embracing,&nbsp;“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" should work wonders for medicine.

AMA Will Use "Equity" to Fight "Anti-Fat" Bias Among Doctors

Somewhere deep underground there's a guy throwing darts at a big dartboard.


	Who's going to be the next victimhood group?


	Apparently, fat people.

AMA Will Use "Equity" to Fight "Anti-Fat" Bias Among Doctors

How deep in authoritarian fascism was the Biden administration last year?


	Faced with parental protests in schools, the Biden administration coordinated with the&nbsp;National School Boards Association to intervene. Here's <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/nsba-letter-called-national-guard-military-deployed">an earlier draft </a>of what that might have looked like.

<blockquote>
	
		Early demands from the&nbsp;National School Boards Association&nbsp;to the White House included calling for the deployment of the Army National Guard and the military police to monitor school board meetings, according to an early draft letter the organization's independent review released Friday.&nbsp;

	
		In contrast to the final version, the draft of the NSBA letter said, "We ask that the&nbsp;Army National Guard&nbsp;and its Military Police be deployed to certain school districts and related events where students and school personnel have been subjected to acts and threats of violence."&nbsp;
</blockquote>


	Did the NSBA realize it went too far, did someone in the Biden admin pull the plug on a proposal to deploy the National Guard?&nbsp;


	Consider the atmosphere.


	The Biden administration had engaged in an extended and unprecedented military occupation of Washington D.C. in response to the Capitol Riot despite condemning the much lesser response to Black Lives Matter assaults on the White House and D.C. landmarks. Forced to eventually shut down the occupation, someone in the administration may have contemplated using the National Guard to regularly shut down opposition political protests. This would have been the logical next step.


	Sending in the FBI was bad enough, but the Biden admin was playing at full-fledged&nbsp;fascism in '21.&nbsp;

Biden Admin Allies Contemplated Using National Guard at School Board Meetings

How deep in authoritarian fascism was the Biden administration last year?


	Faced with parental protests in schools, the Biden administration coordinated

Biden Admin Allies Contemplated Using National Guard at School Board Meetings

Considering crime rates under Soros DA Gascon, I didn't think any special motive was needed to explain the attempted assault on Dave Chappelle. There are any number of crazies wandering around Los Angeles and the internet. And as&nbsp;attack plots go, this one didn't seem too well thought out.


	But it looks like the motive <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10843403/Dave-Chappelles-attacker-speaks-time-says-triggered-comedians-jokes.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus">was political after all</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		The Los Angeles man&nbsp;accused of attacking Dave Chappelle&nbsp;said he was “triggered” by the comedian’s jokes about the LGBTQ community and homelessness — as he insisted he never wanted to harm the funnyman.

	
		In an exclusive jailhouse interview, Isaiah Lee told The Post that Chappelle should be more “sensitive” when it comes to the jokes he cracks.

	
		“I identify as bisexual … and I wanted him to know what he said was triggering,” Lee said Saturday at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility in Los Angeles, dressed in brown jail garb and sporting a sling on his broken right arm.

	
		“I wanted him to know that next time, he should consider first running his material by people it could affect.”
</blockquote>


	I'm sure that next time Chappelle will run his bits past random assailants before taking it on stage.


	Obviously the story would be very different if Lee had been a white male conservative offended by jokes. We would be having a loud, vocal, and very different conversaion. Instead it took the New York Post to find out his motive. Not because he was holding it back, but because the media didn't want to know.

Dave Chappelle Attacker Was Triggered By Him

Considering crime rates under Soros DA Gascon, I didn't think any special motive was needed to explain the attempted assault on Dave Chappelle. There are any

Dave Chappelle Attacker Was Triggered By Him

This is why his own people keep <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/west-wing-playbook/2022/05/22/bidens-logistical-man-extraordinaire-00034257">cutting off </a>his microphone.

<blockquote>
	
		CNN’s&nbsp;KAITLAN COLLINS&nbsp;asked Biden a follow-up question Sunday about if he had a message to North Korean leader&nbsp;KIM JONG-UN. “Hello,” Biden said, before pausing a bit and adding: “Period.”

	
		While reporters were able to hear the president, clear audio and video were almost lost because the U.S. government cut off Biden’s microphone feed prematurely. Some of the mics still caught the response in a way that was usable with subtitles. But the government cutting off the audio early has been a frequent source of frustration for reporters.
</blockquote>


	Apparently, they didn't cut it off <a href="https://thehill.com/news/administration/3497693-biden-us-would-defend-taiwan-militarily-if-china-invaded/">soon enough</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		President&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;on Monday said the U.S. would be willing to defend Taiwan militarily if China were to try and take it by force.

	
		“Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?” Biden was asked at a press conference in Tokyo alongside the Japanese prime minsiter.

	
		“Yes,” Biden responded. “That’s the commitment we made. That’s the commitment we made.

	
		“Look, here’s the situation. We agree with the one China policy… but the idea that to be taken by force, just taken by force, is just not appropriate,” Biden continued. “It will dislocate the entire region and be another action similar to what happened in Ukraine.”
</blockquote>


	I don't necessarily object to the content of the answer so much as the fact that this is the latest in a series of <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2021/08/biden-commits-defending-taiwan-quickly-takes-it-daniel-greenfield/">back and forths on Taiwan</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		A senior Biden administration official said on Thursday (Aug 19) that US policy on Taiwan had not changed after President Joe Biden appeared to suggest that the United States would defend the island if it were attacked, a deviation from a long-held US position of "strategic ambiguity"...

	
		"They are...entities we've made agreements with based on not a civil war they're having on that island or in South Korea, but on an agreement where they have a unity government that, in fact, is trying to keep bad guys from doing bad things to them," Mr Biden said.

	
		"We have made (and) kept every commitment. We made a sacred commitment to Article 5 that if, in fact, anyone were to invade or take action against our Nato allies, we would respond. Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with Taiwan. It's not even comparable to talk about that."

	
		A senior Biden administration official said US "policy with regard to Taiwan has not changed" and analysts said it appeared that Mr Biden had misspoken.
</blockquote>


	Article 5 obviously <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2021/10/biden-says-dont-worry-about-taiwan-based-daniel-greenfield/">does not</a> apply to Taiwan.


	Biden asserting that the United States would fight in defense of Taiwan is a pretty aggressive position. If you take that kind of position, you have to be willing to back it up. Putting all that credibility on the line and then having a staffer pull it back again makes it obvious that Biden is not mentally functioning and that American military deterrence has no credibility.

Biden is Back to Flip-Flopping on Taiwan

This is why his own people keep cutting off his microphone.


	
		CNN’s&nbsp;KAITLAN COLLINS&nbsp;asked Biden a follow-up question Sunday about if he had a

Biden is Back to Flip-Flopping on Taiwan

There's good reason for being suspicious about this Washington Post poll because it has black people echoing woke lefty talking points even when they clearly contradict previous polls, for example having black people dismiss more police in favor of lefty holistic solutions to crime.


	But let's zero in on this <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3496738-75-percent-of-black-americans-fear-physical-attack-based-on-their-race-poll/">absurd and racist</a> result.

<blockquote>
	
		A new&nbsp;Washington Post-Ipsos poll&nbsp;found that 75 percent of Black Americans polled are worried that they or someone they care about will be physically harmed because they are black...
</blockquote>


	How often does that happen?


	We're not talking about staged white supremacist terror attacks like Buffalo or Charleston.

<blockquote>
	
		Seventy percent of Black Americans polled said they believed half or more white Americans hold white supremacist beliefs compared to 19 percent who believed fewer than half white Americans do.
</blockquote>


	That would be a widespread conviction that most white people are not only racist but white supremacists.


	In the breakdown, 35% believe that most white people hold white supremacist views, while another 27% say that half of white people do.


	Only 8% say very few.


	That's not a survey of racism, it's a racist survey.

A Very Racist Poll About Racism

There's good reason for being suspicious about this Washington Post poll because it has black people echoing woke lefty talking points even when they clearly

A Very Racist Poll About Racism

[Read Part I: <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/defending-constitution-jason-d-hill/">HERE</a>.]


	What type of ethos and mindset equipped the Founding Fathers to arrive at the correct moral and political systems that would result in a Constitution that so aptly matched the nature of man? The answer lies in their deepest perception of the nature of existence.


	What emotional projection did they enact upon the universe, and how did the ethos they each commonly held translate into a rational philosophy of life? I believe that the Founders held a passionate love for this earth and of humanity. The most blatant expression of their love of man was to be found in the recognition and defense of him as a rational and autonomous, sovereign individual and all that was entailed in the recognition and affirmation of this truth—that he was deserving of life, liberty, and the pursuit of his own individual conception of happiness. Their love of man took the form of a deep respect for him, such that he should choose his own conception of the good life for himself with the explicit understanding that it was impermissible for the state to regulate, coerce, or encourage one conception of the good life over another; each man, based on a rational observation and analysis of his station in life and his values, was to be left alone to determine what was good for him and his life.


	The discretionary power to choose from a broad array of values was his and his alone. The Founders started with a civic love for humanity and man that they translated via a political system that secured the individual rights of persons.


	The rights, which secured life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, were unassailable. Their proclamation of man’s inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness was a reversal of traditional Christian rejection of this earth and this world and the idea of suffering as man’s proper existential fate. Happiness was man’s natural end, and this earth—not heaven or some ineffable notion of an afterlife—was the place where he could successfully achieve it. The theological implications of this philosophic system were vast. Despite the theistic commitments of many of the Founders in creating a secular nation in which the state could establish no formal religion, they were the first political eugenicists in recorded political history. The American man or woman was to be the prototype for a new type of human being—one who needed no redemption, no religious atonement and/or salvation. Reversing the mythology of Edenic man, America was its own Edenic paradise where the new and first people could achieve happiness and fulfill their purpose and meaning right here on earth.


	The Founders of a consciously created secular nation where the primacy of the individual supersedes that of faith, church, and even God are not those who—protestations to the contrary—believed in the concept of man as born with the stain of original sin. Their actions in the creation of America spoke louder than any of those among them who were Deists. Unlike their historical predecessors who had terrorized man, sought to rule and coerce him, and subordinate him to the wishes and whims and fiats of society, the Founding Fathers saw men as their moral equals, with each possessing no greater share of humanity than any other and with an equal apportionment of moral value. Indeed, it was this recognition that would be the moral foundation for the emancipation of slaves and abolition of chattel slavery.


	The Founders, many of them aristocrats, were able to abstract from their own material status and project a benevolent ethos towards all human beings in general, largely because they saw that the concept of the indivisibility of man could only be guaranteed through his ensconcement in a constitutional republic.


	It is obvious from the spirit and law of the Constitution they created that they saw America as an open country, one that would be populated by strangers and foreigners from a broad phalanx of peoples. Such individuals would retain their cultural identities if they so desired, but they would be united under a common core rubric of republican values that would give them all a common, unassailable public identity.


	Unlike their historical predecessors and moral counterparts, the Founders attempted to solve the problem of man once and for all and, concomitantly, the nature of existence. With rare exceptions in human history, man had always been conceived of as a problem to be solved, overcome, or – via a curious mélange of religion and social collectivism – something in search of justification for his existence, redemption, atonement, and salvation.


	The Founders projected a sense that reality was to be perceived and mastered correctly through reason and observation. Theirs was an ethos of confidence that translated itself into action yielding results coterminous with human achievement, success, and joy on earth. The Constitution that they created was both a ratification of human nature and an implacable inoculation against the nefarious forces of man to assault the physical integrity and the mind of man. When Jefferson stated: “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man,” he was uttering an ode and a love letter to the inviolable and indubitable characteristic that marks man as man — his rational, sovereign mind.


	Respecting the moral precepts of natural law translated into moral civil laws that subordinated the masses was as close to loving humanity as the Founders could come in literal terms.


	Civilizations within and outside the historical process had struggled to find a political system suitable for the requirements and rules of man’s consciousness and nature. Rather than create a political system that ratified human nature and suffuse it with social inoculations against its integrity, the history of human political systems was complicated. It ranged from European despotism and absolute monarchical rule that subjugated man’s inviolable mind to the whims and caprices of kings and queens, to the Asiatic dynasties with their feudal systems and ineradicable systems of social hierarchies that trapped persons into birth-to-cradle social roles and stagnant identities, and included as well, the tribal and nomadic peoples of Africa, and what is today the Middle East and indigenous populations.


	As far as the Founding Fathers go, they had solved the problem that had haunted humanity since its recorded history. Man’s fundamental problems in the world were not existential. Man had presented himself as a problem to be solved, one that possessed a being which had to be overcome, transcended, or tamed. But his fundamental problem was political. He always needed a system that would safeguard his nature as a human being.


	The Founding Fathers were the first to create a vast open space in the name of unbridled freedom and to set man free to roam upon it, to exit if he wished, and to return if he so pleased. They were the first to break a graven and erroneous view that all societies and civilizations had held—that man was a reducible product of his environment, determined not by his free will, rational desires, goals, and aspirations. The Founding Fathers held that man deserved to be free because of the phenomenal spectacle that he was and because at the heart of the moral foundation of their political Constitution was the conviction that man, if he were to survive anywhere on earth, had to exist as an end in himself. Man was not an imminent threat to himself. He was someone who deserved to have the sanctity of his life protected by non-punitive rules—negative liberties that consisted not in what he had to do but what he ought to refrain from doing regarding the well-being of his fellow compatriots.


	As such, their laws were not designed to curtail creative agency and imaginative capabilities—in fact, quite the opposite. It set the individual free on a course of limitless activities that would lead to unprecedented achievements.


	They created a civilization in which persons could forget where they came from and in which the aspiration for economic mobility took precedence over social status. Unlike European aristocrats who looked down upon those who had to work, work was now a badge of honor and the new currency used to regulate the transactional and trader principle among human beings.


	The birth of a new political man with new moral sensibilities would, over a very long period of time, create a social and political revolution—the creation of a cosmopolitan society open to all peoples, regardless of lineage and blood ties. It would be a nation that would gather foreigners and radical others into what came to be called a “melting pot,” but which really meant an alliance among strangers around the core political values of the republic. It meant that each citizen could keep his ethnic and racial identity if he chose to, but that he would develop a thin political identity that all would share, regardless of concrete political commitments. They may disagree with each other in matters of public affairs, but they would defend the right of each to uphold his conception of the good for his life.


	In this endeavor, we see their absolute commitment to the right of the individual’s property in his own happiness, values, conscience, time, soul, mind, labor, body, and reason. This moral jurisdiction is an indivisible good from which one cannot be separated or alienated. Some phenomenon—like civic love—was forged in the new America.


	Slavery was horrific and incompatible with the grand narratives of the new republic. It violated the Christian moral eugenics that recognized the intrinsic moral worth of each person and the inviolable dignity each bore in his or her person. But in time, America became the first country to insert itself in the world and offer itself up as a friend to humanity—a place where citizens everywhere can belong and play a role in suffusing the nation-state with an original assemblage of who one is. It is the first, full-fledged cosmopolitan state for all the reasons advanced above and more—it inclines human beings not to search for their origins but, rather, their destiny.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago specializing in ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy, and moral psychology. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. Dr. Hill is the author of five books, including&nbsp; “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-Oppression</a>.” Follow him on Twitter&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>

Defending The Constitution, Part II

[Read Part I: HERE.]


	What type of ethos and mindset equipped the Founding Fathers to arrive at the correct moral and political systems that would result

Recently, Elie Mystal, author and “Justice Correspondent” for The Nation, went on the daytime TV show The View and stated that the U.S. Constitution is “kind of trash.” In his new book, Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to The Constitution, Mystal continues to denigrate the Constitution in chapters such as “Canceling Trash People is Not a Constitutional Crisis” and “Bigotry is Illegal Even if You’ve been Ordered by Jesus.” Msytal is not alone in his dim view of the Constitution. Repeated surveys show that college students have increasingly come to believe that the U.S. Constitution is outdated and ought to be “brought up to the contemporary era,” radically modified, or abolished altogether. In this first of a series of three articles, I aim to show, in a measured and rational manner, both the indispensability of the Constitution in its universal form and content, and the revolutionary nature of its foundation.


	When the Founding Fathers turned on the light of reason over 244 years ago and wrote the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, they achieved a remarkable feat. It was not just, as hundreds have remarked, the creation of an unprecedented political achievement that was the constitutional republic of the United States of America. This republic, replete with its Bill of Rights and subsequent constitutional amendments, was a major civilizational advancement over any other political phenomena that had ever existed.


	But the major achievement of the Founding Fathers was not political; that was a derivative achievement. They, the first and last of America’s great intellectuals, had done what no other philosopher had done in the history of mankind: they achieved a revolution in epistemology by discovering the proper application of human nature to its appropriate political configuration. For the first time, the requirements of man’s survival as a human being – that is, man’s nature as a rational and conceptual being – were grafted onto a social and political environment that supported its rational upkeep.


	The political milieu that they created was a direct corollary of that nature. In other words, they were the first to understand that the endpoint of all human striving—freedom and happiness—required a specific political milieu in which human preservation and the achievement of rational happiness were possible. They were the first to integrate man’s nature with the perfect political environment. America was and remains a political application of human nature. It is a metaphysical expression in the form of a political republic derived from an unprecedented epistemological feat: the perfect integration of a discovery of man’s nature and the artificial creation of a political system that corresponds to that nature.


	Until the founding of the United States of America, the history of humankind had been (and continues to be) replete with tragic experimentations or attempts to find the right political system consonant with man’s nature as a conceptual and rational being. The results fell short of the type of life suitable for a rational being, a life that transcends mere preservation and survival to include the possibility of one that embraces flourishing and thriving. Nomadic wanderers, primal tribalists who made no distinction between animal and human life, despotic theocracies, secular dictatorships, rulership by divine order, majority-ruling democracies, and rule by medieval warlords had all failed to realize that negative liberty and absolute freedom to create a conception of the good for oneself are the fundamental requirements of human nature, morally and existentially.


	In the bad cases of human history, politics had always preceded and superseded morality. By default or in deliberate ignorance of the proper requirements of human nature, human beings had devised political systems that did not correspond to the objective and rational requirements of conceptual and rational beings who had to live by reason and the judgments of their minds. The men who devised such systems, from the most primitively tribal ones dominated by hordes to the most exalted of their time such as those formulated under the Roman Republic and Empire, had never sought to question the moral foundations, precepts, and principles that legitimized such systems and made them valid. They never sought to discover that what made a political system valid was the degree to which it corresponded to the requirements of the individual as an individual. A system that secured the rights that protected the conditions indispensable for human self-preservation, flourishing, and the achievement of the end of all human striving had never been properly founded.


	A political system defended and devised via moral means that secured the achievement of a rational form of happiness that was not based on arbitrary whims, emotions, or desires that could short-circuit the well-being of the individual in the long-term had never existed before the conscious founding of America. America itself was conducive to a form of political happiness that secured the individual’s long-term security, well-being, and flourishing. This enterprise belonged first not to politics but to the science of ethics—a science that could discover, with a high degree of accuracy, the virtues and method of cognition suitable to the life of a human being. The translation of this discovery into an organic and material social application is what we may describe as a political system. Without the proper morality, political systems are doomed to fail. But without the proper epistemology, or proper ethical and moral system, values and virtues remain obscured from the realm of human cognition.


	When Thomas Jefferson declared, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” he achieved a revolution in moral cognition. His perception of self-evident moral axioms did not stop at the above proclamations. He extended his list to include the purpose for which “Governments are instituted among Men,” the insight that governments derived their “just powers from the consent of the governed,” and “the Right of the People to alter or abolish” an unjust government. Yes, Jefferson did view all these truths as self-evident. He did not intend them to be accepted with argument or further demonstration. This was a mighty feat of cognitive abstraction. To have derived from the Right of Nature which posits man’s self-preservation as both a biological descriptor and a normative duty to protect such a life, Jefferson and the Founders perceived the corresponding social and political existential corollaries.


