Left's 'Big Lie' about Trump and GOP explodes

Author Dinesh D'Souza on 'ploy of seizing the Hitler card' 


By Dinesh D'Souza

To hear the left tell it, Donald Trump is a fascist if not actually a Nazi. "I feel Hitler in these streets," actress Ashley Judd chanted around his inauguration. Documentary filmmaker Ken Burns terms Trump "Hitleresque." Columnist Andrew Sullivan terms the GOP today a "neo-fascist party." And MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says, "I've been reading a lot about what it was when Hitler first became chancellor … because I've I think that's possibly where we are."

The charge that Trump and the right are fascists and neo-Nazis is used to establish Trump as an illegitimate president, the GOP as a party in cahoots with him, and to justify getting rid of both "by any means necessary," which is actually the name of one of the many so-called antifascist groups. The media barrage against Trump, the street violence of Antifa and other groups, are all based on the premise that the left is fighting a modern incarnation of the Hitler movement of the 1930s.

I agree that there is a fascist strain in American politics today, but who are the real fascists? Is fascism a phenomenon of the left or the right? This question is rarely asked in a serious way, and I want to give credit to two worthy predecessors who have begun to plough this ground. The first is the economist Friedrich Hayek, whose "The Road to Serfdom," first published in 1944, made the startling claim that Western welfare state democracies, having defeated fascism, were moving inexorably in the fascist direction. Moreover, what is the slave plantation if not a special type of concentration camp? This may seem like an outrageous analogy. How can anyone compare a forced labor system, however unjust, to Nazi camps designed and used to kill people? But, the concentration camps were also work camps. In the German camps and on the Democrat-run plantations, forced labor was employed with "human tools" solely with regard to productivity and with little if any regard for the lives of the workers who were, in both cases, regarded as inferior and even subhuman. The analogy between the two worst compulsory confinement and forced labor systems in human history is not merely legitimate; it is overdue.

Hayek identified fascism as a phenomenon of the left, a cousin of socialism and progressivism. And he warned, "The rise of fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies." While Hayek's book was written in a pedantic, measured tone, appealing to progressives to learn from one who had witnessed firsthand the rise of fascism in Europe, progressive scholars immediately set about reviling Hayek, with one, Herman Finer, accusing him of displaying a "thoroughly Hitlerian contempt for the democratic man."

If you spotted, in this reaction, the familiar progressive ploy of seizing the Hitler card and playing it right back against Hayek, then you are beginning to see the big lie at work. Here is Hayek making a case for how progressives are moving in the direction of Hitler, and without answering this charge and with no supporting evidence whatever, the left turns around and accuses Hayek of being like Hitler.

Jonah Goldberg received pretty much the same treatment for his important book "Liberal Fascism." Goldberg argues, "What we call liberalism – the refurnished edifice of American progressivism – is in fact a descendant of and manifestation of fascism." Goldberg argues that fascism and communism, far from being opposites, are "closely related historical competitors for the same constituents." Goldberg terms progressivism a "sister movement of fascism" no less than Communism, displaying a "family resemblance that few will admit to recognizing."

Goldberg traces innumerable links between progressivism and fascism, spelling out the left-wing laundry list in both the platforms of Mussolini and Hitler, and then showing their parallel in modern American progressivism. Goldberg uses a broad brush, even detecting an odor of fascism in modern progressive environmentalism, vegetarianism, holistic medicine and child care policies. Even though he occasionally overdoes his fascist comparisons, his book is well worth reading for its originality and comprehensiveness. Once again the left set upon Goldberg with a vengeance, charging him with being, of all things, a fascist.                  

Hayek identified fascism as a phenomenon of the left, a cousin of socialism and progressivism. And he warned, "The rise of fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies." While Hayek's book was written in a pedantic, measured tone, appealing to progressives to learn from one who had witnessed firsthand the rise of fascism in Europe, progressive scholars immediately set about reviling Hayek, with one, Herman Finer, accusing him of displaying a "thoroughly Hitlerian contempt for the democratic man."

If you spotted, in this reaction, the familiar progressive ploy of seizing the Hitler card and playing it right back against Hayek, then you are beginning to see the big lie at work. Here is Hayek making a case for how progressives are moving in the direction of Hitler, and without answering this charge and with no supporting evidence whatever, the left turns around and accuses Hayek of being like Hitler.