	We should not, as some have suggested, regard self-evident truths in a practical sense. To perceive something as self-evident is an epistemological function; it means to grasp an irreducible primary as a single unit and, with lightning and brilliant speed, to see the corresponding social requirements for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (equal counterparts) almost automatically. All the self-evident truths were moral axioms deduced from human moral nature. It is the correct grasp of human nature that led to the infallible, sociopolitical, existential corollaries in one’s cognitive feat. Any practical application of the self-evident truth is logically posterior to such truths. An application of a precept of reason presupposes the first discovery of the principle via an epistemological route.


	Thus, we see that the birth of the United States was one formed in the matrices of a practical philosophic system. It was the first nation forged by consciously-held philosophical principles in whose application no breach between theory and practice was entertained. It would be too conceptually broad to state that the United States was created as the first philosophical state. That declaration would not be untrue. It would not, however, capture something fundamental about the new republic. It was the first consciously-created ideological state. Other civilizations, such as the Greek and Roman, were guided by explicit de facto principles, as have been the cases with communist, socialist, and fascist governments. America and its civilization were literally formed by the conscious discovery and application of an explicit political philosophy. America’s political philosophy—its ideology—is a constitutive feature of the civilizational identity of the republic. Without them, America would exist as a geographic entity demarcated by state lines. It would cease to be America, simpliciter. Its de jure founding principles form the core of its political and public culture.


	It is the foundation which undergirds citizenship and civic identity. But the realm of philosophic abstraction and of social and political reality are expressly integrated by the revolutionary nature of government devised by the Founders. Without the latter, there would have been no way to have tied philosophical principles into concrete reality or into actions guided explicitly and consciously by ideas.


	Thus, Americans became the first people in history to—consciously or unconsciously—live by holding an explicit philosophy of life. A robust political philosophy that constitutes a nation’s political ideology plays a subtle role of cultivating what we will call civic virtues that cultivate habits of thinking and, thusly, a particular kind of behavior in the public sphere. Such virtues, if only thinly informed by the political principles, still pay explicit attention to the sociopolitical characters of its citizens, what we may call the public face of Americans. That public face was legitimized to the extent that it was grounded in rational principles.


	This is not to say that all Americans were rational or moral, but those who chose not to live by the dictates of reason—that is, outside the realm of an objective reality—were (and still are) regarded by the very design of the American system as cognitive and social ballasts. They would be free to avoid reality but not free to evade the consequences of avoiding reality. We may say that the Founding Fathers were fundamentally driven by a moral vocation, not a political one. That they produced a scientifically valid political document was a metaphysical concomitant of their antecedently-held moral principles. Their moral sensibilities, translated into the concrete realm of action, resulted in a political system that, in and of itself, is a moral system.


	The Founding Fathers could not have established the proper political system suitable to human preservation and long-term survival without discovering and understanding its moral foundations that granted it its legitimacy. And since ethics is a derivative of metaphysics and epistemology, they would have arrived at the correct metaphysical and epistemological procedures before being able to conclusively and immutably understand the political requirements and attendant system for the indefinite upkeep of man’s moral nature. Hence, they were comprehensive revolutionaries in the major branches of philosophy—ethics, politics, metaphysics, and epistemology.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago specializing in ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy, and moral psychology. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. Dr. Hill is the author of five books, including&nbsp; “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-Oppression</a>.” Follow him on Twitter&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>

Defending the Constitution

Recently, Elie Mystal, author and “Justice Correspondent” for The Nation, went on the daytime TV show The View and stated that the U.S. Constitution is “kind

We may locate the Third Founding of the United States in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its various amendments, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and other attendant pursuant articles and legal enfranchisements for blacks, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. I place reparations for black Americans into the plethora of affirmative action programs that set aside preferential policies in education and employment for blacks and women. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was as revolutionary as the founding of America and the Bill of Rights. Not only did it single-handedly right the wrongs of slavery and Jim Crow segregation, but in this unique moment in US history, in (arguably) justifiably violating the property rights of US citizens, it was the most audacious act of cultural and moral eugenics ever leveled against the United States of America. It resulted in the broadest moral resocialization and social engineering program of white Americans in the history of this country. The concomitant moral eugenics was a form of moral paternalism and intrusion in the conscience of white Americans. It was an abrogation of freedom of conscience and the application of that conscience in concretized, material form.


	The Civil Rights Act of 1964, enacted on July 2 of that year, was a landmark civil rights and labor law that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and later, sexual orientation. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in all schools and public accommodations, and any employment discrimination. Under the Act, Congress asserted its authority to legislate under various parts of the Constitution, especially to regulate interstate commerce. It guaranteed all citizens equal protection under the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and exercised its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.


	The Equal Opportunity Employment Act of 1972, a federal law that amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, addressed employment discrimination against black Americans and other minorities. It empowered the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to take legal action against individuals, employers, and labor unions that violated the employment provisions of the 1964 Act. The commission also required employers to make reasonable accommodation for the religious practices of employees.


	The target of the 1964 Act was as much whites as it was blacks—and not just in the sense of mandating that whites cease egregious practices of discrimination against blacks, but rather, that whites become entirely new types of persons by undergoing a moral makeover.


	The state had been the biggest manufacturer of systemic racism by creating laws that barred blacks from full entrance into mainstream society and had been a great socializer in the formation of the ethos, mores, norms, and values that shaped the sensibilities of whites. In short, it made it difficult for non-racist whites to be non-racist in their dealings with blacks. Homeowners and hoteliers were not free to sell or rent to whomever they chose regardless of race, and miscegenation laws prohibited interracial marriage. Conceptions of the good life were vastly limited for blacks based on their racial identities created not by private citizens but by the state. The establishment of racial taxonomies, of miscegenation laws, of redlining policies, and of discriminatory housing and school policies were all creations of the state—the biggest and most nefarious enemy of black Americans who had deputized and socialized ordinary American citizens into a cult of racist practices against their fellow citizens.


	The 1964 Civil Rights Act was, therefore, no altruistic gift to black Americans, nor was it a repaid debt. The latter implies legitimate (or illegitimate) transactional exchanges between parties that call for payment to a creditor by one who had been temporarily accorded funds or some agreed-upon value by another party (the creditor). The 1964 Civil Rights Act accomplished that. In granting blacks full equality before the law, the state reversed a metaphysical crime it had long been guilty of committing against the former slaves: failure to apply the principle of legal egalitarianism to one group of people for a morally neutral reason—their ascriptive racial identity.


	&nbsp;The 1964 Civil Rights Act would establish more than this, however. During the violence visited upon blacks during the movement to end segregation, when millions of Americans saw German shepherds and fire hoses turned against unarmed and non-responsive black people, something almost mystical happened that transformed the white imagination in this country. The black body—passive, submissive, and broken—became a meditative site for universal suffering, white shame, guilt, moral horror, and revulsion. It became a moment for contrition, redemption, repentance, and deep introspection on the part of white Americans as to how they wished their nation to proceed as a republic. It could be divided and bifurcated along racial lines with a separately configured humanity for two distinct human types. Or, in keeping with the moral meaning of America and the original spirit of the nation’s founding, it could involve a common humanity for all persons created in the image of one God who administered law equally to all and who did not favor any of his children more than others, based on any accidents ascribed to their births. In the end, a nation, not without contention and protestations, passed a bill that made private racial discrimination illegal.


	Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 became landmark pieces of legislation. The term&nbsp;equal,&nbsp;however, must be interpreted correctly as it applies to this legislation. It does not mean that every applicant or employee must be considered equal in ability or competency. Rather, it means that the law looks at all applicants or employees as equals who deserve fair treatment.


	By illegalizing private racism, it criminalized the applied judgment of private conscience when that conscience applied itself in the realm of private ownership in the public realm. The government basically proclaimed to entrepreneurs and business owners, “You cannot treat your business as a mere extension of your home or your living room. You cannot use your property—which is the material application of your reason conjoined with your personal labor which, in turn, is an expression of your abstract values made concrete—in a manner that discriminates against blacks.”


	The state’s role here was two-fold in that it was not just about the legal emancipation of blacks from the stranglehold of centuries of white domination, but the moral rehabilitation of whites who had sullied their souls and those of their descendants by continuing the mores and enhancing the ethos associated with slavery. That such actions lead to putative rights denial was indisputable.


	I submit that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was an act of moral eugenics, an enormous social engineering program made to reshape the moral sensibilities of whites. It was, on one hand from the perspective of morality, necessary. Simultaneously, I think it was enacted also for the redemption of the white soul of America. It was beyond making legal demands of whites. It, in the end, was didactic and invasive, and ended up functioning like a comprehensive, legislative, moral doctrine that partially determined one way people could not cultivate conceptions of the good lives for themselves. The state declared to whites: “Harbor racist beliefs in your mind as much as you like, but you’d better not materially organize a lived life around those racist principles. You cannot apply them in reality.”


	The state was also deliberately and knowingly violating freedom of conscience. Freedom of conscience only has resonance when its corollaries—the judgments of one’s mind—can be applied here in reality. In barring racists from applying their racist conscience into concrete practice in the form of privately discriminating against blacks in their private establishments, the state contravened into the realm a right of which citizens of any modern republic are the legatees—the right to freedom of one’s conscience. If one is restricted from living by the dictates of one’s conscience one is—whether they are right or wrong—paternalistically prevented from exercising one’s deepest values and convictions.


	The racist would say that in refusing to privately deal with a black person he is not violating that person’s rights for the sole reason that such a person has no automatic right to the products of his labor. Another human can have no inalienable right to the product of one’s efforts that one has produced on behalf of one’s life. One is in ownership of the material expression of one’s mind and values applied to reality. Yet, the 1964 Act and its subsequent amendments ruled that blacks and other minorities did have such a right. The state used it to communicate that one’s racist conscience was so vile that it no longer had a place as a moral pollutant in the public sphere. The Act was meant to invite moral opprobrium and the concomitant emotions of shame and guilt.


	Black faces conjoined with white ones in a struggle for legal and economic equality were also rebranding the metaphysical identity of the nation itself. The principle of egalitarianism was being applied outside the sphere of mere legality. Whites may have worked for their property and indulged in rhetorical plinth to shore up the right that secured it; however, something transformational was taking place in the new America. The nondiscriminatory clauses affixed to the Civil Rights Act protected government property from government appropriation but not from public access!


	In other words, though services had to be paid for, access could never be denied. This made private property that was communally accessible by government decree a form of “social property.” Through its moral eugenics program, the state had inverted the principle of the right to property. The right to property is a right to action, simpliciter, not a right to an object. It is the right to pursue the efforts and actions that will result in the creation of or acquisition of property by earning it. The eugenical moment of the Civil Rights Act is expressed in the premise: human rights supersede property rights. Blacks were granted permission to appropriate white property for personal—albeit paid—consumption, to modify white conceptions of personal happiness and conceptions of the good that informed it. We may call this moral socialism.


	The new America (imperfect as the instantiation of the vision was, given continued racial discrimination) would not just be an integrated one. There is no faster way to integrate a society than through fiscal models. One side of the Civil Rights Act was anointed with holy justice. The other was stamped with the imprimatur of enforced conviviality, which was a veneer behind which lay laws that explicitly mandated the terms of employment between the races and the rules of engagement between whites and blacks in white-owned businesses. Personal property had become the equivalent of public utility companies. The moral eugenics of the whole civil rights movement effected a direct change in the disposition of the cognitive outlook of the average white American citizen.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago specializing in ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy, and moral psychology. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. Dr. Hill is the author of five books, including&nbsp; <a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-Oppression</a>. Follow him on Twitter&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>

The 1964 Civil Right Acts: A Moral Eugenical Moment in American History

We may locate the Third Founding of the United States in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its various amendments, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and other attendant

In October of 2021, I returned to the National Public Radio show Watching America, with host Dr. Alan Campbell, for an interview about my recently-published book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post Oppression</a>. I had had a delightful interview with Dr. Campbell the year before for my previous book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/">We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People</a>.


	In the ensuing weeks following that October interview, I inquired about its status. I was told that the “higher-ups” at NPR were disturbed by the book, the interview and, just as importantly, the author. They found me, my ideas, and the book too controversial, too offensive. Let it be known that both the producer of the show and Dr. Alan were upset by this decision. They were and remain brave and remarkable individuals devoted to the free and open exchange of ideas.


	&nbsp;In fact, the producer of that show, having grown weary of battling with management over content and freedom of expression, has resigned from NPR on principle. She is a hero in my eyes.


	The “higher-ups” – the management and leadership apparatchiks who can only be described as part of the woke supremacists and cancel culture bureaucrats – are the real villains. They have become the artificial arbiters of what constitutes truth, creators of taste, and standard-bearers of morality in matters of the intellect. I am not alone here. A few conservative friends—mildly so—have confided in me that they too have been canceled by NPR.


	But what exactly are they afraid of in a book that aims to explore the entitlement culture we live in; one that challenges the idea that all economic asymmetries and disparities between the races must be the result of systemic racism, and a residual effect of slavery?


	For at its root, my book claims that reparations are questionable since they are predicated on a blaming strategy. That strategy is ethically dubious. Ninety percent of Africans shipped to the New World were enslaved by fellow Africans and sold to European traders. The tragic truth is that without the collusion and complex business partnerships between African elites and European commercial traders and agents, the slave trade would have been impossible. Even renowned abolitionist Frederick Douglass realized this. He was against reparations for blacks on the grounds that “the savage chiefs of the western coasts of Africa, who for ages have been accustomed to selling their captives into bondage and pocketing the ready cash for them, will not more readily accept our moral and economical ideas than the slave traders of Maryland and Virginia.”


	Africans sold themselves into slavery. If reparations are to be sought, they should be from the primitive Sub-Saharan African countries out of which the slave trade originated.


	What else could NPR be afraid would so deeply upset the sensibilities of American readers? That black freedom was forged in the crucibles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? That America had a second founding in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and the Civil War? That the moral language of our republic’s founding suffused the Third Founding of America in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts? That piece of legislation which granted blacks full standing before the law, was also a form of moral eugenics in that it re-contextualized the usage of private property, and systematically attempted to make non-racists out of those white Americans who were racists.


	Could it be that the book explores multiple dimensions of race in America today, but most importantly, a black-white divide which has grown exponentially over the past decade? Central to the thesis of the book is a call for black American leaders (and their white liberal sponsors) to escape from the cycle of blame and finger-pointing, which seeks to identify black failures with white hatred and indifference. This overblown narrative is promulgated by a phalanx of black nihilists who advocate the destruction of America and her institutions in the name of ending “whiteness.” Much of the black intelligentsia consists of these false prophets, and it is their poisonous ideology which is taught, uncontradicted, to students of all races. It is&nbsp;they&nbsp;who are responsible for the cultural depression blacks are suffering in today’s society. 
	 
	Ultimately, the answer to “What do White Americans owe?” is not about the morality or practicality of reparations, affirmative action, or other redistributionist schemes. My book rejects the collectivist premise behind the argument, instead couching notions of culpability, justice, and fairness as responsibilities of individuals, not arbitrary racial or ethnic groupings.


	Aside from the collusion between Sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans in facilitating the slave trade, the book explores the ways Africans were vulnerable to enslavement by the primitive animist philosophies they held that failed to allow them to abstract themselves from nature and develop both an explicit philosophy of inviolate dignity, and the attendant military technology to safeguard their bodily integrity.


	NPR is terrified that the book traces the cultural and philosophical roots of Critical Race Theory, the Equity Movement, calls for reparations, and the abolition of whiteness. And it is equally terrified of the book’s ending: a magnanimous call for a new universal ethic that will end all identity politics and conjoin Americans as bearers of a common American identity that is powerful enough to withstand personal, political, and racial/ethnic differences. To this end, the book entreats blacks to pursue a heroic path to relinquish strong attachments to racial ascriptive identities so that a new individualism, radical forgiveness, grace, and love for humanity may finally be born.&nbsp;


	But you see, this is exactly what NPR cannot tolerate: any philosophy that aims to establish the means where rational divisiveness is proper and where it is not and, at the same time, shape new sensibilities to bring about an idea leftists can’t accept: that there is no such thing as racial reconciliation. Races don’t conciliate or re-conciliate. Only individuals as individuals can perform that task. This collectivist malarkey is precisely why identity politics are never fully diagnosed and demolished. Individuals, not groups, are units of ethical and moral concern. A book that delineates and proves that credo is politically out of order for the leftist vanguards at NPR.


	Identifying the real destroyers of our republic such as Black Lives Matter nihilists, and Critical Race Theory practitioners who are bent on ushering in a new Marxist regime in the United States to irrevocably alter the political DNA of this country—the book, by default, exposes the leftist agenda NPR has been embracing for a very long time. It has been on a mission to destroy this country. It does so by stealth, and by advancing leftist politics in the name of the public interest. By crushing dissenting viewpoints from the medium’s varied platforms, it normalizes radical left-wing ideas and criminalizes commonsense viewpoints that correspond to an objective reality.


	The only antidote is to alert readers to the machinations of an institution that still has a coercive monopoly on the idea that it is the promulgator of unbiased and objective reportage. National Public Radio is anything but unbiased. It has become an un-American institution. Time to fight fire with fire and cancel that pretentious, mediocre institution by withdrawing our support and endorsement.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago specializing in ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy, and moral psychology. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. Dr. Hill is the author of five books, including <a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-Oppression</a>. Follow him on Twitter&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>

Freedom Center Fellow Canceled By NPR

In October of 2021, I returned to the National Public Radio show Watching America, with host Dr. Alan Campbell, for an interview about my recently-published

Charles Love, the Executive Director of Seeking Educational Excellence (SEE) and the host of The Charles Love Show, has written a beautiful and highly stylized book that can truly be described as death by impeccable logic and reason to Black Lives Matter (BLM) and the 1619 Project. <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Race-Crazy-Progressive-Racism-Movement/dp/1642938416/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3PCLP1SLEFTES&amp;keywords=charles+love&amp;qid=1643609099&amp;sprefix=charles+love%2Caps%2C76&amp;sr=8-1">Race Crazy: BLM, 1619, and the Progressive Racism Movement</a> is a brilliant tour de force that identifies, and then destroys with surgical precision, the false claims made by both movements. More importantly, Love has exposed the egregious harm they inflict on the moral reputation of all black Americans, and the nefarious indictment they make against America as an evil country.


	In Race Crazy he sets the record straight in debunking these shibboleths and, in the process, restores grandeur and honor to America, and reminds us of the promise of hope, redemption, and prosperity she delivers to those blessed to live up to her name.


	I interviewed him recently about the success of his latest book.


	Jason D. Hill: Charles, congratulations on your new bestseller. The extant literature on Black Lives Matter, the 1619 Movement and—yes, what we can call Progressive Racism as deployed through Critical Race Theory and woke ideology is gargantuan. What makes your book stand apart from all the other books and articles on the subjects, and why did you decide to write it?


	Love: As you know, there is a lot of social pressure behind those who are intent on framing the country as inherently racist, advocating for racism to create equity. I think it’s good that people are writing about this toxic ideology. Each author has a unique perspective in addressing the issue and can help shed light on the problem in his or her own way.


	There are a couple of things that make my book stand out. First, it is not political. Several of the books that I’ve read on today’s culture read like an indictment of the Democrat Party. While Democrat politicians are clearly more likely to endorse the Progressive Racism movement, I see the cultural problem as an all-encompassing societal shift – apathetic and emotionally weak people and exacerbated by extremists. These extremists hate the country, so they don’t really like either party. They theoretically want to destroy them both; they’re just attacking one from within.


	Second, I’m not an academic. While most of the important books on cultural issues are written by academics like yourself, I felt there was something missing. The problem is so big now that in order to be effective in defeating it, we need to reach a critical mass of engagement, and this cannot be done solely through academics. Many of the books I read, and love, are written for other academics. I wanted to take what wise people like you, [Thomas] Sowell, and [John] McWhorter are saying on the topic and translate it, with my unique additions, into a message for the masses.


	Finally, what all these books have in common is a detailed logical summation of what the progressive racists get wrong. I wanted to take the argument a step further. In the book, I give them their argument and say even if we assume every claim they make is true, nothing changes. They offer no solutions, no reasonable changes, and see no positives in America.


	Hill: Do you see BLM as an existential threat to America? Or is it parasitic on something much more nefarious for its widespread popularity that we are not looking at?


	Love: I think both are possible. It is parasitic and nefarious in its approach to the country’s problems. Nothing can be addressed without adding a racism component. It is the reason for all problems. This can also be seen in their description of America. It’s racist from its inception, and this racism comes in many flavors (systemic, institutional, environmental, medical, and so on). The intent of this argument is definitely nefarious.


	Now, as to BLM being an existential threat, that depends on how we respond. Much of its popularity isn’t due to the true believers. They are few in numbers. The problem is the large number of people afraid to denounce their clearly false and racist points or those who support them due to white guilt or because they benefit in some way. If this response continues, it could become an existential threat. Giving in to their foolish demands tears at the fabric of our nation and creates more racists. It makes us weaker and less free.


	Hill: You’ve said that you agree with much of the 1619 Project, but that the project is marred by what it leaves out. Please tell our readers what the 1619 Project got right about the facts of American history and its framing.


	Love: The 1619 Project describes, in great detail, the ugly truth about how blacks were treated in America in the past as well as issues too many face today. This is often done in vivid detail through storytelling. The problem is there are too many factual inaccuracies, there’s no nuance or context, too much important information was left out (intentionally), and there is nothing positive and no solutions. How can a project designed to teach true history say the founders were slaveholders and never quote their writing on slavery or mention that nearly a quarter of them did not own slaves? How can they mention Reconstruction and the blacks who made political strides but never mention President Grant or the white votes needed to elect blacks to the state legislature?


	The Project frequently uses “whites” implying all whites participated in the bad acts they described or were complicit. This ignores the whites who abhorred slavery and spoke out against it. Many who risked their fortunes, reputations, or gave their lives to free blacks are lumped in with [pro-slavery Democrat statesman] John Calhoun by the Project.


	Lastly, it’s important to state that pointing out the evils that were done to blacks in America at the hands of whites who did participate is acceptable, but it is an act of racial betrayal to omit the great accomplishments of blacks, often in the face of open hostility. There is no mention of Benjamin Banneker, Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, Bass Reeves, Louis Latimer, and so on. No black excellence or triumph, only subjugation.


	Hill: Give us a few examples from your book about just how “Race Crazy” our country has become and why you think this will eventually further divide our nation rather than, say, bring about a racial reckoning?


	Love: There are some completely silly examples: like a judge ruling a black defendant couldn’t get a fair trial because there were photos of white judges on the wall; a college professor being suspended for refusing to cancel final exams for black students because George Floyd died; and a school district stopping the practice of marking tardiness (and reevaluating its policy on cheating) to help black students improve their grades. The bottom line is that there is a growing belief that blacks are different, and, therefore, cannot learn the same as others, even under equal conditions. They must be given extraordinary help or advantages to meet the standards other students are expected to achieve.&nbsp;


	This approach all but guarantees animosity among the races. These steps don’t fix injustices; they create artificial equity by giving unfair advantages based solely on race. This will do more harm than good by creating resentment among blacks and other minorities who are somehow means tested out of these newfound “black benefits” while making whites feel cheated as they question the qualifications of every black person in a leadership role or position of power.&nbsp;


	Hill: Do you think there is a moment of racial reckoning that needs to be realized in this country, or have we gone beyond that need to bring about some kind of restorative justice for blacks?


	Love: To answer the question on racial reckoning I’d like to quote myself from an article I wrote for The American Mind in response to a piece on your book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/">What Do White Americans Owe Black People?</a>:


	There has been a lot of talk of a “racial reckoning,” though it’s really more like an oversaturated, hyper-aggressive, obsessive fixation on race than a reckoning. Race relations are at a low point, and the “reckoning”—a term that evokes “showdown” or a settling of scores—resembles a disgruntled, dysfunctional family quarrel.&nbsp;But the climate has created an opportunity for a “racial reflection.” Rather than an action that is forced on someone or punishment being meted out, this reflection could allow us to pause and think about issues of race—both past and present—honestly, holistically, and in context. It also allows us to think about the ramifications of our actions before we take steps that will irrevocably damage race relations and the country.


	As far as restorative, or any other descriptive justice, I think working toward justice is enough. Anytime we try to parse out that justice into some special type, it tends to become more like preferential treatment and less like justice.


	Hill: If you were to sit face-to-face with Nikole Hannah-Jones, who is the architect of the 1619 Project, along with major leaders of the BLM movement, what would Charles Love say to them in a brief and succinct manner? How would you communicate that they are wrong in their views and approach and, aside from giving them your book as an antidote—set them on the right path?&nbsp;


	Love: I would start by asking, “What is the endgame?” Is the goal to make real positive change in the black community and the country? If so, I would explain how the actions they are taking will not achieve that goal. Simply put, they are not fighting for anything that would bring tangible help to the black community. They are not proposing changes that would raise reading and math skills to grade level, offer mentorship, reduce violence, or assist single parents. They don’t admonish poor cultural models, they celebrate them.


	In addition, they make whites the scapegoat for all of black America’s problems. If they are right, they don’t offer a path back. No specific work whites can do to be part of the solution. They are not going anywhere, and they will not be walking away from their jobs and giving away their homes (as much as BLM would like that). Just saying, “whiteness is a problem” won’t do.


	Finally, I’d ask how they feel about the country. Do they love it? This is important because it seems like they hate it. That would explain the “tear the system down” rhetoric. If you love the country, you want it to be the best, so you want to fix the bad parts, but you think there are good parts. I’ve never heard them say anything good about the country. I’d like to hear what they like and I’m sure I’m not alone.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago specializing in ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy, and moral psychology. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. Dr. Hill is the author of five books, including&nbsp; “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-Oppression</a>.” Follow him on Twitter&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>

Debunking the 'Race Crazy' Left

Charles Love, the Executive Director of Seeking Educational Excellence (SEE) and the host of The Charles Love Show, has written a beautiful and highly stylized

Editor's note: Freedom Center Shillman Fellow Jason D. Hill, the author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-Oppression</a>, recently interviewed leadership coach and alpha male Mike Shereck, author of the new book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Manhood-Manifesto-Must-Public-Sphere/dp/164293867X/">Manhood Manifesto: How Men Must Lead at Home, at Work and in the Public Sphere</a>, for FrontPage Mag. Check it out below.


	<img height="2069" width="1400" style="width: 250px; height: 369px;" class="media-element file-default" data-delta="1" src="https://cms.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2021/12/manhood_manifesto.jpg" alt="" />


	Hill: Mike Shereck, congratulations on your new book. It's a daring, courageous and audacious book, but one filled with humor also. I learned a lot from it. There are several books on the crisis of masculinity in the United States. What’s different and unique about yours? &nbsp;


	Shereck: Jason, thank you for this opportunity and your interest. I think there are a few things different – first, my perspective.&nbsp; I am an “everyman” from Berwyn, Illinois, a unique and powerful place, and I grew up in one of the most interesting times in our history.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;


	I was born in the Jim Crow south, I was alive during the Kennedy assassination, lived through the civil rights movement and Viet Nam.&nbsp;I have seen the best and the worst of America. I have traveled to Europe several times and have worked in a few different places around the world, and no matter what, I realize that though America is not perfect, the possibility and the idea of America is unlike any other place in the world.&nbsp;There is no victimization in the book and there is no political correctness in it either.&nbsp;It points to the specific breakdowns we have in our culture and has a plan of action to address them.&nbsp;&nbsp;


	I also believe what makes the book different is, there is an element of humor and irreverence toward the human experience.&nbsp;&nbsp;


	Hill: What is the biggest misperception heterosexual men and women have about each other as far as relating to each other as gendered agents?&nbsp;


	Shereck: This is a tough question. I think from my experience there is a perception by others that being a straight white guy is easy and we are all pretty shallow and dumb.&nbsp;That is a long way from the truth.&nbsp;&nbsp;


	As it relates to women, I love women and I see them as our partners – culturally, spiritually, intellectually, economically, and functionally. They are completely different beings than us, they are our complements and we are theirs.&nbsp;My concern is that the radical gynocentric social agenda has a perspective to reduce men or masculinity for the betterment of the world. Let’s just say I am not aligned.&nbsp;It occurs to me that agenda is solely for the acquisition of power and control. That, by definition, is corruption.


	Hill: Why did you decide to write this book, now?&nbsp;


	Shereck: I have gotten weary of how men, masculinity, and the male expression are being represented in both the media and the arts.&nbsp;There is a profound impact on young men because of that.&nbsp;Look at the numbers around suicide, around drug and alcohol abuse, and just look at the basic unease of young men today.&nbsp;You need to go no further than look at the expansion of transgenderism, male feminism, and the feminine expression of so many men, a clear indication that their relationship to who they are and what they are about is a bit off. I wanted there to be an alternative message, a celebration of masculinity along with the acceptance of the responsibility we have.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;


	Hill: You write about the role of the Alpha males in providing three key virtues to our society. What are they?&nbsp;


	Shereck: Absolutely. The first is “to provide.”&nbsp;In the olden days that meant be the breadwinner, and with that came a belief of some version of entitlement.&nbsp;You know, the “my home, my castle” BS. What I mean by “provide” is in the realm of leadership.&nbsp;We as Alpha men are responsible for the provision of space that allows people to grow, develop and fully express themselves as they are. It is to create the space where folks can learn from their mistakes and grow into contributing citizens.&nbsp;It is to provide the environment for future generations to thrive.&nbsp;You can see just by those broad examples it is a big job, and one that opens things up, I think far greater than any diversity, inclusion, and equity agenda.&nbsp;&nbsp;


	The next is “to protect.” We live in a time where there is an obsession with safety.&nbsp;Safety is a great example of the limiting nature of many of the gynocentric’s agenda.&nbsp;Safety limits what is possible; it is meant to eliminate risk. Life is filled with risks.&nbsp;We cannot eliminate risk and still be fully alive.&nbsp;By “protecting” we work to create the environment that reduces the unnecessary risk along with providing the skills that allows us as a culture to grow and develop to enhance our lives.&nbsp;It takes us from being victimized to being fully responsible for our actions and the results we derive from them.


	The final virtue is to “leave a legacy.” We are not here for a long time, and this thing we do, this thing called life is bigger than each of us.&nbsp;Leaving a legacy is living our lives in a way that connects the actions of the past with what we are doing today to create a future for our children and their children’s children. It is a way to push it forward along with a context that we want and need to leave this place better than we found it. It is the ultimate abundance context, and a focus on contribution.


	Hill: Do you think a sex war is inevitable, given the ambiguity around dating, what constitutes an appropriate form of flirting, and the whole issue regarding uninvited sexual attention?


	Shereck: &nbsp;I believe all war is avoidable.&nbsp;I am a believer of Sun Tzu: avoid war at all costs, and if you go, go big.&nbsp;And war is the ultimate breakdown of the human experience.&nbsp;There has never been a war that was not based in power and ego.&nbsp; 
	 
	What you are pointing to, Jason, is a breakdown in communication.&nbsp;That breakdown begins with not being clear on what we truly yearn for.&nbsp;Who does not desire connection, intimacy, or human touch?&nbsp;The question becomes, how do we get there? I think men need to get real about what they need, who they are, and what they really want in life.&nbsp;We need to start telling the truth to ourselves first.&nbsp;We need to practice vulnerability, not some wimpy version of that, authentic expression of vulnerability.&nbsp;We must be okay when we screw up, and we need to understand, a bunch of guys have done stupid stuff in the past, and we may have to pay for their misdeeds.&nbsp;&nbsp;


	We need to stop settling, and if for some reason we don’t have exactly what we think we need or want, look, and ask how it got this way—then choose. Accept it, not from resignation but from real acceptance; or go make it different, but we need to stop being resigned, pissed, or upset.


	For women, I hope they can begin to resist kicking every guy in the balls who shows vulnerability.&nbsp;We as men must learn to be vulnerable without being weak.&nbsp;Being weak, whiny, pussy boys has seemed to become in vogue and I find that really disturbing.&nbsp;&nbsp;


	As a followup: how do real men navigate this maze created, largely, I believe, by toxic feminists? How do they reclaim and make their own space and resist this new form of “gendered eugenics” where I think men are just being castrated into being manageable little beta twinks for women whose aim seems to be to establish power and dominance over men. Male feminists, twinks, overly sensitive guys, piss me off. It is the ultimate sellout.&nbsp;These guys are frauds.&nbsp;They are gutless wimps who have sold out to curry the favor of women and other gynocentric types because they don’t have the basic courage to stand up for themselves.&nbsp;&nbsp;


	Foundational to the book Manhood Manifesto is for men to own their voice—however that may be.&nbsp;The guys you are pointing to are complete cowards and sellouts. It is easier to go along the “gendered eugenics,” as you would say, than to stand up to it, be responsible and make the shifts that are required – “be the change.”


	Men have done some bad stuff throughout history.&nbsp;And any of us without sin should cast the first stone. I get it, and the bad stuff we are being judged by were things that happened years ago. It is a very slippery slope to judge yesterday’s actions by today’s standards.&nbsp;Men need to develop a much deeper understanding of who they are and what is truly important to them, then go out and be that man.&nbsp;That is the opportunity and the challenge of life. I believe we live in the greatest time in history to do that now.&nbsp;This is the gift of the current cultural events we are experiencing.&nbsp;Everything appears really clear.&nbsp;&nbsp;


	Hill: Tell us about the work you do in coaching men and how people can contact you.


	Shereck: I work as an executive coach and organizational consultant. My typical clients are men who run or own organizations who want those organizations to reflect their purpose and their values.&nbsp;The best way to reach me is send me an email to <a href="mailto:mikeshereck@gmail.com">mikeshereck@gmail.com</a>.


	Jason, thanks so much for the opportunity to share my book with you and your folks.&nbsp;&nbsp;


	Hill: I loved your book. It’s very, very original and courageous.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago specializing in ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy, and moral psychology. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. Dr. Hill is the author of five books, including, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-Oppression</a>.” Follow him on Twitter&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>

The Manhood Manifesto: How Men Must Lead

Editor's note: Freedom Center Shillman Fellow Jason D. Hill, the author of What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-

A few years ago, I was invited by a small liberal arts college in the Northeast to give a series of lectures on ethics and the formation of moral character to a mixed group of juniors and graduating seniors. I began the class with a discussion of how moral character was undoubtedly shaped by cultural norms, mores, traditions, and protocols but that, given the capacity of humans to question the sense-making narratives they inherit from their societies, the development of agency was also an individualist undertaking.


	Before I could even finish my introductory remarks, an earnest young woman blurted out that such an undertaking would be immoral. There was no such thing as an ethical milieu in America. There were no uncontested cultural mores, norms and values because these all presupposed a moral space; a location in which ethical agency could emerge. America, she announced, was and continues to be, located on stolen lands. This land was forged in genocidal conditions to eliminate Native Americans from the continent. That we lived on their stolen land without their permission, that we had yet to admit that genocidal policies neutralized any possibility for an ethical space in which moral agency could be developed was not just naïve—it was immoral. The United States of America, she declared, was irrevocably tainted as a country. The concomitant agency that sprung from any spatial alignment within its reaches was bound to be ethically compromised. Just as a criminal can never legally purchase stolen goods and claim to feel reasonably attractive in them, so too, no American could claim to ever have a legitimate ethical identity short of giving back stolen lands to the Native Indians; or, paying them for all illegally acquired lands.


	She was breathless at the end of her disquisition and visibly upset. She told me that my approach to the subject was wrong and that, respectfully, I was, perhaps, unknowingly, a participant in a continued colonial settler project.


	I remained somber and thanked her for her passionate viewpoint. She corrected me to say that she had uttered an unassailable truth. I asked the class if it had thoughts on the matter at hand. To a person, everyone agreed with the student. Some added that Americans ought to leave the content and relocate elsewhere and give up even their homes to Native Americans. The discussion went on for around thirty minutes during which time I basically functioned as an objective moderator, pointing out, for instance, cases in which land was purchased in a legitimate manner by the Europeans and Americans from the Native Indians.


	When one student declared that the moral but impractical thing would be for every American to offer him or herself up for execution to living Native Americans—I’d just about had enough of this malarkey. Almost sensing my frustration, the student who had engaged in her soliloquy told me she wanted my personal viewpoint—not some dispassionate attempt at a scholarly answer, as any such attempt would be jaundiced by historical biases shrouded in linguistic traps meant to ensnare the seeker of truth into a web of falsities.


	I remained silent, however, for some reason. I wanted to grasp the magnitude of the spectacle unfolding before my eyes. In the subsequent months I read scores of articles of children in K-12 public schools being taught about America created out of stolen lands. I heard Vice President Kamala Harris <a href="https://www.bet.com/article/a5vppx/kamala-harris-attacked-for-criticizing-columbus-day">deliver remarks</a> on the day after Columbus Day, or what has come to be known as “Indigenous Day,” in October of 2021 to the National Congress of American Indians 78th Convention. There, Harris accused the United States of ushering in a “wave of devastation for tribal nations, perpetuating violence, stealing land, and spreading disease.”


	Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had already declared America a crime scene and stated that America was constructed from stolen land; that Hispanics were more indigenous than the white population and more deserving of exemption from immigration laws. They had more of a right to America than whites did.


	This article is a response to the malarkey surrounding the idea that America was genocidal towards Native Americans, and the idea that America was created via theft.


	To begin with, there is no such thing as genocide of Native Americans, and no land was ever stolen. That is a case of the Big Lie if ever there were one.


	There was a war for resources and the Native Americans lost. They came in second. Period. In effect, today, they are war refugees on conquered American soil. The Native Americans were the first genocidal warlords on the continent. They stole the continent from the Holocene Megafauna and slaughtered them into extinction. The French, the Spanish and the English did the same with the aboriginal Americans. For centuries Native Americans had the land and did virtually nothing with it; that is, in terms of emancipating themselves from an animistic biological and cyclical lifestyle. The notion of progress lay unknown to them. They existed outside the historical process.


	European settlers acquired land that is now America through bargaining, purchase, and conquest. Most of the Indians died of diseases unintentionally transmitted by Europeans to the natives who had no natural inoculation against them. Genocide denotes a willful intention to exterminate an entire population of a people. Given the technological capabilities of the English and later the Americans, if they had wanted to eliminate the Indians from the continent they could have done so easily. Instead, they subjected many of them to forced inclusion and assimilation. This is not consonant with a policy of extermination. There were isolated cases of European military commanders who did attempt to vanquish hostile Indian tribes by giving them small-pox infected blankets. There is no evidence to indicate that this was systematic policy at all.


	The idea that the Indians were not willful participants in land purchasing, and that they did not negotiate with the Europeans for protracted periods of time, is putatively false. The notion that they all constituted a peace-loving assemblage of tribes is naïve at best and a perniciously false attempt to camouflage history at worst. American Indians owned slaves, including African Americans, and they conquered several competing tribes long after Columbus arrived on the continent. They burned villages, kidnapped children, raped women, and scalped their enemies. They behaved like savages. They did all this while remaining outside the historical process and contributing nothing of lasting significance to Western civilization or world civilization at all.


	The Native American indigene was a natural creature who had not yet transformed himself out of biological time into an epoch-making world historical person. Having failed to abstract himself from nature by transcending it, the American aboriginal viewed himself as inextricably bound to nature. To enter the historical process, one must see oneself as transcendent of nature. Nature becomes a thing — not that one adapts oneself to as do animals, but rather as a malleable entity that adapts to human needs, desires, aspirations, and creative capabilities.&nbsp;


	Only a self that is divorced from nature can enter the historical process. An irrevocable tie to nature condemns one to a life of cyclicality, a range-of-the-moment existence in which innovation, change, moral and political evolution, and creative adaptation are not possible.