Jonah Goldberg received pretty much the same treatment for his important book "Liberal Fascism." Goldberg argues, "What we call liberalism – the refurnished edifice of American progressivism – is in fact a descendant of and manifestation of fascism." Goldberg argues that fascism and communism, far from being opposites, are "closely related historical competitors for the same constituents." Goldberg terms progressivism a "sister movement of fascism" no less than Communism, displaying a "family resemblance that few will admit to recognizing."

Goldberg traces innumerable links between progressivism and fascism, spelling out the left-wing laundry list in both the platforms of Mussolini and Hitler, and then showing their parallel in modern American progressivism. Goldberg uses a broad brush, even detecting an odor of fascism in modern progressive environmentalism, vegetarianism, holistic medicine and child care policies. Even though he occasionally overdoes his fascist comparisons, his book is well worth reading for its originality and comprehensiveness. Once again the left set upon Goldberg with a vengeance, charging him with being, of all things, a fascist.            

Moreover, this whole issue has been raised to a completely new level since the publication of historian Stanley Elkins' path-breaking book "Slavery." Elkins not only drew an elaborate comparison of the plantation as a "closed system" akin to a concentration camp, he also showed that slavery produced personality types eerily similar to those described by Nazi camp survivors. So the point is that even on some of the institutions and practices uniquely associated with the Nazis – from genocide to the concentration camp – the Democrats in a sense got there first.                                                                                                                 

It turns out that the left provided the Nazis with some very important policy schemes that the Nazis then murderously implemented in Europe. Hitler, for instance, specifically said he intended to displace and exterminate the Russians, the Poles and the Slavs in precisely the way Americans in the Jacksonian era had displaced and exterminated the native Indians. The Nazi Nuremberg laws were directly modeled on the segregation and anti-miscegenation laws that had been implemented decades earlier in the Democratic South.

Forced sterilization and euthanasia aimed at eliminating racial "defectives" and producing a "superior" Nordic race were two additional schemes the Nazis got from American progressives. This is not my view of the matter; it is the Nazi eugenicists' view of the matter. In the early twentieth century, eugenics and social Darwinism were far more prevalent in America than they were in Germany. Margaret Sanger and her fellow progressive eugenicists didn't get their ideas for killing off undesirables – or preventing their births – from the Nazis; the Nazis got them from their American counterparts who dominated the field of international eugenics. So there is a two-way traffic between Nazism and the American left.

This deeply implicates the heroes of American progressivism: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. Wilson was a veritable progenitor of American fascism. One may say of him that he was fascist even before fascism became cool. In addition, he was a racist who was almost single-handedly responsible for the revival of the Ku Klux Klan, the organization that according to historian Robert Paxton is the closest American precursor to a Nazi movement.                                                                                                      

Franklin Roosevelt was an avid admirer of Mussolini and one who closely collaborated with the worst racist elements in America, working with them to block anti-lynching laws and exclude blacks from New Deal programs and naming a former Klansman to the Supreme Court. Mussolini, for his part, praised FDR's book "Looking Forward" and basically declared FDR to be a fellow fascist. Hitler too saw FDR as a kindred spirit and the New Deal was widely praised as an American form of fascism in the Nazi Party's official newspaper Volkischer Beobachter and other Nazi publications.       

JFK toured Nazi Germany in the 1930s and came back effusive with praise of Hitler and his theory of Nordic superiority. "I have come to the conclusion," JFK wrote in his diary, "that fascism is right for Germany and Italy." Touring the Rhineland, JFK echoed Nazi propaganda at the time. "The Nordic races appear to be definitely superior to the Romans." Hostility to Hitler, JFK insisted, stems largely from jealousy. "The Germans really are too good – that's why people conspire against them." Even though JFK fought in World War II, he retained a soft spot for Hitler as late as 1945, when he described him as the "stuff of legends…Hitler will emerge from the hate that now surrounds him and come to be regarded as one of the most significant figures to have lived."                                           

So progressives decided to tell a new story, and this is the story that has now become our conventional wisdom. In this story, the very fascism and Nazism that were, on both sides of the Atlantic, recognized as left wing phenomena from the outset now got moved into the right wing column. Suddenly Mussolini and Hitler became "right wingers" and the people who supposedly brought them to power became "conservatives." The left, then, became the glorious resisters of fascism and Nazism.                                                                              

These facts are known to many progressive scholars. But after World War II, as this group came increasingly to dominate the academy – a dominance that was fully consolidated by the late sixties – the progressives recognized how crushing it would be if Americans knew about the actual record of progressivism and the Democratic Party. What if people, especially young people, knew the links between revered progressive figures like Wilson, FDR and JFK on the one hand, and the hated Mussolini and Hitler on the other? Such knowledge would not merely topple progressive heroes from their pedestal. Basically it would be the end of progressivism and the Democratic Party. 