	Tragically, it took conquest -- <a href="https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/africanpassageslowcountryadapt/introductionatlanticworld/african_participation_and_resi" target="_blank">facilitated</a>&nbsp;by the Europeans — to transplant the indigene into the historical process by inserting him into the civilization crucibles of Judeo-Christendom, with its emancipatory moral narratives and an evolving political philosophy that discovered, recognized and protected the inalienable rights of man. These include freedom and liberty, the right to the pursuit of happiness, freedom of conscience and speech, the right to bodily integrity, and the right to property.&nbsp;&nbsp;


	Freed from repetitive cyclical conceptions of life, the descendants of today’s indigenous Native American ancestors are endowed with a legal and public personality and recognized as being beyond exclusion from the human condition. This endowment is an historical achievement.&nbsp;&nbsp;


	The republic, the state, and the nation are the milieu in which we matriculate morally, politically, and develop into literal human beings. We each have a duty to ourselves to secure the preconditions of a free, civilized republic that we need as human beings to develop as human beings.&nbsp;&nbsp;


	The United States often has functioned like a great eugenics program in the moral and political sphere. It has allowed people to reverse the accidents of birth that would have kept them enslaved in lower forms of life, into an advanced realm of consciousness that now sees them existing as co-equals with their compatriots. This viewpoint is predicated on the fact that not all cultures are equal, and not all forms of life establish optimal conditions for human flourishing.&nbsp;&nbsp;


	This viewpoint is controversial in that it holds that not all forms of conquest are evil. Conquest that eventually improves the conditions of those living below the threshold of a certain understanding of what it means to be a full-fledged human being constitutes a moral good. We measure the contributions an action does in striving for a moral good against the harm it does in achieving that good.&nbsp;


	Today we may say that very little—if any—of the earth is in the hands of its original owners. The entire earth has changed ownership several times.


	Native Americans are part of the sovereign mass. The land was never theirs to begin with, since merely being born on land and doing nothing of significance with it does not entitle you to ownership of it.


	To those who won the war for resources and transformed what was a backwater state of nature into a vibrant technological civilization and an unprecedented political republic we say: This Land is Your Land.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago specializing in ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy, and moral psychology. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. Dr. Hill is the author of five books, including&nbsp; <a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-Oppression</a>. Follow him on Twitter&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>

Genocide, Stolen Land, and Other Lies about America

A few years ago, I was invited by a small liberal arts college in the Northeast to give a series of lectures on ethics and the formation of moral character to

[Order David Horowitz's new book -- I Can't Breathe: How a Racial Hoax Is Killing America: <a href="https://horowitzfreedomcenterstore.org/collections/frontpage/products/i-cant-breathe-how-a-racial-hoax-is-killing-america">HERE</a>.]


	Consider the following facts outlined in David Horowitz’s new book, <a href="https://horowitzfreedomcenterstore.org/collections/frontpage/products/i-cant-breathe-how-a-racial-hoax-is-killing-america">I Can’t Breathe: How A Racial Hoax is Killing America</a>: 
	 
	Every year, more than 10 million arrests are made by police departments nationally. In 2019, 14 unarmed blacks and 25 unarmed whites were killed by police. A 2001 Justice Department report stated that “when a white officer kills a felon, that felon is usually a white…and when a black officer kills a felon that felon is usually a black.” Nothing has changed in the years since then, the report states.


	Autopsy reports show that George Floyd could not breathe at the time of his containment by police because of the lethal dose of fentanyl that he had voluntarily ingested into his system.


	A 2011 Bureau of Justice Statistics study showed that of all suspects killed by police from 2003 to 2009, 41.7 percent were white, and 31.7 percent were black. In this period, blacks accounted for 38.5 percent of all arrests for violent crimes—that is, the type of crime most likely to trigger potentially deadly confrontation with police.


	Horowitz further points out that the evidence that police do not shoot and kill African Americans in disproportionately high numbers has grown stronger. In 2017, blacks were arrested for 37.5 percent of all violent felonies, but were just 24.7 percent of people killed by police. Corresponding figures in 2018 were 37.4 percent and 26.4 percent. In 2019, the numbers were 36.4 percent and 29.3 percent.


	Horowitz writes:


	If we look at the raw numbers of fatal shootings by police in recent years, we find that more whites than blacks are killed by police every single year, without exception. In some years whites account for twice as many victims of police shootings as blacks… while blacks make up only about 13 percent of the U.S. population, they commit nearly 40 percent of all violent crimes and more than half of all murders, statistics which would predict a significantly higher rate of police shootings of blacks than we actually see.


	It’s hard to argue with the facts. Horowitz does a dispassionate job of looking at the cases of blacks claimed to be unjustly shot by police. He judiciously examines the circumstances surrounding the shootings, outlining the never-before nuances and details of the attenuating circumstances that gave rise to the deaths of these individuals. His book analyzes the riots, murders, vandalizations and planned mayhem orchestrated by members of the Black Lives Matter movement that ensued after the death of George Floyd. The book is a deep-dive into the nature of the movement, its goals, and the targets its members have in mind as models for destruction.


	This book is a tour de force. It is not journalistic minutiae that constitute the bad behavior of a significant, uncivilized segment of our populace. Horowitz is no statistician of gutter trivia.


	This book, above all, describes the new metaphysics of politics overtaking our republic. This new metaphysics we may call systemic nihilism. It is not the garden variety nihilism that is bent on destruction for the sake of destruction. This is strategic destruction with the purpose of bringing our citizens to the brink of a civilizational and psychological breakdown. The strategic destruction Horowitz describes that the rioters deployed—mainly under the auspices of Black Lives Matter and Antifa – was enacted for the sole purpose of establishing a new socio-political order: one that will change the political DNA of our country; one in which systemic violence is normalized and mainstreamed; one in which traditional institutions like courts of law and law enforcement agencies are demonized as a matter of routine because appraisals of them as evil are viewed as unassailable truths. To change the socio-political DNA of a country facts must not only be ignored. As Horowitz has shown, they must also be deemed racist, stacked, and biased in strangely hidden ways that are obscured from the normal criteria to which transparency and scrutiny avail themselves.


	The attack on our civilizational institutions and the principles that undergird their foundation must themselves be seen as intrinsically racist and designed to keep minorities outside the domain of the ethical and the human community. The rioting and looting and murders of police officers are erected as a morality play in which the riotous players have no choice but to act as they do because they are pitted against (in their minds) an irremediably evil status quo. The major players here, BLM, are regarded as having the upper hand because their case is presented as a zero-sum game. For them, the whole edifice that constitutes justice is a vicious charade with built-in entrapments. Its alleged appeal to an objective reality, in their minds, is a fictitious construct that betrays the lived experience of existential plights created by the racist status quo: it must be destroyed. There can be no reform, no modifications, no appeal to a dialogical method of reasoning together as Americans. The Big Lie must be exposed.


	Against the backdrop of facts, however, Horowitz’s book—aside from showing the massive collusion of the Democratic party and the left in general in spawning, aiding, and abetting these racial hoaxes—leaves us asking some profound questions.


	Why do so many of us, in knowing the facts, at worst, suspend all lucidity of thought, dispense with evidence, and give a moral blank check to the destroyers of our civilization? Why do so many well-meaning Americans become not just blind, but willfully blind to the facts and support their destroyers? Why have so many Americans, knowing the national security threat BLM poses to our civilization, continue to pay unconscionable lip service to its agenda—knowing full well its members advocate the destruction of the nuclear family, the breakup of U.S. banks, and the advancement of a Marxist-communist state? How could such a significant percentage of Americans have lapsed into this type of psychosis?


	Horowitz has laid out the existential, political, and socio-cultural map for us to raise such questions. It is up to Americans to look within and answer them.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago specializing in ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy, and moral psychology. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. Dr. Hill is the author of five books, including&nbsp; “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-Oppression</a>.” Follow him on Twitter&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>

I Can't Breathe

[Order David Horowitz's new book -- I Can't Breathe: How a Racial Hoax Is Killing America: HERE.]


	Consider the following facts outlined in David Horowitz

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said on Wednesday October 13, 2021, that <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/warren-billionaires-who-have-enough-money-to-shoot-themselves-into-space-will-pay-for-reconciliation-bill/ar-AAPuaT4?ocid=BingNewsSearch">billionaires who have enough money to shoot themselves into space</a>, as Jeff Bezos did this summer, will pay for the Democrats’ multitrillion-dollar reconciliation bill that is still being negotiated in Congress.


	Before analyzing the pure envy and hatred of the productive benefactors of humanity that lie behind her statement, let us identify Warren for what she is: an equivocating, lying, money-laundering, Ponzi-scheming socialist who lives to expropriate the wealth of others to finance socialist programs. She’s contributed nothing in terms of productive value to society—short of being some pit-bull bureaucratic watchdog who lives for enacting legalized theft and money-laundering schemes, which is what socialism boils down to. She denies the fact that production comes before distribution, and that the wealth she so gleefully wants to appropriate was made possible by the ratified choices of individuals who endorsed Bezos’ products and made him wealthy because he added superlative value to their quality of lives. The notion that billionaires don’t pay taxes is such a case of the Big Lie, that it is not even worth refuting. &nbsp;&nbsp;


	What Warren despises is that Bezos regards his personal welfare, enjoyment, and pleasure—all value-choices that comprise his pursuit of his own happiness which is his inalienable right to do with as he pleases. He neither seeks nor needs the permission of others to live optimally.


	Elizabeth Warren is jealous, envious, and filled with rage that he has so much surplus income that he can dare to spend it on what she considers to be a frivolous and wasteful activity. Guess what, Warren? The liberal state by design is supposed to remain agnostic on the question of persons’ conceptions of the good life—provided such choices do not violate the rights of others. She is outraged that he’d rather spend millions on a short trip to space than fund the decrepit and corrupt government schools that teach hatred and bigotry via Critical race Theory; that he doesn’t seem to care about funding historically Black colleges which are a total disaster (they are failing abysmally and graduating semi-literate students); that her tuition-free community college education plan won’t be financed. No one should ever be compelled to finance the education of another person’s child. We are not responsible for the procreative choices of other people. The responsibility for a child’s education lies with the parents.


	If you cannot afford to educate a child then don’t have one, just as you would not purchase a house or car if you could not afford to finance them. No one has a constitutional right to have children. And no one’s child can be a necessary social good for anyone but the parents of that child. State schools today (and many private schools) are bastions of indoctrination centers teaching hatred of our great republic, encouraging and practicing cancel culture, weaponizing defiance against authority, decolonizing courses by stripping them of canonical texts, and turning schools into Marxist conduits of Social Justice, radical activism, and social eugenics breeding grounds to transform America into a communist charnel house by canceling human agency, and then history, and then our Constitution. No, Sen. Warren. Some of us are going to devote our lives to defunding all public schools and shutting down government schools. She is incensed that she won’t have her drug-pricing policies and undefined “climate crises” funded and foisted on corporations that would just stifle growth and productivity.


	Warren knows that she must walk a fine line with corporations and folks like Bezos. Financing socialist programs is not as simple a matter as taxing-the-rich and using their wealth to indiscriminately finance said initiatives.


	What the bark-with-no-bite senator wants to do is create a certain climate of resentment against success within the culture. She wants to reorient the sensibilities of the American people, to divest them of their personal independence and the cherished principle that they hold regarding property: that one has the legal and moral right to use and dispose of one’s property according to one’s judgment and conscience, provided it does not violate the individual rights of other persons.


	Warren and the progressive left want to change the vocabulary of rights entirely. They want a notion of positive rights to be sneaked in surreptitiously for us to forget the proper understanding of rights as delineated by classical liberalism. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Ludwig von Mises, and Ayn Rand all reminded us that rights pertain to a right to pursue action in pursuit of a good, an object, a service, and values. No one has the right to a job, a house, or an education per se; only the right to pursue the means to such tangible goods. Otherwise, one is demanding that one has a right to the efforts and actions and services of another. No one has ever been able to justify on what grounds such a right to that sort of action could be legitimized.


	Warren, like all socialists, is a money appropriator. She has no intention of creating real wealth in the sense of creating a real value in the world whose application is manifestly ratified by the choices of others in trading their money for that applied value. She may be a money-earner, and she has grown rich by that means; but it was through the created wealth of a producer on whose efforts she herself is parasitic. She is mostly known in politics as someone who has been responsible for policies that have led to banking regulations. This means that she strangles and aborts initiatives, innovation, and the creative capabilities of others.


	And this is what she hates about corporate leaders and those who have the temerity to enjoy their wealth by traveling into space. This woman bears the trademark of every money-laundering socialist: she has a sense of entitlement coupled with hatred for talent that can be monetized. She does not even have the dignity of a pillaging humanitarian. She’s a primal thug who is going after the rich for no other reason than because they are rich, and because their sensibilities and drives are offensive to her. She feels the rich should give back. But to whom and for what reason? From whom have they stolen or taken anything that was not theirs legally? They have raised the quality of lives and standard of living of many in ways that, if such persons had been left on their own, many of them otherwise would have been condemned to a life of destitution. Bezos has nothing to give back. He and his customers have traded value for value in a reciprocal exchange of mutual advantage.


	Warren desires to bring the rich and affluent down to the level of the lowest common denominator of those whom she thinks need government help; to invoke some notion that those corporate leaders and billionaires are just like everyone else. But they are not. And they should never accept the uninvited moral agenda of lesser people.


	I end with words addressed to money-laundering Sen. Warren via the great economist Ludwig von Mises, spoken to philosopher Ayn Rand when he told her she had the courage to tell the masses the truth. Von Mises said: “You are inferior, and all the improvements in your condition which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you.”


	These words are applicable to the money-appropriating senator who would do best to genuflect before the billionaires and pay homage to them for the gift of her paycheck, rather than have the infernal impertinence to even aspire to lecture them—let alone steal their wealth.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago specializing in ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy, and moral psychology. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. Dr. Hill is the author of five books, including the forthcoming book, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-Oppression</a>.” Follow him on Twitter&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>

Elizabeth Warren: Lying, Money-Laundering Socialist

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said on Wednesday October 13, 2021, that billionaires who have enough money to shoot themselves into space, as Jeff Bezos did this summer

The Respondent: Exposing the Cartel of Family Law

Family breakdown is the single greatest threat to American society. Every day, more than 4,000 children lose a parent because of our archaic and inhumane

Author's note: In his most recent book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Revolutionary-Mind-Revolution-Declaration/dp/164177066X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=c+bradley+thompson&amp;qid=1631302761&amp;sr=8-1">America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It</a>, C. Bradley Thompson gives us perhaps the most compelling moral interpretation of the American Revolution and the foundational principles of the Republic. In reconstructing the logic and principles of the Declaration of Independence, he establishes that which has rarely been given sufficient attention: the fact that America’s revolutionary war was primarily moral rather than economic or political.


	The story of America’s victorious fight for independence and its success in achieving its exceptional status as a Republic is the story of a unique phenomenon: the creation of the American Mind.


	Thompson does a brilliant job of weaving together the modes of reasoning that led to agreements in the minds of the Founders about the foundational and first principles in which the country would be rooted. In the end, we are left with a picture of the revolutionaries not just as profound political thinkers, but as moral giants—both as persons and as philosophic thinkers. Unanimously they perceived the correct nature of man as a human being who needed fundamental and indisputable resources and rights for a life of flourishing. This established them as epistemological geniuses. Out of that perception came the creation of the political system most consonant with that rational nature.


	C. Bradley Thompson is the BB&amp;T Research Professor in the Department of Political Science at Clemson University and the Executive Director of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism. He received his Ph.D from Brown University, and has also been a visiting scholar at Princeton and Harvard universities and at the University of London.


	I interviewed him recently about <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Revolutionary-Mind-Revolution-Declaration/dp/164177066X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=c+bradley+thompson&amp;qid=1631302761&amp;sr=8-1">America's Revolutionary Mind</a>.


	* * *


	Hill: Much of your book shores up the moral foundations of our Republic’s beginnings. Is it fair to say that America is the first consciously created moral country on earth?


	Thompson: Absolutely, yes! In the first essay of The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton famously wrote that the American people were the first in history “to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” By founding their governments on the basis of “reflection and choice,” Hamilton meant to say that the Americans exercised their reason and free will to choose and create new governments based on explicit philosophic principles. Those principles were drawn from the 17th-century English Enlightenment, and, more particularly, from the philosophic ideas of John Locke.&nbsp; &nbsp;


	The first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence are a précis of Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. From Locke, they learned that there are certain moral laws and rights of nature that can be discovered by human reason. Jefferson and America’s revolutionary founders believed that “truth” is objective, absolute, universal and permanent. The Declaration’s famous self-evident truths can be summed up in four words: equality, rights, consent, and revolution.


	Hill: The Founding Fathers were able to connect man’s real nature to the political milieu best suited for its preservation. How did this common epistemological capability arise in all of them in such a seemingly organic manner?


	Thompson: Ideas have consequences, and the ideas of the 17th-century Enlightenment crossed the Atlantic in the early 18th century and quickly infiltrated the American colonies' best colleges. By the middle of the 18th century, American college students were reading texts such as Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum, Sir Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica, and John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding and the Second Treatise of Government. From Newton the colonists learned that nature or reality is governed by certain physical laws of nature; from Bacon they learned inductive modes of reasoning that gave them a scientific method—the inductive method—by which to study nature; and from Locke they learned that man’s reason was capable of using Bacon’s method in order to understand Newton’s laws of nature.


	The great philosophic task of 18th-century Americans was to use and develop the methods of reasoning developed by Bacon, Newton, and Locke in order to search for and discover the moral laws and rights of nature. Such laws and rights, they discovered, transcended the so-called “rights of Englishmen,” which were the rights of a particular people at a particular time. During their conflict with British imperial officials in the 1760s and 1770s, American Patriots set out to discover and then found their new governments on the basis of certain moral principles that transcended place and time.


	Hill: You’ve done something remarkable in this book: you’ve offered a conceptual outline of the American mind. What are its chief attributes?


	Thompson: Without question, “America’s Revolutionary mind” was defined by its insistence that reason was man’s guide to discovering objectively true moral principles, such as justice, freedom, equality, rights, and moral virtue. The first sentence of the Declaration grants a “decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind,” which means that American Patriots were appealing to the power of man’s reason to discern the justice of their cause.


	Thomas Jefferson once wrote that the American Revolution restored to mankind “the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion.” The light of reason opened men’s eyes to the “rights of man,” Jefferson wrote, and it revealed the “palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”


	The American mind is also, I would say, defined not only by certain moral-political principles (equality, rights, individualism, consent, laissez-faire government, constitutionalism, free markets), but by a certain kind of moral logic that can be summed up in the phrase, “spirit of liberty.” The spirit of liberty is a jealous and watchful spirit that requires eternal vigilance in the face of encroaching political power. This moral logic said that free men and women should never permit government to take one inch of their freedoms because if they do, the government will take eventually one foot, and then one yard, and then one mile until they are all slaves.


	Hill: What is your overall view of Lincoln’s moral stature? Do you think that America had a second founding that was formally realized in his Gettysburg Address?


	Thompson: My overall assessment of Abraham Lincoln is very positive. He was America’s poet-statesman. The Gettysburg Address, for instance, is a work of literary artistry. The Gettysburg Address doesn’t quite refound America as much as it rededicates America to living up to its founding principles.


	Lincoln’s greatest virtue was his ability to combine principle with prudence. He was no Abolitionist (the position that I most clearly identify with), but he was nevertheless a man of unyielding principle. Lincoln’s moral line in the sand was the Missouri Compromise. He did not think that slavery should be permitted to extend beyond essentially the Mississippi River. This is why he was opposed to Stephen A. Douglas’s doctrine of “popular sovereignty,” which would have permitted the trans-Mississippi territories to vote “up or down” on the slavery question. Lincoln believed that Douglas’s position smacked of moral relativism. He charged Douglas with “not caring” whether slavery was permitted to extend into the western territories. That said, Lincoln, unlike some Abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, was not willing to destroy the Union in order to abolish slavery. Lincoln believed that the Union was necessary to abolishing chattel slavery.