To make this story work, fascism and Nazism had to be largely redefined. The big problem was that Mussolini and Hitler both identified socialism as the core of the fascist and Nazi weltanshauung. Mussolini was the leading figure of Italian revolutionary socialism and never relinquished his allegiance to it. Hitler's party defined itself as championing "national socialism." So the progressives had to figure out how to move these avowed left-wingers to the right, and how to get the “socialism” out of “national socialism.” This was not an easy task.

How to do it? Taking a cue from the Marxists, the left figured out as early as the 1960s that it had to suppress altogether the fact that fascism and Nazism were systems of thought. According to the left-wing historian Denis Mack Smith, "Italian fascism originated not as a doctrine but as a method, as a technique for winning power, and at first its principles were unclear even to its own members." Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who is extensively quoted in the media linking Trump to fascism, insists nevertheless that fascism is "one of those words that is very hard to define precisely" because "fascism was all about contradictions, and this kind of ambiguity has remained in fascism."

In reality such nonsense can only be sustained by refusing to take seriously the fascists themselves. As historian A. James Gregor writes, "Under the crabbed influence of the Marxist analysis of fascism, fascist statements are never analyzed as such. They are always 'interpreted.' Fascists are never understood to mean what they say. As a consequence, there has been very little effort, to date, to provide a serious account of fascism as an ideology." Instead the left identified fascism with amorphous tendencies that could just as easily be applied to numerous other political doctrines: authoritarianism, militarism, nationalism and so on.                                                                                                      
Think about this: we know the name of the philosopher of capitalism, Adam Smith. We also know the name of the philosopher of Marxism, Karl Marx. So, quick, what is the name of the philosopher of fascism? Yes, exactly. You don't know. Virtually no one knows. My point is that this is not because there were no foundational thinkers behind fascism – there were several – but rather that the left had to get rid of them in order to avoid confronting their unavoidable socialist and leftist orientation. This is the big lie in full operation.

If statism and collectivism are at the core of fascism, National Socialism adds another explosive ingredient – anti-Semitism. This much is well known. What the progressives have carefully disguised, however, is the degree to which Nazi anti-Semitism grew out of Nazi hatred for capitalism. Hitler draws a crucial distinction between productive capitalism, which he can abide, and finance capitalism, which he associates with the Jews. For Hitler, the Jew is the unproductive money-grubber at the center of finance capitalism, the entrepreneurial swindler par excellence.

This hardly sounds "right wing"; in fact, with some slight modification, it echoes progressive rhetoric about greedy Wall Street investment bankers. Thus progressives realized the necessity of hiding the true basis of Hitler's anti-Semitism, and to do this, anti-Semitism itself had to be redefined.

As you can see, we are dealing with a big, big lie – a lie that keeps getting bigger, and one that encompasses many smaller lies. We need to understand the big lie in all its dimensions in order to be free of it. Once we are free of it, the left is finished. Their power over us is gone. They had the race card and now they have the Nazi card, but they have no other cards left. If they lose this one, they lose their moral capital and are exposed for what they are – the bigoted, thuggish, self-aggrandizing thieves of our lives and liberties. They are the true descendants of Mussolini and Hitler, and in defeating them we can finally lay to rest the ghosts of fascism and Nazism.

READ MORE:

Dinesh D'Souza’s new book "The Big Lie: Exposing The Nazi Roots of the American Left" is published by Regnery.  

God bless,

JohnnyD

 

 

Formally recognize AntiFa as a terrorist organization

Terrorism is defined as “the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims”. This definition is the same definition used to declare ISIS and other groups, as terrorist organizations. AntiFa has earned this title due to its violent actions in multiple cities and their influence in the killings of multiple police officers throughout the United States. It is time for the pentagon to be consistent in its actions – and just as they rightfully declared ISIS a terror group, they must declare AntiFa a terror group – on the grounds of principle, integrity, morality, and safety.