	Hill: Against the age of Cancel Culture, with calls to morally condemn many of the Founding Fathers for their ownership in chattel slavery, as well as attributed racist views against blacks, my question is this: has the criterion for moral appraisal of these men been applied without a proper methodology that pertains to how standards of appraisal and judgments in morality ought to be made in general? &nbsp;


	Thompson: Yes. I’m struck by the blatantly ahistorical approach of twentieth- and twenty-first century Americans to the question of American slavery. When I ask my students to imagine what their view of slavery might have been had they been born in the antebellum South, I’m amused to learn that all of them, every single one, would have been a committed Abolitionist dedicating their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to abolishing slavery. As much as I admire their 21st-century anti-slavery principles, I can’t help but be amused. This position is now more difficult to defend in the light of the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory, which suggests that all whites are, and have forever been, racist. The problem with both positions, of course, is that slavery and racism are not and were not simply a problem of white southerners, then or now. The institution of slavery is a human problem. It was practiced by Africans on Africans long before it was exported to the New World—and it still is.


	A proper historical method for understanding the history of slavery is to view the institution, as much as possible, not through the lens of the present, but through the eyes and minds of those who engaged or lived with the institution. Slavery is and always has been immoral, but such blanket condemnations cannot help us to understand why Thomas Jefferson and other slave-holding signers of the Declaration of Independence didn’t free their slaves after July 4, 1776. We can and should judge past actors for their ideas and actions, but our first task as scholars is to ask and attempt to answer the “why” question. Why didn’t Revolutionary slaveholders free their slaves? Once we ask that question, the issue becomes much more complicated.


	Hill: And you do that in your book. Who is your favorite Founder and why?


	Thompson: That’s easy: John Adams. Adams is not only my favorite founding father, but it is demonstrably provable that he was America’s greatest founding father. Adams did more than any other Revolutionary, including George Washington, to successfully prosecute the Revolution. If Washington was the sword and Jefferson the pen of the Revolution, Adams was the engine of the Revolution.


	He was the Revolution’s leading man of ideas and he was its leading man of action. Adams embodied in thought and action the principles of the Revolution in a way unmatched by any other American of that great generation. As one delegate to the Continental Congress put it: “The man to whom the country is most indebted for the great measure of independence is Mr. John Adams. . . . I call him the Atlas of American independence.”


	It would take many thousands of words to provide the evidence for this claim. Maybe we can save that for another time.


	Hill: Say something more about the two specific decades in which the American mind was formulated.


	Thompson: During his retirement years, John Adams wrote that the true American Revolution began not on July 4, 1776 but rather during the 15 years before the Battles at Lexington and Concord (April 19, 1775), which means that he dates the beginning of the American Revolution—a revolution that he said was in the “minds of the people”—to 1760. Why 1760? That was the year that Great Britain granted British customs officials in the American colonies “general writs of assistance” (i.e., virtually unlimited search warrants), which were followed in relatively quick succession by the Sugar, Stamp, Townshend, Tea, Coercive, and Prohibitory Acts. The Americans were thus forced to rethink the nature of the British constitution, their rights as Englishmen, and their role in the British empire. And thus began their search for a new conception of a constitution (i.e., the idea of a written constitution as fundamental law), rights grounded in nature and not history, and the freedom of an independent nation.


	Hill: I think it fair to say we live in an age of moral crisis for a plethora of obvious reasons for the attentive citizens. Do you think America has lost its American Mind?


	Thompson: Beginning in the 1940s and 1950s, serious thinkers such as Albert Camus, Leo Strauss, and Ayn Rand began to argue that the mid-twentieth century was engulfed in a profound philosophic and moral crisis. That crisis was manifested most clearly in the fact that the West in general, and the United States of America in particular, had lost faith in its core moral-political principles, and, more importantly, of reason’s ability to ground and defend those principles. That crisis has only deepened over the course of the last 60 years. In fact, we might say that it’s in its final death throes. Whereas past generations of American intellectuals might have questioned America’s founding principles, today’s “intellectuals” openly condemn those principles. The result, of course, is that we are now approaching the moment when it can be said that a significant minority of Americans hate the idea of America. But to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech, a nation that hates itself cannot stand.


	Permit me to be slightly playful with your question. My answer depends on how you define “lost.” On the one hand, I don’t think the American mind is lost. It’s truer to say that the original American mind is under assault and is being destroyed by an ideological cancer. But if by “lost” we mean it in psychological terms, then yes, the American mind is suffering from a kind of profound mental illness—a kind of ideological schizophrenia. I wrote America’s Revolutionary Mind to help cure and restore to its original health and to foster, as Lincoln put it, “a new birth of freedom."


	Hill: Thank you for writing America's Revolutionary Mind. It will serve as an agent of good in our world today.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago specializing in ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics and moral psychology. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. Dr. Hill is the author of five books, including the forthcoming book,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-Oppression</a>. Follow him on Twitter&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>

America's Revolutionary Mind

Author's note: In his most recent book, America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It, C.

Freedom Center Shillman Fellow Bruce Bawer’s excellent Frontpage article "<a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/08/where-are-gays-bruce-bawer/">Where Are the Gays?</a>" paints a chilling portrait of the imminent torture, execution and amputations that await gay men under Taliban rulership in Afghanistan. And, of course, western gays are silent. Many are too busy hooking up on multiple sex apps. Many have never been concerned with rights that extend beyond the erogenous zones of their genitalia, and several are too busy celebrating the pedophilia presented in the best-selling young adult pornographic novel, Jack of Hearts (and Other Parts), as a moral victory over heteronormative patriarchy.


	The majority of sex-addicted gay men live in a curated silo where drugs, hook-ups, flaunting open relationships, and chasing youth and beauty supersede condemning the horrific agenda of the Taliban -- an agenda that will no doubt transport Afghanistan back to the Dark Ages.


	A reader suggested that a better article would be named: "Where Are All The Feminists?" Given the plight of women under the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan from 1996-2001, feminists should be concerned about the repression of the rights of individual women in that country. This concern should extend to the current resurgence of child marriage of young teenage girls to Taliban soldiers.


	No, feminists in America will not be criticizing the Taliban, just as neither they nor gays in America have dared criticize the brutal treatment of women and gays under the governance of Hamas in Gaza. Feminists in this country are too consumed with another task: the destruction of the American male, who is seen as the producer of imperialism, “racist capitalism,” and systemic racial and gender oppression. This is their obsession. The destruction of the American male supersedes moral concern for the wanton annihilation of human lives in other countries. They will not speak out against the Taliban because they hate America and American men more than they care about the rights of any individual singled out as a target for discrimination based on membership in a demonized group. &nbsp;


	As we hurtle towards a possible post-American future, this new breed of feminists, a phalanx of zealots, has forged fourth-wave feminism, and it’s far more rabidly anti-male than previous iterations of the ideological movement. You’d think because of its petty maliciousness and deranged radicalism, its appeal would be narrowly limited to the faculty lounges of liberal arts colleges. Yet since the inception of the #MeToo movement, the crazed foot soldiers of fourth-wave feminism managed not only to take their worldview mainstream, but also to put a headlock on the commanding heights of American culture. This is as impressive as it is terrifying.


	These new man-haters are seething with toxic feminism, and the further spread of their noxious sentiment could likely spell the death of our country as we know it. Increasingly prevalent is their practice of exploiting female agency and identity to make blanket attacks on men, to neuter manliness, and to advocate for the end of masculinity. These goals are being achieved while simultaneously promulgating the dual concepts that men are by nature nefarious and that female advancement can only come through the wholesale annihilation of heteronormative constructs of maleness. The destructive consequences for relationships at every level of society—from the simple couple to the community to the nation—will be vast and irreparable.


	The New Misandry, as I call it, arose out of the more extreme versions of second-wave feminism. Proponents of this form of feminism, such as Gloria Steinem and Kate Millett, Valerie Solanas (author of SCUM—Society for Cutting up Men) and Carol Hanisch, began the process of speaking to the irrelevance of men to women’s life and society in general. Steinem’s famous dictum, “a woman needs a man the way a fish needs a bicycle,” spoke to the changing cultural attitudes towards men that regarded them as disposable, annoying, and of having nuisance value only. Third-wave feminism, beginning in the early 1990s, saw a rise in affluent middle-class women influenced by Anita Hill who wielded their agency in strategic ways to exact a revenge against all men in the ways in which they imagined a malevolent, collectivist male psyche had inflicted irreparable damage on all women. Fourth-wave feminism, which arose in the 2010s, gained traction with the creation of the #MeToo Movement. This form of feminism is the most toxic brand we find in the history of feminism. With full malice aforethought, its adherents depict masculinity as inherently toxic, and claim that only the abolition of maleness will result in the creation of an egalitarian world for women.


	The #MeToo Movement started out with noble intentions of addressing harassment claims of women that were not being adequately addressed in the legal system. It quickly morphed, however, into a male-bashing movement that sought to strip men of their agency and&nbsp; dignity, and engaged in a social eugenics program encroaching on all spheres of life—from abolishing the swimwear category in beauty pageants on the grounds that it was sexist, to attempting to cancel the James Bond movie franchise on the grounds that Bond represented old-fashioned sexist stereotypes of women that were degrading and eviscerative of female dignity. It quickly created a toxic culture in which an accusation of male harassment was sufficient to introduce the presumption of guilt on the part of the man. We say this in the case of Christine Blasey Ford and other women who tried to destroy the life and career of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. No compelling evidence was ever offered, just hyperbolic testimony based on hazy recollections of incidents that allegedly happened decades ago and that were never reported when they allegedly happened.


	Their goal is to neuter young boys from K-12 by abolishing gender, and by queering the identity of young boys from as early as those in the 3rd grade.


	Such feminists have been aided by weak and purposeless Beta-males. Governed by a “gynocentric paradigm,” they have supported the congeries of woke anti-male progressives for several reasons, ranging from political expediency to poor self-esteem.


	The #MeToo Movement, the mother of fourth-wave feminism, is an insidious, Marxist-inflected, social eugenics organization bent on reshaping the sensibilities of men. Toxic femininity’s collusion with a particular kind of male gives us a look at the deeper crisis in masculinity which has created a new and rather ghastly phenomenon: the neutered Beta-male. This man has allowed himself to be eviscerated of his male pride, his manliness, his masculine virtues, and the sense of massive empowerment he ought to feel in the enjoyment of his values. He feels a deep-seated hatred for real men whom he envies largely because they have never sold out to the ways in which toxic feminists and the larger culture have attempted to re-socialize them into being feminine men. These neutered Beta-males are parasitic social ballasts who feed off toxic female power. They collude with such women to bring down real men to radically change the world. More important, their only experience of manliness comes from a weak collusion with women to destroy men who are stronger than they are. The cruel irony is that toxic feminists do not respect such men. They simply use them as pawns in politically expedient ways to serve their ends to end the patriarchy, male assertiveness, and a world in which men lead. We may describe such men as constituting a confederacy of gender-quitters—traitors against their own sex. 


	Now, more than ever, men—who built Western civilization and, for the most part, do the dirty work of its upkeep—are regarded as expendable, and by their very nature, an existential threat to the planet itself. Against these attacks laden with presumption of guilt, we see that civilizational longevity, economic prosperity, and human flourishing are all irrevocably tied to manliness. To be manly is not just healthy, it is moral, for it creates the ethical space out of which our sense of purpose and identity arises.


	What we need to help counter this morally narcissistic form of feminism is a celebration of manliness—specifically working-class manliness—into mainstream culture. Working class men are paragons of male pride. They seek no one’s approval or permission to express their singularity, and their unabashed manliness. They aspire to glory through heroic deeds, and they often risk their lives to save and vindicate those of others. They assert their virtue over authority, and they have a strong respect for meritocracy. They may be defeated, but they are never destroyed. They are men of action who take risks as a way of life. Such men elicit admiration in a simplicity they possess. It is one forged in the crucibles of an attitude that desires to leave the world a better place than they found it through grit, resilience, honor, tenacity, and perseverance. Unlike compassion which invites us to look down on those towards whom we feel pity, admiration is a command to look up to those in control.&nbsp;&nbsp;


	Toxic feminists such as Anita Hill, Gloria Steinem, Pauline Harmange, and others rely on one advantage: the Sanction of the Victims. Men who are psychologically victimized by such feminists rarely if ever speak out in radical defense of themselves, let alone their masculine natures. Their silence suggests guilt which implies wrongdoing. This in turn grants such women a coercive monopoly on the moral narratives to indict men and, further: to stamp themselves with the imprimatur of innocence. Men have too often been socialized to feel that they are somehow bad as men and exist as a problem to be solved. These toxic feminists take advantage of this moral weakness in men who are unable to inoculate themselves against the often-baseless accusations of women. Such men are presumed guilty by accusation alone. Morally neutral male behavior that is derived from masculine culture—a kind of bawdiness and raunchiness in general—is construed as damaging to the agency of women. Rather than defend their primal raunch and rambunctiousness and entreat women to be strong in their resolve, men instead resort to lame apologies, silence, moral atonement, acts of contrition and redemption.


	Returning to Bruce Bawer’s initial question: the majority of sex-addicted gays and man-hating fourth-wave feminists are, in the end, irrelevant. The real question is: where are the real men—in the USA and in Afghanistan? Real men don’t surrender without a fight or, in the case of the Afghan President, Ashraf Ghani, abandon his military and his people and run in hiding at the first advance of these vicious trolls.


	What we need are ways to fight the toxic feminism that aims to cripple the decisiveness of real men along with their heroic and warrior nature. This involves a comprehensive guide to taking out one of the most potent heads of the identity politics hydra. Toxic feminism is a form of identity politics that trades on a univocal victim status to inflict punishment on men in general for the sheer thrill of garnering power over them.


	1) Men will first have to construct masculinity on their terms. It will be non-negotiable, and women will have to accept it as one would the invariability of the laws of nature. This is not to imply that men will not make concessions in their relationships with women for mutual advantage. It is to suggest that masculine construction, per se, is the business of men—not that of women.


	2) Men must accept that human male leadership is a role that is an inherent one in nature. They must come to rid themselves of any guilt and shame they feel from exercising leadership. They must see it as their birthright and part of their natural constitution.


	3) Men must learn to say No. No to toxic feminism. Silence is not an option. Mere assertion of one’s masculinity is a necessary condition for fighting toxic feminism, but it is not a sufficient one. Men must point out the emotional poison, the moral impotence, and the intention to annihilate male potency that lies behind toxic feminism.&nbsp;


	4) Men must use their masculine agency as an ethical and constructive normative identity to enumerate an ethical masculinity. This will give countenance to constitutive features of manliness deemed offensive by toxic feminism by seeking to reclaim them as positive attributes.


	To enumerate the values of ethical masculinity men will have to cultivate and manifest in their characters the values of freedom, trust, courage and glory, integrity, authenticity, responsibility, rationality, faith in God (if they are believers), moral leadership, and playfulness, joy and vitality in themselves and in others. This form of masculinity creates a space for women to be fully feminine.


	Those who practice ethical masculinity are motivated to achieve, protect others, provide for others, and possess the aspirational desire to leave a legacy. They are not motivated to beat others. At its heart, toxic feminism is impotent since it seeks to destroy male agency. Generous, chivalrous and thoughtful masculine men who find that they harbor a share of the untamable, of the “bad boy” element in them and that they can exercise such traits without being duplicitous and disingenuous will discover that they will attract more women than they can handle.


	Toxic feminists and their practice of toxic feminism will be defeated by the sexual, erotic and psychic gravitas these men sway over women. Toxic feminists, like the majority of sex-addicted narcissistic gay men, will be ultimately revealed for what they are: ignoble social ballasts who will elicit the scorn and contempt of real women, and the abject indifference of masculine men.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago specializing in ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics and moral psychology. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. Jason is the author of five books, including the forthcoming book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-Oppression</a>. Follow him on Twitter&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>

Where are the Feminists?

Freedom Center Shillman Fellow Bruce Bawer’s excellent Frontpage article "Where Are the Gays?" paints a chilling portrait of the imminent torture, execution

Jonathan W. Emord is one of the United States’ leading constitutional and administrative law attorneys. He has defeated the FDA eight times in federal court, more times than any other attorney in America. He is a guest lecturer at Georgetown University Law and Medical Schools, and the author of several books. He is the guest host with Robert Scott Bell of the "Sacred Fire of Liberty Hour" on The Robert Scott Bell Show. His latest Book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarians-Assault-Individual-Constitution-Enterprise/dp/1631953923">The Authoritarians: Their Assault on Individual Liberty, the Constitution, and Free Enterprise from the 19th Century to the Present,</a> is a deep dive into the wells of history, law, economics, and government. It is a magisterial and monumental book that traces the historical roots of America’s accelerating race towards authoritarianism. Every American who cares about freedom and about how to reverse these trends, that will irrevocably undermine our freedom, should read this book. I interviewed Mr. Emord recently.


	Jason Hill:&nbsp;Jonathan, thanks for speaking with me. Your book is monumental in the breadth and scope of its historical detail. To begin with,&nbsp;you paint a dismal picture of the Biden administration in leading us down a seemingly inevitable road toward socialism. You simultaneously point to illiberal and authoritarian groups such as Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, and sundry white supremacist groups that are aiding and abetting the move away from individual rights to an egregious form of collectivism. I know you give a rich historical account of how we got to this moment, but let me ask you this: just how dangerous are the Biden administration and these authoritarian movements?


	Jonathan Emord: To win the presidency, Biden sold his soul to the socialists. Biden is a Democrat Party weather vane. He is buffeted about by liberal winds, shifting this way and that to remain true to the direction of party activists. He has no core beliefs, no principles. No one of principle who loved liberty and the Constitution could have ever embraced socialism as Biden has. A combination of ignorance and no principle leads Biden to bring about legislative changes through executive fiat in violation of the separation of powers. Without any attempt to obtain public or congressional support for changing the law, Biden has rewritten the law unilaterally, to abandon President Trump’s America First agenda, to terminate President Trump’s successful border policies, to open the Southern border to unlimited immigration yet disallow refugee status to Cubans fleeing communist persecution, and to end opposition to Putin's Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Europe while shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline and fossil fuel leases on federal lands and waters. He is hollowing out the Republic and replacing it with an entirely authoritarian regime. &nbsp;


	No one should think Biden’s lack of spatial and temporal awareness evidence of his harmlessness. He invites destruction of our nation from within and without, stoking Marxist rioting and revolution at home and communist adventurism abroad. He sends the unmistakable and redundant message that those who are destroying the cities, destroying education, destroying the military, and threatening our vital interests will not face resistance but, rather, appeasement or encouragement. He neither condemns the Marxist rebellion nor quells it—worse, he supports it by advancing a socialist policy agenda.


	Hill: Not many people know about the collapse of classical liberalism in the United States and its relationship to 18th century German philosophy, especially the philosophy of George Wilhem Hegel. Explain this to our readers. Many people think that the decline of&nbsp;America and the West began with 1960s post-modernism. You see this as occurring earlier?


	Emord: Classical liberalism first came under assault in the antebellum South. Stung by abolitionist criticism, Southerners nevertheless would not give up on slavery due to its social and economic allures. Until abolitionists proved their hypocrisy, slavery’s apologists honored the American Revolution, revered the Declaration, and had pride in Thomas Jefferson, himself a Southerner, a Virginian. But abolitionist attacks forced Southerners to grapple with the conflict between slavery and the self-evident truths in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. To keep people in bondage, they had to condemn the Declaration, but they needed a replacement for it. In 1821, the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel introduced the world to collectivism, defining the worth of the individual not based on his or her own merit but on his or her contribution to a “collective good,” a good Hegelians believed best established by highly-educated experts given license to command the state and compel public allegiance to their dictates.&nbsp;


	To the delight of slavery’s apologists, Hegel defended slavery as inevitable and helpful in the evolution of “superior races.” Hegel was a racist (as was his student Karl Marx), believing Europeans superior and Africans inferior. Hegel defended slavery as inevitable and beneficial because he argued through it superior Europeans could advance faster than without it. He did not think slavery inhumane; to the contrary, he argued it enabled an inferior race to associate with a superior one, helping advance the former. Slavery’s apologists cleaved to Hegel’s doctrine and defended slavery as a socialist ideal (cradle to grave care for an inferior race), and vastly superior to northern capitalism. Southern academic George Fitzhugh described domestic slavery as “the oldest, best, and most common form of socialism” and as “the beau ideal of communism.” Although the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, Hegelian socialism remained popular with Southern and even Northern academics in the 1860’s and beyond. Progressives between the 1860s and 1930s used Hegelian doctrine to justify the creation of another authoritarian model, the extra-constitutional administrative state.&nbsp;


	In the 1870s and 1880s, academics in law, economics, philosophy, and history from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Wisconsin, and the University of Michigan flocked to Berlin, Halle, and Heidelberg, Germany to study in the Hegelian schools of historicism and political economy. They were taught to reject Locke, reject individual rights theory, reject the Declaration of Independence, reject the Constitution, and reject classical liberalism in favor of Hegelian collectivism and the administrative state. They returned to America and rooted out classical liberal education. Soon not only academia but state governments and, eventually, the federal government embraced the administrative state and shifted toward socialism.


	I do not subscribe to the view that the infection of socialism is a terminal illness. To the contrary, I view it as a disease we will eradicate, and I remain optimistic that individual liberty will ultimately triumph over socialism because individual liberty is the only condition consistent with the very nature of humanity. Invariably, socialism is a bankrupt ideology. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. Socialism (slavery to the state) is inherently destructive, while capitalism (liberty in a free market) is inherently constructive. 
	 
	Hill: Where in America were the pro-capitalists, pro-American intellectual voices in our universities? Why did the Progressives predominate in de-legitimizing American law and in anthropomorphizing the state?


	Emord: A confluence of events and new ideologies created an allure that proved irresistible for many academics between 1860 through the 1930s. First, the rapid rise in industrialization and the change in social composition due to immigration caused what Teddy Roosevelt called a “fierce discontent.” An agrarian lifestyle gave way to city living and mass manufacture. A burgeoning middle class and new rise in immigrant entrepreneurs upset both the landed gentry and their political influence. Uncomfortable, fearful that those of different religions, ethnicities, and races would come to predominate, Progressives variously concluded that the Constitution’s limits on power were antiquated, that centralized power and efficiency were all important, and that experts needed to define the common good and then compel people by force of law to serve that common good. A prime example of this kind of authoritarian thinking is eugenics. The notion that “unfit” people (i.e., those who committed crimes, bore children out of wedlock, were physically disabled, were mentally challenged, or came from disfavored races and ethnicities) ought to be eliminated gave rise during the Progressive Era to state agencies dedicated to eugenics and to endorsements of eugenics by academics in virtually every field. Not only was there no sound scientific evidence that anything deemed “unfit” was hereditable, but there was almost no concern mentioned, not even by the Supreme Court of the United States (see Buck v. Bell), for the rights of those forcibly sterilized. Over 60,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized between 1907 and 1981.


	Second, the notion that education begets a class of experts better suited than the individual to determine what is in the individual’s best interest is an elitism naturally attractive to academics. Having expended their adult lives endeavoring to be accepted as expert, they would likely find no greater prospect for power than through acceptance of the Hegelian notion that all government ought to be under their control to maximize the “common good.”


	Hill: From the beginning of our republic to the New Deal, including&nbsp;the eugenics movements, the movements to keep blacks outside the domain of the ethical, various progressive movements to destroy individual rights that involved violating the rights of blacks--you've painted a picture of America that seemed very much like a white supremacist country since its inception? Am I wrong in my assumption? If I am not, then when did we cease being a white supremacist nation?


	Emord: I believe the opposite is true. The Preamble is the origin of the United States. It is the nation’s lodestone. It defines self-evident truths that were often honored, always aspirational, and sometimes violated, but armed those denied rights with the foundational authority necessary to ensure over time rights protection. This wisdom did not escape Martin Luther King, Jr.&nbsp; He did not condemn America for racial discrimination. He appealed to the nation to honor its fundamental charters, the Declaration and the Constitution. He said: “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”


	Until adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, slavery was a bane for both whites and blacks. BLM and the 1619 Project selectively rewrite history to present a false, propagandistic view that condemns America as systemically racist.&nbsp; They state the origin of our country is not the Preamble in 1776 but the arrival of about 20 black slaves to the Jamestown Colony in 1619. What you are not told is that four months before the 20 blacks arrived in Jamestown, 100 white slaves arrived. What you are not told is that the arrival of 20 blacks was a one-off event because for years thereafter whites both young and old were delivered to Jamestown as slaves.


	What you are not told is that by 1830, some 3000 manumitted blacks became slave owners themselves, some owning dozens of slaves. What you are not told is that the Founding Fathers condemned the Crown for bringing slavery to the colonies, considered slavery an execrable trade, and wished to extinguish it through a political solution that would have freed all slaves at once. What you are not told is that Jefferson who wrote the words: “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” also wrote at the very same time a 168-word paragraph in the Declaration that made clear he understood rights to be universal bequests from God to humankind (not limited to white males). That provision was deleted from the Declaration, as Jefferson explains in his autobiography, “in compliance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves...” because the support of both was essential to waging the war for independence with Great Britain.


	Rather than condemn America for “systemic racism,” a collectivist concept that is but a Trojan horse for socialism, we ought to celebrate America for establishing an ideal so noble, so consistent with human nature, so just, and so empowering that it could not be denied despite jealous grasps by those who advocate for a single race or a single gender. The self-evident truths of the Preamble transcend all.


	Hill: Identify the most dangerous President in the history of the United States and say why you think so. You alluded to this in your book.


	Emord: Franklin Delano Roosevelt is the most dangerous president in American history. He did more to transform government into a socialist state than any prior president and succeeded in intimidating the Supreme Court through his infamous court-packing plan into sending into exile (those are Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg’s words) the power limiting doctrines that previously cabined the government and protected individual rights and sovereignty.&nbsp;


	Hill: How do we undo a cult of Progressivism that has undermined judicial review, engendered socialism, and&nbsp;outlawed individualism? How do we make our way back to liberty and Prosperity? Do you think America's decline is irreversible?


	Emord: Socialism will inevitably fail, as it has everywhere on earth. The challenge we face is to end the socialist siege before it destroys the Constitution and robs us of our freedoms and prosperity. The fundamental reality is that humans yearn to be free. We are born with free agency, and no regime, like the Biden Administration, can take away liberty and replace it with socialism without engendering significant human misery. From the founding to the present, we have known considerable liberty, more than any other people on earth. When people come to realize, as surely they must, that the promised socialist state will rob them of their liberty, their property, and their freedom to choose, they will be reminded of just how precious their freedoms are. Will they reject the lies of socialism and demand restoration of the self-evident truths of the Preamble? I believe they will. To paraphrase Lincoln’s words from his first Inaugural Address of March 4, 1861, “the mystic chords of memory... all over this broad land, will yet swell... when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”


	Hill: Thank You. Your book, the richest in historical detail I’ve read in a while, is surely worth a second reading. This has been a wonderful exploration and learning experience for me.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics. He is the author of several books, including “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/We-Have-Overcome-Immigrants-American/dp/1682617300" target="_blank">We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People</a>” (Bombardier Books/Post Hill Press). Follow him on Twitter&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6</a>.

The Authoritarians

Jonathan W. Emord is one of the United States’ leading constitutional and administrative law attorneys. He has defeated the FDA eight times in federal court,

There is a common belief among left-wing "progressives" that failure to enforce the inheritance tax will result in increased income disparities among racial, ethnic and social groups. The tax is a way of allocating the already-taxed income of wealth creators among the general population in a manner, it is imagined, that will ease society toward the moral position any fair and just society ought to occupy: one that has achieved total equity among groups, and one that establishes metaphysical egalitarianism as an appropriate characteristic of the human condition.


	But let us start from the beginning. When one is the offspring of a deceased wealth creator who is being taxed on her inheritance, exactly what is she being taxed on? Let us call this person Catherine. Catherine’s father, Mario, migrated from Poland to the United States in 1946 and started a small business in construction without government help. He started out as a construction laborer, saved his money and, after fifteen back-breaking, torturous years, began a roofing company based on a loan acquired from a loan shark. On account of his broken English and lack of a formal education he was unable to acquire a loan from a reputable financial institution. In five years, Mario owned four such companies. By the time Catherine was born her father was the sole owner of a dozen roofing companies in the state of Illinois. He had also expanded his businesses to include plumbing and house painting, and even started a moving franchise. Mario was a millionaire by the time Catherine was five—allowing her American-born mother to homeschool her and her two younger brothers.


	Catherine’s father had learned how to invest his money wisely by studying the stock market, and he even become a day trader as a hobby during his retirement years after moving to California. When he died peacefully in his sleep from heart failure at the age of ninety, just two months after his wife’s death, Catherine and her brothers, now in their mid-fifties, inherited a fortune in excess of US$20M. &nbsp;


	When Catherine and her brothers are subjected to an astronomical inheritance tax on money that their father bequeathed to them, the state is making a presumptuous judgment against the moral judgments of Mario that his children are worthy of the full returns on his productive efforts.


	Such efforts are results of values, virtues and capabilities that Mario achieved in his character. The inheritance tax, therefore, is an assault against his values, grit, perseverance, resilience, and tenacity. He was already taxed for creating jobs, wealth, and income for others through his wealth creation endeavors. The inheritance tax imposed on his children is an attempt to re-direct his choices and decisions by way of expropriating his wealth and giving it to others in a manner of which he would not have approved. Mario’s wealth was a product of his values and virtues which cannot be redistributed in reality; therefore, “legalized theft” or inheritance appropriation must be justified by appealing to some collectivist premise on the order of: it benefits the common or public good.


	This widespread canard among left-progressives is promulgated without an answer to the question: who determines the public or common good for society? There is no such thing as society. The latter is merely the aggregate of several individuals. And second, what legal and moral metric is being employed to determine a conception of the good? In a free society everyone conceives of the good for him- or herself as determined by his or her values, principles, choices and sensibilities.


	If in death Mario’s estate is taxed by means of government appropriation, his efforts to aid his children’s well-being have been morally compromised. He was unable to fully pass on his wealth based on his desires and moral intentions. There is no difference between that situation and denying him the freedom to finance Catherine’s education while he was still alive, or the freedom to spend his already-taxed income on any of his children in a manner he desired.


	What makes the inheritance tax so egregious is not that it is a form of double taxation. The violation of the moral principle that secures Mario’s right to his income is not made worse by a double violation. The initial violation is itself improper.


	It is rewarding the unearned for the productive efforts of another by violating the value endorsements of the wealth creator (Mario). In this case his children earned such endorsements simply by being values to their father, and by their right of inheritance which is derived from his right to dispose in an unencumbered manner the products of his labor.


	Mario’s already-taxed wealth is further taxed in its inheritable form to finance the well-being of individuals who do not constitute a value or a good for him. One could make this case for income tax in general. Such a case can and ought to be made, only it is outside the scope of this article. The notable egregious nature of the inheritance tax lies in the fact that its beneficiaries are penalized under the dubious pretext that they did not earn the income they are inheriting and that, therefore, any abstract member of a society is as equally entitled to a portion of the created wealth of the wealth creator whose freedom to apportion, allocate and dispose of his wealth is compromised via an appropriative government whose judgments about what constitutes the good supersedes that of the wealth creator.


	The rights of the non-productive, the social ballasts, and the non-valued take precedence over Mario’s moral conscience, whose sovereign right to his property is violated via a usurpative act on the part of the state.


	The inheritance tax is, as we can see, a nefarious violation of the right to one’s conscience and the logical corollaries that stem from it: freedom of judgment to make decisions, choices and actions in one’s name; and, further, freedom to use one’s property acquired through one’s own efforts in any manner so long as it does not violate the rights of others. &nbsp;


	The moral message issued by the enforcers of the inheritance tax is that income inequality is intrinsically bad; that it is made worse by failure to inflict a social penalty in the form of a tax on the beneficiaries of inherited wealth.


	Income inequality stems from the ineradicable fact that we are not all equal. Some people are more intelligent than others, more athletically skilled than others, more beautiful, more frugal, more moral, and just more talented than others. These disparities in capabilities, whether the result of natural causes or human choices and initiatives, along with competition among human beings, all lead to unequal outcomes.


	The inheritance tax sends a message predicated on a theme of entitlement. That theme states that because one is regarded as a collective part of an amorphous whole that gets constituted as an indiscriminate “social good” to everyone but no one in particular, that one’s mere existence constitutes a mortgage on the bequeathed savings of another.


	The other moral malfeasance of the inheritance tax is that it sanctions the principle that upholds equal rights from unequal causes, and equal rewards for unequal performance. The inheritance tax, therefore, legitimizes the principle not of political egalitarianism or equality before the law, which is an inalienable right. It promotes the idea of metaphysical egalitarianism that overlooks the impossibility of redistributing individually curated capabilities. It sanctions the dictum: he who does not make and own the pie, nevertheless has equal shares to all its slices.


	To indiscriminately believe that one has the right to inherit another’s wealth through redistribution by the state is to believe that the responsibility for one’s life and fate are not one’s own but that of others. It is another method in which the state engages in social eugenics by engendering infantilism among citizens by sending the categorical message that the default duty of preserving one’s life lies with those who are financially better off than oneself.


	Such a belief and the principle that secures it are not promoters of the right to life, liberty, self-preservation and flourishing. They are, instead, the divine right to stagnation, arrested development and cognitive ossification.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics. He is the author of several books, including <a href="https://www.amazon.com/We-Have-Overcome-Immigrants-American/dp/1682617300" target="_blank">We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People</a> (Bombardier Books/Post Hill Press). His new forthcoming book is <a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post Oppression</a>. Follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>

The Moral Case for Abolishing the Inheritance Tax

There is a common belief among left-wing "progressives" that failure to enforce the inheritance tax will result in increased income disparities among racial,

Gad Saad is a Lebanese-Canadian intellectual and evolutionary psychologist. He was raised Jewish in Lebanon and migrated to Canada at the age of eleven. Dr. Saad’s perspective on the world is nuanced and multi-faceted. He is as well-known in the United States as he is in Canada, where he is a professor of marketing at the John Molson School of Business at Concordia University. In his most recent book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Parasitic-Mind-Infectious-Killing-Common/dp/162157959X/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&amp;keywords=gad+saad&amp;qid=1623447670&amp;sr=8-2">The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense</a>, he exposes how bad ideas, or idea pathogens, are spread unchecked in our culture.


	Dr. Saad is a wholesaler in the realm of cognition. He ties together the fundamental premises that unite promulgators of idea pathogens. In the process, he reveals their motives and goals. In Dr. Saad’s view, the advocates and spreaders of the idea pathogens are rooted in the ethical relativism of postmodernism, which denies the existence of an objective reality. With this as the philosophic grounding that operationalizes all their goals as social and existential disruptors in society, Dr. Saad allows us to see connections among seemingly disparate groups. Their goal is the destruction of key foundational tenets of Western civilization. The consequences of their actions are the annihilation of common sense, respect for science, individual rights and human dignity, as well as a wholesale war against reason and the idea of truth. A war on freedom of speech and thought is the method used by these intellectual terrorists to spread these idea pathogens and infect those most vulnerable: young persons and children in the West. The incubators for these idea pathogens are the universities - which have become indoctrination centers that are turning our youth into enemies of the state and destroyers of the values that undergird our civilization. &nbsp;


	I interviewed Dr. Saad via Zoom to discuss these ideas that are brilliantly explicated and analyzed in his book. His call to action is inspiring. The West cannot be lost.


	Jason D. Hill: You laid out the evidence for how to seek truth, so my question for you is: How many of the intellectual infections caused by these idea pathogens that you address are caused by willed self-deception, that is, a desire not to know, or are made through genuine errors of knowledge?


	Gad Saad: When I was first laying out the notion of idea pathogens, I was trying to look for what makes them similar to each other. So, if we look at postmodernism, social constructivism, &nbsp;biophobia, cultural relativism, and radical feminism, and if you look at cancer, each cancer is different but they do share at least one mechanism which is unchecked cell division. So, too, there is this one commonality across pancreatic cancer, leukemia, and melanoma. When it comes to idea pathogens, I think what they all share is the desire to be freed from the shackles of reality. In that sense, it's a complete attack on your sense making and folk knowledge. You’re rejecting knowledge that is as clear as the existence of gravity. There are no such things as male or female. You are not shackled by your genitalia. Your child could have been the next Michael Jordan had he been socialized properly. There are no innate biological differences, for these people; so, it's a real rejection of truth because postmodernism rejects that there is objective truth. I call it intellectual terrorism, because in the same way that the 9/11 hijackers flew planes into our buildings, so postmodernism flies planes of BS into the edifices of reason.


	Hill: Here is what I’m getting at: Are some people infected by these idea pathogens because they just don't know they are ignorant? As far as some of my students go, I present facts to them and some just don't want to know the facts. They hold on to their epistemic ignorance willfully. How much in your experience as a teacher and as a public intellectual is the spread of idea pathogen based on willed ignorance?


	Saad: I get forty to fifty years old adults with supposedly functioning brains saying “I just wanted to know, because you're an evolution behavioral scientist, is it OK for me to say that only women menstruate, or is that no longer accepted?” If an adult at fifty writes me to receive my imprimatur as a professor and evolutionary behavioral scientists to know if it’s OK for him to say that only women menstruate—then, that gives you a sense of the extent to which these idea pathogens have crystallized in people. So, I think it's a bit of both. Some are willful in their desire to destroy our edifices of reason, but I think our poor hapless young students are passive receptacles of the BS.


	Hill: Good, that’s what I needed to understand. The second question I have is: Have we reached a stage in the West given the implacability and the violence and intolerance of, let's say, the Islamic Jihad, and the war of the progressive Left that you so eloquently described in the book, where we need to stand much more robustly against intolerance? You endorsed the view that tolerance of intolerance is cowardice. You paint a lovely picture in the end in your call to action. This is quite optimistic; but in the previous chapters that I read I saw a dismal picture of intransigence on the part of these systemic nihilists. Have we reached a point where we must be stronger against both the systemic nihilism and the sort of intolerance that we find manifesting itself both on campuses and in the larger public sphere?


	Saad: The reason that I wanted to precisely end with a sense of optimism in is because I think it's important for people to feel that there is a possibility of a light at the end of the tunnel. If you diagnose all these mind illnesses and then say well: “I've got nothing for you, so good luck with your infection”, then I don't think that's really a solution. I genuinely think that we can turn the tide around; but to your question about whether we've reached the stage of violence I keep my fingers crossed that we haven’t, but we are quickly galloping towards that position. Good people are not going to silently be quiet while they are told that they are diseased by virtue of their whiteness. People who are not in the least bit bent toward violence will say—I’ve had enough. &nbsp;I don't want to live under existential guilt because someone who shared my skin hue, hundreds of years did some bad things and by virtue of that I'm guilty. I do worry that in ten to fifteen years we will have a repeat of what I escaped from at age 11. People sometimes say: “Professor aren’t you being hyperbolic, aren't you exaggerating?” I'm not.


	I lived in the perfect manifestation of what a culture that is organized along identity politics looks like. It’s called Lebanon. Every single dynamic in Lebanese society or in the Middle East is viewed through this prism. In this case it’s your religious affiliation: We saw what happened in Lebanon, Rwanda, and Iraq. We saw it happen in the Balkans. We are recreating that. I'm not saying that tomorrow they'll be a repeat of Lebanon, but given enough time—the next 100 years you will get that.&nbsp; I don’t think we are going to have mass violence you know in the next two weeks but if we continue at this pace—it will happen. Therefore, I am clear to people: Don't diffuse responsibility of your voice onto others; don't be cowardly and don't be apathetic. Whatever sphere of your influence, however small or however large you can affect change. When your professor in class says something that appears questionable to you, challenge them politely. When your friend on Facebook says something that strikes you as insane, challenge them politely. Take every opportunity to at least engage your opponent in the battle of ideas. You don't have to be a fancy professor to participate in these important debates.