 

Help the petition reach its goal, share with others:

URL: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/formally-recognize-antifa-terrorist-organization-0


God bless,
JohnnyD

Leftist violence goes mainstream in America

'Sustained political street warfare not seen in the U.S. since the 1960s'

From: World Net Daily 

by -  Garth Kant - August 16, 2017

WASHINGTON – Leftists claim they are fighting hate and violence, and they cite the deadly protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, as a prime example.

But the evidence indicates the left is actually spreading hate and violence.

Those are the conclusions of writers for two prominent left-leaning news outlets, the BBC and the Atlantic.

Their articles describe in detail how the taste for violence is seeping from the fringe left into its mainstream.

Peter Beinart’s article for next month’s issue of the Atlantic is titled, “The Rise of the Violent Left.”

Brenna Cammeron’s article for the BBC on Monday was headlined, “Antifa: Left-wing militants on the rise.”

Beinart found:

• “Antifa’s violent tactics have elicited substantial support from the mainstream left.”

• “[I]n the Trump era, the (violent leftist) movement is growing like never before.”

• “From Middlebury to Berkeley to Portland,” the use of violence to deny “Trump supporters their political rights … is on the rise, especially among young people.”

Cammeron discovered, while the “violence and murder of a protester in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend has been attributed to far-right elements … many conservatives say blame should be shared by (the violent leftist group) Antifa.”

That was confirmed from the scene by New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg, who tweeted, “The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding ‘antifa’ beating white nationalists being led out of the park.”

That insight ran counter to the major media narrative that what happened over the weekend in Charlottesville was a prime example of right-wing violence.

That’s because it was a rare clash of actual extremists, due to the presence of white supremacists among the rightists protesting the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville.

However, Antifa and other leftists actually have been regularly attacking mainstream Republicans ever since President Trump became a candidate.

Simply put, the difference is that there were never any right-wing mobs attacking Hillary Clinton supporters, while attacks on Trump supporters by leftists became a familiar sight during the 2016 presidential campaign. And long after.

And, while there is no evidence of a growing right-wing extremist movement, even left-leaning journalists have found abundant evidence of a rapidly growing violent left-wing movement, as well as signs of it going mainstream, along with an increasing normalization of political violence.

Although the name is supposed to stand for “anti-fascist,” John Hinderaker of the Powerline blog described Antifa as actually “a fascist group that has also rioted at Washington, Berkeley, Seattle and other places, (that) typically wears black clothes and masks, arms its members with baseball bats, ax handles and 2x4s, and often attacks random people on the street.”

He called the group’s behavior in Charlottesville as “not much better than usual,” while adding rhetorically, “Who, exactly, brings bats and clubs to a demonstration?”

The left held 47 protests, many violent, against Trump from the day he announced his candidacy for president on June 16, 2015, until his election on Nov. 9, 2016.

That doesn’t include dozens of furious anti-Trump protests, some of which became riots, immediately following the election, in major cities around the nation and the around the world.

In his Atlantic piece, Beinart recalled how leftists “punched and threw eggs at people exiting a Trump rally in San Jose, California,” in June last year, which a website associated with Antifa celebrated as “righteous beatings.”

And how, a few weeks later, 10 people were stabbed at a counter-demonstration by Anti-Fascist Action Sacramento.

Included among all the violent protests after the inauguration of Trump as president, WND reported on the outright call for violence by a Black Lives Matter speaker at an anti-Trump rally in Seattle on Jan. 31.

A woman who described herself as a preschool teacher declared, “We need to start killing people.”

“First off, we need to start killing the White House,” she added. “The White House must die. The White House, your f—ing White House, your f—ing presidents, they must go! F— the White House.”

And, “F— white supremacy, f— the U.S. empire, f— your imperialist a– lives. That s— gotta go.

Beinart further described how leftist violence has actually increased since Trump became president.

In Portland, Oregon, “Masked protesters smashed store windows during multiday demonstrations following Trump’s election,” then, at another rally on June 4, “Antifa activists threw bricks until the police dispersed them with stun grenades and tear gas.”

“Demonstrators have interrupted so many city-council meetings that in February, the council met behind locked doors.”

“A similar cycle has played out at U.C. Berkeley,” observed Beinart. “In February, masked antifascists broke store windows and hurled Molotov cocktails and rocks at police during a rally against the planned speech by Milo Yiannopoulos.”