	Hill: This is a great way to lead into my third question. In your call to action, you state that the university needs to return to the meritocratic ethos it once had. How is this possible given that the administrators are the purveyors of this sort of malarkey? They advocate and support the decolonization of courses; they uphold cancel culture, and ethical relativism that all undermine the foundational principles of our western civilization.


	And the second question is: Do you think that the age of the university is already over? Is the educative mission still possible?


	Saad: If donors withdraw their money and a whole bunch of parents say this is going to end, things will change. We see this with all the parental responses across the United States standing up against Critical Race Theory. If you compared things to a month ago, then yes, it is a completely different battlefield (for the better). How can we defeat this when it is the administrators who are pushing this on us? Well, if they eventually see that they are on the losing end of how the wind is blowing they will quickly reverse course. So in a sense that's why I'm optimistic. I don't really see them as true ideologues. When I receive a wonderful email from someone and then they finish with that last disclaimer: Please don’t mention that I believe in meritocracy, I can do two things at that point. I could just say thank you so much for the lovely words, I appreciate it. But I write back and say: “Let me ask you something. Those young men who landed in Normandy, were they guaranteed safe passage when they landed? They did it knowing that they were going to be mowed down like little mosquitoes by machine guns. Don’t you think that maybe you could muster the courage to not put a disclaimer.”


	I think it's just incessant trench warfare. You must constantly implore people to get engaged. You must be tenacious; you have to be persistent. It is really akin to a tsunami. It starts off small and it grows, and it grows.


	&nbsp;Hill: I've written that Europe is over culturally and politically; that it's just a museum showpiece. The continent is so Islamized and destroyed by multiculturalism that I don't think it's a player any longer. What’s your response to this? And further: If you had to make invidious comparisons, where is the decline of the West the worst? It is in Europe, Canada, or the United States?


	Saad: Worst is Europe. Canada would be number two, and the United States, third.


	This is why I fight. I don’t want to see these idea pathogens permanently alter our great societies. I must intervene every time I see truth being raped, I must intervene every time I see human dignity being attacked, I have to intervene every time I see imbecilic suicidal nonsense being espoused to our children. I'm glad that at least I have the temperament to do it. I'm sort of the lifeguard of reason. I’m always looking out into the horizon to see who I need to save next because I'm always on alert. My cortisol levels are always up because I'm looking for the next fight, not because I'm cantankerous, but because I despise hypocrisy. I am just a fighter for truth and for better or worse I can’t disengage from the battle of ideas.


	Hill: So, one last question: Since many intellectual warriors and other closeted warriors are going to be reading this, I’d like to know what keeps you grounded? How do you not burnout?


	Saad: I’m going to try to discuss that question in my next book. I talk about how to live a life of enrichment and happiness and so forth. I think, overwhelmingly, the fact that I have a wonderful home life. There is the outside world where all the fighting is happening, and then there is home life which becomes kind of the place of solace. I have young children that hopefully I'm raising to be good citizens. I have a very close relationship with my wife. I think I've got this wonderful home life that allows me to disassociate from the ugliness of the outside world and allows me to have kind of a schism between all the fighting out there in the ugly impure world. The home life is the place where I can relax, read books, and have fun. &nbsp;


	Hill: Thank you very much for your brilliant book from which I have learned so much. You have a magnificent way of distilling the craziness without succumbing to despair and bitterness. That’s a gift to all of us.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics. He is the author of several books, including <a href="https://www.amazon.com/We-Have-Overcome-Immigrants-American/dp/1682617300" target="_blank">We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People</a> (Bombardier Books/Post Hill Press). His new forthcoming book is <a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post Oppression</a>. Follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>

The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas are Killing Common Sense

Gad Saad is a Lebanese-Canadian intellectual and evolutionary psychologist. He was raised Jewish in Lebanon and migrated to Canada at the age of eleven. Dr.

The recent "ceasefire" between the terrorist organization, Hamas, that rules Gaza, and the ethical state of Israel is a recipe for future disaster. There is one winner, which is Hamas. The loser in this pitiful surrender is Israel.


	What does Hamas have to gain by a ceasefire? An awful lot. It claims an indefinite time frame in which to rebuild its arsenal of destruction that will be levied against Israel in a relatively short space of time. It has a chance to showcase to the world the destruction of its infrastructures and civilian habitats. A great segment of the anti-Semitic world will refuse to acknowledge that Hamas is literally responsible for all these civilian deaths -- as it is the only army in human history that uses the lives of its civilian population as weapons of war by using hospitals, infant nurseries, schools, civilian homes, and mosques as launch pads for its rockets. Hamas also refuses to allow its citizens to evacuate buildings and targeted areas of attack announced well in advance of any military strikes by the IDF.


	Hamas has the infernal impertinence -- after initiating an unprovoked war against Israel -- to occupy the moral high ground by claiming that it will agree to a ceasefire with Israel on two conditions: that Israeli forces must stop incursions into the Al-Aqsa compound and respect the site. And second, that Israel must stop the forced evacuation of the Palestinian residents in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. Where does some primordial and savage terrorist organization that has already evicted itself from the ambit of rights and that, as a retrogressive tribe, exists way outside the historical process, dare to dictate domestic policy inside Israel? In doing so, it appeals to some mawkishly sentimental sense of brotherhood with the war refugees existing in Judea and Samaria and, by default, it&nbsp;wins a popularity contest with the equally execrable, racist, thuggish, and anti-Semitic United Nations and many European countries, that, while paying unconscionable lip service to Israel’s right to exist, secretly hope for Israel’s demise.


	A terrorist organization that starts a war, one that is not bombed into oblivion but is altruistically allowed to remain in existence and lectures to Israel the terms of a ceasefire which it intends to use to simply recoup losses and re-strengthen its moral stranglehold over Israel, is so obscene a phenomenon in human history, that Israel, one of the most moral nations on earth, should be ashamed of itself.&nbsp;Israel should be ashamed of itself for allowing such a ghastly enemy that, even in the absence of a war, spews rockets into its country as a way of openly showing its contempt and intention to one day, perhaps visit a nuclear Holocaust on it by coupling with another well-known enemy who wishes Israel obliterated from the earth.


	In fundamental terms, what exactly does Israel have to gain from a ceasefire with Hamas? The delay of a final showdown in which Hamas lines up all of its own women and children and fires rockets from behind them and dares Israel to respond -- while the world looks on in self-righteous judgment of Israel to make a so-called false move? Will Israel ever realize that, contrary to what the world thinks, it is not and can never be responsible for one civilian casualty in Gaza? No country that is attacked can altruistically bear the responsibility for protecting the lives of the citizens of the aggressor country. That country has abrogated the rights of its citizens. That country is the conferrer of justice and the protector of rights. Israel is no more responsible for the rights of the civilians than you would be for the life of the child of a gunman who uses his child as a shield while shooting at you to gain access to your house. The child’s life cannot and should not supersede your right to your life. The moral responsibility for the child’s life lies entirely with the gunman. You cannot be morally blamed for protecting your life because your bodily integrity is violated by being put in harm’s way.


	Israel is simply buying time. Let’s face it, Hamas is a malignant cancer. Gaza is the host in which that cancer grows. It exists because the people there, by a democratic vote, granted it the power to rule. No distinction can legitimately be made between the citizens and the terrorist overlords who rule that strip of desolation, putrefaction, and destruction. That the citizens have allowed themselves to be used as cannon fodder is not Israel’s problem. When our Drone President, Barak Obama, was indiscriminately dropping missiles on Afghanistan in a war on terror that killed countless civilians, much of the world remained silent. His Nobel Peace Prize was not rescinded.


	What is the ultimate solution for Israel when and if it stops capitulating to world condemnation and public opinion, and when it refrains from playing altruistic skirmishes with Gaza? Here is something to ponder: 
	 
	When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on January 7, 1941, killing more than 2,300 Americans, the United States knew that the response would have to be decisive and lethal. The purpose of war is to vanquish one’s enemy; to obliterate it completely -- and further: to inflict generational damage. The response was the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a series of firebombing air raids of Tokyo. The ultimate defeat of Hitler included the bombing of Dresden. There was a time in history when real men who oversaw wars knew how to fight them, and to win them. There was a decisiveness, a deliberateness, and dignity in how these men fought such wars. The bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, and Dresden were proper. They were moral, and they were inevitable. They defended the right to an unassailable right to self-defense, and they secured a lasting peace. They sent an ominous message, too, on the order of: If you try to kill us -- we will destroy you. 


	When Israel decides who and what it wants to be as the only moral and noble state in that section of the world, it will realize that no lasting civilization has ever survived without having a Manifest Destiny. Perhaps then it will gaze out at the decrepit wasteland of Gaza that exists solely to destroy it, and it will remember the flourishing agricultural Mecca it once was under Israeli stewardship. There will be no moral paralysis, no lugubrious memories; just a burning pride and, perhaps, some enduring moral inspiration of how her moral alter-ego, the United States of America, defeated her enemies when they dared question her supremacy.


	In those moments when attacked, something sacred happened: the fourth angel did indeed pour out his vial upon the sun, and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics. He is the author of several books, including <a href="https://www.amazon.com/We-Have-Overcome-Immigrants-American/dp/1682617300" target="_blank">We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People</a> (Bombardier Books/Post Hill Press). His new forthcoming book is <a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post Oppression</a>. Follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>

Catastrophe of a 'Ceasefire'

The recent "ceasefire" between the terrorist organization, Hamas, that rules Gaza, and the ethical state of Israel is a recipe for future disaster. There is

Some criminals who steal other people’s money to finance their own private lifestyle, or those of the public, often move by stealth and subterfuge. They deploy moralistic language via rhetorical obfuscation. By the time they work over our moral conscience, we grant them the benefit of the doubt because we believe, in some perverse way, that the criminal had a coercive right to what he was taking away from us.


	Joe Biden is such thief. He has stated outright that it is time for the richest Americans to pay their fair share of taxes. He has not exactly identified by what means and by what right it is your or anyone else’s fair share of what someone else has earned. But it does not matter. Like all financial appropriators, private or public, one is expected to accept an appropriator’s assertion as the legitimate basis of a claim, or, in this case, an outright mandate.


	The appeal to moral conscience is mawkishly sentimental. Biden intends to finance a country’s badly-needed faltering infrastructure and welfare spending totaling about $4tn. The various packages under these $1.8tn American Families Plan and $2tn infrastructure plans would provide funds for childcare and free pre-school education facilities, along with humongous programs to rebuild the country’s transport system and public-sector housing. They all are a part of a systemic effort to effect action on what Biden perceives as the climate crisis. The plan would also allocate $200bn for free universal preschool education, and $109bn for free community college education—regardless of income for two years.


	This is to be paid for by making corporate America and the wealthiest 1% pay just their fair share, Biden repeated, as he spoke at a community college on Monday, May 3, in Norfolk, Virginia.


	Astute readers will realize the move towards socialism by stealth here. No need to dwell on that. Economists like Thomas Sowell, Ludwig Von Mises, and others have pointed to the fact that tax hikes won’t necessarily raise more revenue. The state of Maryland did that to $1 million earners a few years ago and lost 25% of them and their revenue.


	What needs to be emphasized is the moral malfeasance committed by the effrontery assumed in the statement that the 1% or anyone at all are responsible for the financial well-being of their fellow citizens. It rests on a particular premise that undergirds all welfare programs, provides the moral basis for socialism, and sets our conscience against the moral right to keep what we earn. If we accept the premise, then it does not matter whether the moral appropriator who claims a right to our money is a single individual who needs to feed his family, or a government bureaucrat seizing it by force to feed a nation, a neighborhood, or a small group: the number of beneficiaries cannot change the nature of the premise.


	That premise is: We are our brother’s keepers. 


	For those who believe that they are their brother’s keepers, no one will stop them from privately enacting that principle in their personal lives as part of their conception of the good life they have carved out for themselves. It, incidentally, taken to its logical endpoint and practiced as a way of life, is impossible to practice consistently. But that ought to be a private issue. Conceptions of the good life coined by individuals in a free society cannot be forced on others. That premise when enacted by government edict is legalized theft and, in principle, is no different from a little knife-wielding thief who seizes your wallet because he needs the money to buy food for his family. The needs of anyone cannot, in any free and civilized society, be a mortgage on the purse strings of others. Need, simpliciter, is not a justification for the confiscation of anyone’s earnings—let alone those who are a nation’s primary wealth and job creators. Our survival is not guaranteed in this world. We have to achieve it by our own efforts as adults. We cannot coerce others by force into conscripted labor to support our lives for us.


	Make no mistake about it. If one does accept the premise that one is one’s brother’s keeper, then one is morally disarmed from the confiscatory reaches of any government program that would seek to tax one on the basis of one’s earnings for the financial upkeep of others. One is a permanent victim of the egregious lie that one has not paid one’s fair share because one is wealthy and part of the 1%.


	To begin with, apart from the sheer legalized theft at stake here, one has to simply examine the presumptuousness involved in assuming the inverse of what is actually an indisputable truth. The wealthy are not parasitic and unfair takers as is implied in the insidious catchphrase: “They must pay their fair share.” Quite the opposite. Wealth is the material and tangible translation of human values to human desires, aspirations, and creative production. Those who create wealth are the benefactors of a host of social and material goods to non-wealth creators, including jobs, prosperity, and increased standards of living. They have “paid their fair share,” if that conceptually inane phrase has even a patina of reference to reality, simply by existing and producing the goods and services that, left to themselves, the beneficiaries would be unable to produce. They would simply wallow in abject poverty and decrepitude, and suffer myriad unmet needs.


	Biden, like all wealth appropriators, of course, is a prototype that sees wealth creators as one collective brain that must be nationalized. His mandate begs the question on so many levels. First, that wealth is a national commodity or treasure trove that belongs to society. In the United States of America, wealth is privately owned. It is not a national resource. To speak of re-distribution is to be either putatively dishonest or, at best, intellectually out-of-focus. Wealth, properly speaking, is not distributed in this country. Wealth is earned by men and women who voluntarily trade goods and services to those willing to buy and consume them for their personal advantage or pleasure. And the precondition of wealth—values, imagination, frugality, prudence, discipline, talent (a plethora of traits), cannot be re-distributed at all.


	To speak of re-distributing something that is not distributed in the first place is to commit a category mistake on purpose for the sake of perverting reality in order to sabotage people’s logic, their moral conscience, and their capacity to inoculate themselves against the encroachments of others on the moral, spiritual, intellectual and, ultimately, fiscal aspect of their lives.


	It is the absence of rational thinking as a sustained way of life, moral compromise and mawkish sentimentality as intermittent indulgences that allow one’s adversaries to ultimately achieve moral and economic victories over one. I believe that if we want to function as wholesalers as opposed to retailers in both the realm of values and cognition, then it is in terms of the larger foundational, hidden principles that our adversaries are using to “pull one over on us” that must be identified and rejected. The edifice will come crumbling down. We won’t be left agreeing on paid child-care, rejecting community colleges, and wringing our hands in agonal despair over pre-school education. The basic comprehensive principle grounding them is identical. Reject the principle, frame the debate on your terms, and then you will win the battle.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics. He is the author of several books, including <a href="https://www.amazon.com/We-Have-Overcome-Immigrants-American/dp/1682617300" target="_blank">We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People</a> (Bombardier Books/Post Hill Press). His new forthcoming book is <a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post Oppression</a>. Follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>


	&nbsp;


	* * *


	<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/48573573437">Photo credit: Gage Skidmore</a>

Biden: The Humanitarian Thief

Some criminals who steal other people’s money to finance their own private lifestyle, or those of the public, often move by stealth and subterfuge. They deploy

Order David Horowitz's new book: <a href="https://horowitzfreedomcenterstore.org/collections/books/products/the-enemy-within-how-a-totalitarian-movement-is-destroying-america">The Enemy Within: How a Totalitarian Movement is Destroying America</a>.


	The philosopher E.M. Cioran in his book, The Temptation to Exist, writes: “A decadent civilization compromises with its disease, cherishes the virus infecting it, loses its self-respect… by the same token it admits defeat, worm-eaten, done for. The smell of carrion fascinates and inflames those greedy and garrulous gravediggers we call the Apostles.”


	I raise the haunting specter of an infectious virus decimating a civilization against the backdrop of two viruses at present infecting American civilization. One is biological in nature, Covid-19; the other political.


	I believe that writer and social philosopher David Horowitz has identified the nature of that second virus. I think that he reasons that it is deadlier than COVID-19, and that its deleterious consequences are far more destructive and long-lasting than any biological infection.


	<img height="422" width="307" style="float: left;" class="media-element file-default" data-delta="1" src="https://cms.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2021/04/nmm.jpg" alt="" />In his latest book, The Enemy Within: How a Totalitarian Movement is Destroying America, Horowitz locates the political ideology destroying every democratic and Enlightenment value on which our constitutional republic was founded. The invasive virus identified by Horowitz is a left-wing reactionary politics ensconced within the Democratic Party.


	The philosophical root of this ideology which ties it to several movements that suffuse our culture, whether it be radical feminism, Black Lives Matter, Islamic Jihadism, the equity movements, reparation movements, the trial by media of Justice Brett Kavanaugh or, what Horowitz describes as the racist anti-racist rhetoric of Ibram X. Kendi and Ta-Nahesi Coates, is: “Identity Politics.”


	Horowitz defines it as a radical ideology that is “racial and collectivist, and that privileges groups over individuals and demonized those who fall on the wrong side of its social equation. As a worldview Identity Politics is fundamentally at odds with America’s core principles of individual freedom, accountability, and equality, which have been the foundation of the nation’s progress for more than two hundred years.”


	The book identifies the historical antecedents of Identity Politics by squaring it in the camp of Communist Marxist ideology. From there, Horowitz is able to create a compelling, page-turning narrative that covers almost every sphere of American cultural, educational, and political life infected by what he terms as the racist premises of the Progressive Left. In the process, the author debunks many of the shibboleths that have kept the policies of the left unchecked for decades. These include the view that blacks are still a marginalized and oppressed group, when in fact they are the beneficiaries of several race-based privileges and benefactions; and the view that systemic racism is not only endemic to America, but is a constitutive part of America’s identity. These views are logically and empirically debunked by Horowitz’s formidable logic and impeccable use of factual data.


	Equally important to the book are the enormous contributions made to American and Western civilization by European males. We are the legatees of those achievements forged in the crucibles of resilience, sacrifice, devotion and genius.


	When he turns to the Democratic response to the 2020 elections and the question of voter fraud, or when he writes about former President Trump’s treatment of the COVID-19 virus at various stages of its manifestations, Horowitz is clear to point out in painstaking details how the reactionary left, which, incidentally, includes, irresponsible behavior on the part of mainstream media, has interfered with or lied about putative evidence. What a reader takes to be obvious as reported by the media, Horowitz exposes with the lucidity and thoroughness of an investigative reporter to be an essential cover-up by a confederacy of left-wing liars.


	He shows how the universities are the purveyors of some of the most dangerous ideas that then get transmitted to the general culture, and he shows how over the last forty years, due in part to a large bloated administrative class, conservative voices have been silenced on campuses. Viewpoints that challenge received wisdom get criminalized to the point that even an utterance such as: “America is a land of opportunity,” can be construed as racist and a form of “micro-aggression.”


	If you want to understand the nature of the deep divisions in this country by way of the 2020 elections and by way of what I consider to be the biggest breach in this country: the intellectuals and the people, Horowitz provides plenty of examples. Readers who want to witness, in Horowitz’s estimation, the evisceration of the dignity of the Presidency of Donald Trump, should read this book.


	The themes of this book could be described as a description and analysis of those who love America and desire to continue making it great versus those who hate it and wish to destroy it. Horowitz provides compelling evidence to indict the reactionary ideological left as complicit in hating America and wishing to destroy it.