“The result,” Beinart concluded, “is a level of sustained political street warfare not seen in the U.S. since the 1960s.”

It is, no doubt, because of the increasing violence by the left, that President Trump has insisted on condemning the violence “by both sides” in the clash over the weekend in Charlottesville.

That has enraged the establishment media, as demonstrated at an explosive press conference by the president on Tuesday at Trump Tower in New York.

The major media, Democrats and even establishment Republicans such as Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell and John Kasich have insisted on placing all the blame for the weekend violence on the neo-Nazis at the Charlottesville protests, while ignoring legions of violent leftist counter-protesters.

“What about the ‘alt-left’ that came charging them?” Trump rhetorically asked a combative press.

“Excuse me. What about the alt-left that came charging at the – as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? … Let me ask you this. What about the fact they came charging – that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do.”

“You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch. But there is another side,” insisted the president, adding, “I think there’s blame on both sides.”

Trump also maintained, “But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides … You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

“Not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch,” declared the president.

Trump had stated a demonstrable truth, recorded by cameras, that there was violence from both sides. But, for some reason, that assertion enraged the press, which responded by trying to portray the president as defending the Nazis.

“Do you think what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?” asked one reporter.

“Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?” asked another.

“I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane,” shot back the president. “What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other and they came at each other with clubs. And it was vicious and it was horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch. But there is another side.”

“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists,” the president explained, “because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

In other words, the president described a mix of good and bad people among the protesters on the right. And then he described the counter-protesters on the left in the same terms.

Trump observed the counter-protesters were a mix of ordinary people and violent leftists: “You had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats.”

But the press insisted that was making a moral equivalence between the ordinary counter-protesters on the left and the Nazi protesters on the right, while ignoring the violent leftists entirely.

Despite the fact journalists have traditionally regarded telling both sides of a story the most important part of their job, an editorial in the Washington Post on Wednesday ridiculed the president for saying there are “two sides to a story,” claiming that was a “false moral equivalency.”

After acknowledging the president had “complained that not everyone who came to the ‘Unite the Right’ rally was a neo-Nazi or white nationalist,” the Post then incongruously claimed, “These comments suggest very strongly that the president of the United States sees moral equivalence between Nazis and those who oppose Nazis.”

In other words, despite the president’s explicit condemnation of the Nazis, his recognition that there were non-Nazis among the protesters on the right was attacked by the Post as support of the Nazis.

And, despite that glaring contradiction, that is the charge now leveled by the president throughout the establishment media, Democrats and establishment Republicans.

In Tuesday’s increasingly surreal press conference, one reporter actually asked the president of the United States, “Are you against the Confederacy?”

But, noting that the nation’s first president was a slave owner, Trump countered: “So, this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson’s coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week?

“And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you all – you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

“It’s easy to see where this is going,” because, “Five of our first seven presidents were slave owners,” observed WND Managing Editor David Kupelian, the best-selling author of WND Books’ “The Snapping of the American Mind.”

He continued, “After the Civil War memorials and statues are torn down all across America, what will the left’s next target be? It’s obvious: Memorials commemorating America’s founding generation – people like George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, all of whom owned slaves.”

That was echoed Tuesday night by Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson, who observed 41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners.

He noted slavery was once so ubiquitous that even Native Americans such as the Cherokees owned slaves, long before the arrival of Columbus.

And that if slavery was used as the standard by which to judge historical figures from the past, then no one was safe, including Lincoln.

Indeed, the Lincoln Memorial, dedicated to the president who freed the slaves, was defaced Tuesday with red spray paint that appeared read, “F— law.”

“But,” further observed Kupelian, “this is not, at its deepest level, even really about slavery or racism. What the left is really intent on is annihilating and replacing America’s core operating system – the Constitution.”

“Leftist true believers have contempt for the Constitution because it prescribes a system of very limited government, while what they want is an all-powerful government – with them in charge. Thus they will attempt to overturn the Constitution – like a hated Civil War statue – by discrediting and demonizing those ‘white slave-owners’ who gave that Constitution to us.”

Hatred for traditional America and ordinary Americans by the left can be seen rising along with its use of violence.

Beinart described how the leftist group Direct Action Alliance targeted Portland’s annual Rose Festival because of the Republican Party of Multnomah County planned to take part.

Direct Action Alliance declared, “Fascists plan to march through the streets,” and warned, “Nazis will not march through Portland unopposed.”

The reporter described how, “The alliance said it didn’t object to the Multnomah GOP itself, but to ‘fascists’ who planned to infiltrate its ranks.” Yet, Beinart found the leftists also denouncing mainstream marchers with “Trump flags” and “red MAGA hats” who could “normalize support” for a candidate who was “waging a war of hate, racism and prejudice.”

In other words, hatred of mainstream Republicans was justified because of their ostensible enabling of the “racist” Trump.

Another leftist group, Oregon Students Empowered, created a Facebook page called “Shut down fascism! No nazis in Portland!”

Essentially, everyday Republicans had become the same as Nazis in the eyes of the radical left.

To make that sentiment crystal clear, Markos Moulitsas, the leftist founder of the Daily Kos website, tweeted Sunday, “NRA and American conservatives/Nazis are one and the same.”

To remove any doubt about what he meant, Moulitsas added, “Media and so many still want to pretend we don’t have a neo-Nazi in the White House.”

So what’s going on here?

How did America so suddenly arrive at the point where leftists are accusing mainstream Republicans, and the president they elected, of being Nazis? And using that to justify violent attacks?

It didn’t really happen overnight, according to one well-known political observer on the right.

“The mob mentality follows demagoguery,” former GOP presidential candidate and Rep. Michele Bachmann told WND.

“What we’re witnessing is the fruit of decades of our federally captured public education system. Given hundreds of billions of dollars to spend, public educators in general chose to scuttle teaching objective knowledge facts and information.”

She continued, “In its place they’ve indoctrinated our kids with Marxist/statist/totalitarian attitudes, values and beliefs. The result is a young populace in love with its self-righteousness, and clueless of its ignorance of objective fact.”

Indoctrinating students with leftist values has been long-documented by numerous scholarly studies that have detailed the “long march” by Cultural Marxists through American academia, the media, Hollywood and Washington, ever since the end of World War II.

Those studies include the critically acclaimed book “The Devil’s Pleasure Palace,” by Disney screenwriter and New York Post op-ed columnist Michael Walsh, who told WND last year that the problem lay in Critical Theory, the brainchild of the Frankfurt School, which has come to dominate thinking in American academia with its call to question any and everything.

Walsh said the theory in practice has become an attack on everything of value. He described the real goal of Critical Theory as an attempt to demolish Western civilization.

The author described the work of the Frankfurt School scholars as grounded in an ideology that performed “an unremitting assault on Western values and institutions, including Christianity, the family, conventional sexual morality, nationalistic patriotism … Literally nothing was sacred.”

Those observations were parallel to Bachmann’s, who told WND Wednesday, “For decades our public schools have systematically removed America’s Judeo-Christian foundations. An easily led mob is the result.”

“Emotion and virtue signaling have replaced knowledge and reason,” she added. “As the scripture teaches, when the foundations are removed, what can the people do?”

There is evidence that reason is quite literally being removed from American academia, and that it is increasingly seen as racist by academics.

Why racist?

Because reason was invented by white people, according to philosophy and religion professor John Caputo of Syracuse University.

“I think that what modern philosophers call ‘pure’ reason – the Cartesian ego cogito and Kant’s transcendental consciousness – is a white male Euro-Christian construction,” said Caputo in an interview with the New York Times in 2015.

He explained that “whiteness” had infected reason with racism because such expressions as the “lily whiteness” of “pure reason” were prejudiced.

And that philosophers had equated whiteness with rationality and that everything irrational was “colored.”

The bottom line is American academia has reached the point where it is teaching students that reason is racist and not logical or moral.

And that is not unrelated to the rise in leftist violence, according to Bachmann.

“Without change, violence will continue to increase,” she asserted. “If our public education system re-embraced teaching objective knowledge, facts and information, it would take a generation to see the results.”

Despite painting a bleak outlook, Bachmann was not without hope.

“If America experienced a spiritual reawakening of the God of the Bible we could see a fairly immediate change.”

And she counseled faith.

“That is why the best response is not to despair and curse the darkness, but instead to fervently apply ourselves to prayer beseeching heaven for divine intervention.”

“History proves this is the only method that works.”



God bless,
JohnnyD