	There are several lies and false narratives promulgated in the media that are corrected in this beautifully written and elegantly stylized book. Horowitz writes passionately. He describes states of horrific phenomena running amok in America; but he writes in measured prose that is always under the auspices of reason and logic. The writing is lyrical and contiguous.


	There are many ways to read this book: as a level-headed critique of the destructive progressive left-wing faction in America today. One could see it as a prognosticative warning: things will get worse. Others may see it as intellectual ammunition and inoculation against the perversities and the cultural and political indoctrination attempts of the cultural left whose main goal is to compromise human agency, freedom and liberty and usher in a socialist America.


	I think all of these interpretations are true. Reading this book for me, however, was analogous to drinking a long cup of coffee in the early morning which one never wants to finish. Caffeine stimulates and energizes. This book held such an experience for me. On my second reading, however, I was left with a deeper impression. David Horowitz loves America deeply. He cares about humanity and the flourishing of all persons. He is vexed by the totalitarian agenda of the left not because the implementation of its agenda will destroy a way of life for one racial or ethnic group but, rather, because it will irrevocably destroy a quality and uniquely American way of life for all of America’s people.


	Horowitz, therefore, is not a polarizing or divisive writer for the sake of being a curmudgeon. He realizes that there is a culture war taking place. He continues the noble and good fight in this book against the cult of nihilism that the Left represents. The fight—his fight, and the fight of all those who stand for freedom and liberty—is a restorative one ultimately. The book, to the extent that books can be part of a war effort, and indeed they can, is, therefore, a clarion call for justice for all, for values that are American values and, a fortiori, universal and aspirational values many have died and risked their lives for.


	A keen diagnostician as well as social commentator, Horowitz in The Enemy Within gives us a deep portrait of the beautiful America that will be irretrievably lost if we do not identify the moral bankruptcy of the cultural and political trends that would seek to destroy our country. I do not believe David Horowitz is a historical determinist or a fatalist. The book, therefore, is a call to action: Take back our country from the annihilatory predators who are returning us to a primeval form of existence. It is not too late to reverse the current political trends in this country. America is not yet hopelessly lost. She is worth fighting for and holding on to. Do not let her go.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics. He is the author of several books, including <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amazon.com/We-Have-Overcome-Immigrants-American/dp/1682617300&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1618960953444000&amp;usg=AFQjCNF1hVaFTUB2D8k1mcJiJ_euT3V6Ug" href="https://www.amazon.com/We-Have-Overcome-Immigrants-American/dp/1682617300" target="_blank">We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People</a> (Bombardier Books/Post Hill Press). His new forthcoming book is <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref%3Dsr_1_1?dchild%3D1%26keywords%3Djason%2Bd%2Bhill%26qid%3D1611125631%26sr%3D8-1&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1618960953444000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFLyMOZ_Q-eJ-vN1zM-P_uBoMfNnw" href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post Oppression</a>. Follow him on Twitter <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1618960953444000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEBzuZSr-3TntXjwivMHdNXMX-GFA" href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>

The Enemy Within

Order David Horowitz's new book: The Enemy Within: How a Totalitarian Movement is Destroying America.


	The philosopher E.M. Cioran in his book, The

Moral patriarchy is fundamentally defined by three foundational principles: (1) the capacity to provide, (2) the need to protect others, and (3) the aspirational desire to leave a legacy.


	These three foundations have been the bedrock out of which our stupendous western civilization has been forged. It is a civilization built mostly by men. Our civilization has been forged in the moral crucibles of the best within such men, and from their noblest and most inspirational drives and identities.


	Today, those identities and drives are under attack. Masculinity and manliness, the twin attributes of patriarchy, are being criminalized along with vitality, exuberance and displays of moral authority in men and young boys by a phalanx of radical feminists, "woke" progressives, and systemic nihilists. The goal of these forces is to advance a systemic, nihilistic, gynocentric paradigm that has ushered in an era that will destroy not only men, but civilization itself.


	Secular liberalism, which once entered the culture spheres in triumph, has now retreated in decrepitude. The results are in the maladies I shall outline below which are destroying our civilization.


	I submit that nothing short of a return to a Judeo-Christian inflected, patriarchal system of governance will restore our unprecedented American Republic and western civilization -- whose collapse seems almost imminent -- back to its rightful supremacy. Postmodern-liberalism and secularism as systems of moral governance have expired.


	I write against the backdrop of schoolteachers who are telling parents not to gender their children, and who are telling their students not to use words such as "Mom" or "Dad" but “adult” or grownup” in class.


	I write in a world often referred to as “cancel culture,” that seeks to, among other things, decolonize college courses and strip them entirely of western canonical thinkers, to replace the genius of Shakespeare with the “poetry” of rapper Jay-Z.


	I live in a country I love deeply, as a naturalized citizen, that is guilty of Americaphobia and of rampant Christophobia in schools that are currently forcing children in the state of California to worship Aztec gods.


	We inhabit a country of multiple trans movements that are encouraging gender reassignments on children as young as eight years old, and prescribing puberty blockers for pre-teens. In this world, people can be fired from their jobs for “misgendering" a person.


	This is a culture in which postmodern ethical relativism is accepted as the norm in schools, and where students are taught that logic, reason, grammar, science and now math are racist. They are constructs of white imperial racists, students are told. The social justice ideologies of ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter are being mainstreamed in the K-12 curricula in schools in the United States. Islamic Jihadists are lobbying for Sharia law to be applied within the borders of our country. The list could continue ad infinitum.


	What is clear is that there are two paradigmatic strands running concurrently in this country: the Patriarchal Paradigm and the Gynocentric Paradigm. They are philosophical antipodes. What I have just described above are the symptoms of the Gynocentric Paradigm. Its ruling principles are: radical egalitarianism; systemic nihilism; ethical relativism; the primacy of nature over technology (the environmental movement); feelings over reason; religious primitivism over ethical monotheism; chaos over order; and rulership of the tribe over the inviolate sanctity of the individual.


	The practitioners (male and female) of the Gynocentric Paradigm do not utilize just the politics of radical left-wing Marxism to achieve their goals. The fundamental end of all those goals is to reverse the civilizational advancements of mankind; to return mankind to an atavistic, pre-modern, primordial level of existence coterminous with animality and nature so that man becomes indistinguishable from nature. This will result in the annihilation of his moral identity. He will be reverted to a natural creature voided of his inviolate moral worth and separated from his Judeo-Christian God from whom he derives moral law and authority. A necrotic lump of indistinguishable inorganic matter is the logical endpoint of this system: a return to the imagined beginnings of all human life. It is misanthropic. It embodies a hatred of man, of life, existence, and progress, and of God.


	The Western Patriarchal Paradigm, constituted by a need to protect others, to leave a legacy, and to provide, is constitutionally incompatible with the Gynocentric Paradigm.


	I argue that we have regressed to our current state for two reasons.


	The first is that the Patriarchal Paradigm has assimilated too much and ceded too much power to the Gynocentric Paradigm. Second, it has done so by means of its own creation -- political liberalism, which is now in revolt against Enlightenment values. Out of Western Patriarchy has emerged the emancipatory movements that led to the abolition of slavery, the equal rights of women and blacks and all previously disenfranchised people within its hemisphere; the Rights of Man; the birth of modern science, technology and capitalism; and an enhanced quality of life for millions across the globe. Paradoxically, the very liberties and “rights languages,” and freedom to conceive various ideas of the good and the good life for oneself led to forms of relativism, nihilism and agnosticism that paralyzed judgement and, above all, moral authority.


	We must come to witness by way of historical examples of moral patriarchy in action, beginning with Moses, the first great patriarch in Western civilization. From the wisdom of Aristotle, the father of logic, to the great Roman patriarchs such as Justinian who codified Roman law under the Codex Constitutionum, to the Stoics, St. Augustine, and Aquinas, to the Renaissance patriarchs and how they changed the world, to Gutenberg and Martin Luther, Da Vinci, Frances Bacon, Newton, Columbus, Galileo, and Tycho Brahe, to the Scottish, German and French Enlightenment Fathers, to Copernicus, Locke, Napoleon, Jefferson, and the Founding Fathers, we will see how each epochal figure throughout Western history functioned along the lines of the foundational patriarchal principles I outlined. We’ll see that contemporary society is the indisputable legatee of these great moral patriarchs of the past.


	And if we look at this historical portrait, we’ll be able to cull attributes of what a contemporary&nbsp; moral and heroic patriarchal figure ought to look like. This portrait will function as an aspirational model for young people to admire and respect. Such a figure will be a competitor to the vulgar and raking contemporary celebrity junkie who serves as the emulative model for our youth.


	The excesses of liberalism, in part a gift itself of patriarchy, have left our society and, generally speaking, much of our world, spiritually bereft, culturally bankrupt, and intellectually on the level of concrete-bound pre-modern humans. As a mixed-race, black, Jamaican-born American citizen who writes in the spirit of The Closing of the American Mind author Allan Bloom -- who was also gay -- I am committed to defending strong heteronormativity as the proper paradigmatic state any rational society must uphold, because it is the only precondition for the propagation of the species. The dignity of gays and lesbians should be respected. Their rights as individuals rather than as members of groups should be upheld.


	My reasoned conviction is that the social maladies that I described in the beginning of this essay are not the result of too much patriarchy but, rather, from a dismal absence of ethical patriarchy. Whether it is Third World nation-states crumbling under the philosophy of “the Nanny State” socialist ethos -- (a feminized leftist ideology, I submit), or fatherless boys committing a disproportionate number of crimes and rapes in America and across the globe, society will have to be radically redesigned along traditional gender roles. This is, fundamentally, because men’s natural role to lead with moral authority -- rooted in their biological natures -- has been usurped in the name of egalitarianism and equity.


	Patriarchy has lost its noble role because men have been made to feel irrelevant, disposable, and are systemically emasculated by an elite class of radicalized feminists and/or beta males who have joined forces with them because they have been socialized to think that masculinity, male leadership and male authority are synonymous with oppression. Or, perhaps, because they simply feel ambivalence about being men because they had weak fathers to begin with.


	The sensibilities of our young people will need to be-reshaped. In practical terms, I recommend a set of policies that will aid a more refined republican mode of existence -- at least here in the United Sates. They include, but are not limited to: abolishing all government schools and universities; promoting Charter schools and granting tax credits to parents in order to give them greater choices in where they want their children educated; granting tax exemption for families where mothers homeschool their children; the drastic reduction of (or zero) income taxes for families in which mothers decide to remain full time at home to raise their children; applying severely punitive child abuse laws for tampering with the gender identities of children before they reach legal adulthood; repealing the Equality Act; illegalizing gang membership; extending the appellation of “terrorist organization” to groups that loot, burn and destroy property, such as Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA, and such groups that are white supremacist in nature; defunding all private schools that threaten the First Amendment; discontinuing all equity and affirmative action programs; instilling an ethos of law and order in all registers of society; teaching patriotism, civic virtues, pride in citizenship, and the concomitant responsibilities that ought to be exercised alongside certain rights; teaching students to see that moral male authority exercised in a household upheld by marriage functions with the same invariability as do the laws of nature.


	The moral Patriarchal Paradigm seeks to resurrect the human soul from the necrotic swampland to which it has been exiled. It seeks to remind human beings that when they stand in life and, therefore, before God, that at all times their proper posture facing Him ought to be an upright one -- the one that reflects the image in which He made them.


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics. He is the author of several books, including <a href="https://www.amazon.com/We-Have-Overcome-Immigrants-American/dp/1682617300" target="_blank">We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People</a> (Bombardier Books/Post Hill Press). His new forthcoming book is <a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post Oppression</a>. Follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>


	&nbsp;

Ethical Patriarchy: Our Final Hope for Western Civilization?

Moral patriarchy is fundamentally defined by three foundational principles: (1) the capacity to provide, (2) the need to protect others, and (3) the

The collapse of the American Republic is now imminent. 
	 
	California is soon expected to pass <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/03/11/california-proposes-curriculum-on-aztec-gods/">a new statewide "ethnic studies" curriculum</a> that has as its goal the total “decolonization” of American society. It elevates the cannibalistic Aztec religious symbolism across 10,000 public schools that serve 6 million students.


	The architect behind this movement is R. Tolteka Cuauhtin, the original co-chair of the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum. In his book Rethinking Ethnic Studies, cited throughout the curriculum, Cuauhtin argues that the United States is a white supremacist, patriarchal, misogynistic and anthropocentric state founded as a Eurocentric “land grabbing” genocidal state that committed “theocide” against indigenous tribes. In Cuauhtin's narrative, the U.S. killed these tribes' gods and replaced them with Christianity. The evil settlers established a regime of “coloniality,” dehumanization and genocide which resulted in the total erasure of holistic indigeneity and humanity. 
	 
	The antidote to this “theocide,” as can be surmised from a careful reading of Cuauhtin's propagandistic manifesto, is nothing short of cultural reparations for the lost peoples of America by way of an insidious moral eugenics program inflicted on unassuming and defenseless young children. Cuauhtin’s goal is to totally decolonize America and to establish a new regime of “counter genocide” and counterhegemony which will displace "white culture" and lead to the ‘regeneration of indigenous epistemic cultural futurity.”


	And what does all this look like?


	The curriculum based on Cuauhtin's book recommends teachers lead their students in a plethora of indigenous chants, songs and affirmations such as the “In Lak Ech Affirmation.” This leads directly to the Aztec gods. Students will be forced to clap and chant to the god Tezkatlipoka, a fierce god the Aztecs worshipped with human sacrifice and cannibalism. 
	 
	In their chants, students will be forced to ask Tezkatlipoka to give them powers “to be warriors for social justice.” Another god, Huitzilopochtli, is the Aztec god of war who inspired hundreds of thousands of human sacrifices during Aztec rule. Students, no doubt, confused and exhausted after these strange and diabolic rituals, will end with a chanting request for liberation, transformation and decolonization. They will shout “Panche beh! Panche beh!—all in the pursuit of the final “critical consciousness.”


	The chants have as their ultimate goal -- in R. Tolteka Cuauhtin’s well-thought-out agenda -- a clear outcome: the displacement of the United States’ Christian God, whom&nbsp;Cuauhtin regards as an extension of white supremacist oppression. In other words, Cuauhtin is aiming for the abolition of Christianity in the United States, and the restoration of the "indigenous gods" to their rightful place in the social justice cosmology. This is what the California Department of Education will enact.


	It is no exaggeration to state that this agenda is a cult of death and a cult of revenge. It means death to the souls of our children -- as they will be forced to usher in a murderous revolution against the Christian nation of America. This revolution involves the worshipping of a "culture" in which savage primeval gods satisifed their appetites with the hearts of thousands of helpless virgins; hearts that were ripped from their bodies while still beating. The ghastly rituals involved disemboweled bodies held aloft to honor some ineffable god; the bodies' torsos were then cut into pieces and passed around like chunks of hors d'oeuvres to dignitaries in society to consume.&nbsp;


	If you are wondering how such a ghastly phenomenon is taking place in our Republic, you should really not be surprised. As few as three years ago, I called for all government schools to be shut down and defunded. I said that the majority of our educators hated America, freedom, capitalism, and our Judeo-Christian foundational principles. I said they would lead this country into destruction and imminent collapse.


	What I had not envisioned, and what I obviously could not have brought myself to perceive, was the extent to which the covens of witches and band of sorcerers who educate our children hated and despised our children as much as they did. I hadn't envisioned how willing these individuals were to use our children as pawns in their twisted revolutionary attempts to destroy this country as we know it.


	I could not have guessed that those whom I had referred to as systemic nihilists were determined to reverse this country’s forward-looking philosophy and to take us back into primordial jungle-swamps, replete with atavistic man-eating idolatrous savages bent on placating gods whom they would resurrect, in order to turn our magnificent civilization into a satanic hell. I had not foreseen that our children -- whose minds had not yet fully developed a capacity to appraise and evaluate the shibboleths and evil into which they were being coerced -- would be this band of sorcerers' first victims.


	What we are witnessing here, folks, is evil incarnate. Whether it is performing gender reassignment surgery on young children, giving them puberty blockers, weaponizing them to reject the values by which they were raised by their parents, destroying the future of young women by allowing biological men who call themselves women to clobber them to death in sports -- you name it. The war against children has been a war of conscription into the army of radical leftists who have been exploiting our children for a multiplicity of purposes. And there is one single goal: the destruction of our children's minds to usher in a totalitarian regime under which myriad evil programs, forms of life and eugenical visitations on our bodies and minds will be coin of the realm.


	Some parents themselves are becoming part of this woke fascist movement. They are indistinguishable from the educators. They are to be lumped with those whom we regard as child-abusers. I believe the majority of parents, however, are good people who hand over their children in good faith to educators, never dreaming for one moment that their children’s minds would be, perhaps by now, irrevocably damaged by the educational eugenics movement that is our educational system.


	Parents of California: it is not too late. Grab your children. Find a way to disempower the teachers' unions. Dispose of your current governor by voting him out of office. He is complicit with evil as are many of the educators in this country hungrily waiting to implement California’s ethnic studies curriculum. Start your own revolution in the name of your precious children. The destroyers of the mind who pose as educators are already at work across America in a similar fashion in the form of their “Culturally Responsive Teaching” models and “action civics” drives.


	Do not abandon your children. They are possessed of inviolate moral worth. Make no mistake about the unapologetic goal of R. Tolteka Cuauhtin’s desire to undo the Christianity of America. The theological concomitant is not atheism -- which can and has been challenged via rational means. It is not even the resurrection of a phalanx of Aztec gods with unpronounceable names, which, no doubt, children would easily grow bored with after the thrill of the horror stories and macabre theatre which constitute their identities have ceased to grip their imaginations. If these folks were atavistic, pre-modern nativists playing identity politics, we could regard all this as child’s play. 
	 
	These monsters are playing at identity politics, nevertheless, in order to acquire legitimacy and credibility for something much more nefarious: to sequester the minds of America’s children; to twist them like pieces of putty to shape them into the forms of their private perversions.


	When they are finished, your children’s souls will make the medieval trolls and mangled gargoyles of the Dark Ages look like artifacts of beauty. They will not stop until children turn against parents, report and cancel their own parents. They won’t stop until they will have created one giant, collectivized, and homogenous brain that will unleash a living hell on earth.&nbsp;


	Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics. He is the author of several books, including <a href="https://www.amazon.com/We-Have-Overcome-Immigrants-American/dp/1682617300" target="_blank">We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People</a> (Bombardier Books/Post Hill Press). His new forthcoming book is <a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-White-Americans-Black-People/dp/1642937940/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=jason+d+hill&amp;qid=1611125631&amp;sr=8-1">What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post Oppression</a>. Follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonDHill6" target="_blank">@JasonDhill6.</a>

In the Name of Ethnic Studies

The collapse of the American Republic is now imminent.
	
	California is soon expected to pass a new statewide "ethnic studies" curriculum that has as its

Frontpage Mag

Jason D. Hill

Defending The Constitution, Part II

Defending the Constitution

The 1964 Civil Right Acts: A Moral Eugenical Moment in American History

Freedom Center Fellow Canceled By NPR

Debunking the 'Race Crazy' Left

The Manhood Manifesto: How Men Must Lead

Genocide, Stolen Land, and Other Lies about America

I Can't Breathe

Elizabeth Warren: Lying, Money-Laundering Socialist

The Respondent: Exposing the Cartel of Family Law

America's Revolutionary Mind

Where are the Feminists?

The Authoritarians

The Moral Case for Abolishing the Inheritance Tax

The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas are Killing Common Sense

Catastrophe of a 'Ceasefire'

Biden: The Humanitarian Thief

The Enemy Within

Ethical Patriarchy: Our Final Hope for Western Civilization?

In the Name of Ethnic Studies

FPM Series

Disloyal Military

Progressive Fascists

Racist Mayors

The Point

AMA Will Use "Equity" to Fight "Anti-Fat" Bias Among Doctors

Biden Admin Allies Contemplated Using National Guard at School Board Meetings

Dave Chappelle Attacker Was Triggered By Him

Biden is Back to Flip-Flopping on Taiwan

A Very Racist Poll About Racism

Events