Are you ready for the push for "global citizenship" education? Do you know why there's no such thing as "global citizenship"? Do you know why there shouldn't be? Do your representatives understand this? Welcome to 2023. Here's one of your fights.
I'm sure they've made all these slick graphics for "global citizenship" education just because they think graphic design is fun and the idea seems cute.
Fancy Eye of Sauron wheel of destruction they keep using in their "global citizenship" graphics!
Again, I ask you: are you ready for "global citizenship" education, which is a huge initiative to remake education in line with the "Sustainable Development Goals" ("17 goals to transform our world") of the UN's Agenda 2030?
It's about growing into a "transformative" global agenda by brainwashing your kids to be "global citizens" with the UN's totalitarian vision as the guiding light for what "global citizenship" entails: fealty to their new world government and its Neo-Communist agenda.
It's obvious what this is all about. This will be the biggest thing in education this year and next: "global citizenship" for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Notice how the whole program is centered on the schools. Notice how it's about getting it into students.
STEM education: a vehicle to the "Sustainable Development Goals." Lysenkoism in the name of sustainability, no matter how many people it kills, just like it already has through history. twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
"Kill, James? Now you're just crazy! You always have to take things too far."
But, "no sustainable development without a sustainable population" because "population matters."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Woke Right is mostly a radical movement against Middle MAGA, who they view as a bourgeois element (so, opposed to their plans) made up of classical liberals, Americanists, and mainline conservatives. It agitates Normie MAGA against the middle just like any Marxist movement would.
So what you have is Woke Right waging a power struggle dialectic against Middle MAGA, classical liberalism, America, and mainstream conservatism while also erecting a new Marxian conflict theory of society overall: Managerial Class versus the right-wing populist "people."
If you wondered why a Woke Right publication would accept a rewrite of the Communist Manifesto extoling the "New Christian Right" and against "classical liberalism," this is why. They're doing exactly what the Communist Manifesto is designed to do. newdiscourses.com/2024/12/a-comm…
Not sure who needs to hear this (apparently a lot of you), but Antonio Gramsci didn't fashion Cultural Marxist weapons. He fashioned tactics dependent upon a worldview. How you think you'll onboard his tactics without at least some of his worldview is a mystery because you won't.
Some of you might have seen Doug Wilson's stupid defense of Chris Rufo's adoption of Gramscian tactics for the "New Right," wherein Wilson, exhibiting his typical lack of discipline, calls Gramscian tactics "weapons." That's a complete failure of comprehension.
The entire tactical program of the Cultural Marxists requires class-based thinking. Gramsci's primary objective was to create counterhegemonic circumstances (wedges) inside institutions through infiltration and class awakening and solidarity carried into the institution.
Woke Right claiming victory in struggling Elon Musk into this position.
A country is its constitution and its willingness and capacity to defend it, though. Countries are legal entities constituted by their constitutions. It's literally in the word!
There's some space for debate about if we want to consider a "nation" a people instead of using it as a synonym for "country," which is obviously somehow connotative of the land, but these are the same kinds of semantic games the Left plays with "gender" so it can deconstruct sex
"Nation" referring to a people is an definition with little or no defense against the slide into ethnonationalism, if that's pushed, on hardline takes on what constitutes "a people." That's why the Woke Right wants so many people to adopt that view.
Like it or not, this is correct. It's not a matter of being tolerant or not. Islam, or at least Islamism if there's any daylight between them, is fundamentally a militant ideology. Free societies cannot tolerate militant ideologies except in small fringes.
Karl Popper laid out the so-called Paradox of Tolerance in 1945 in his not-so-great book The Open Society and Its Enemies, and free societies will live or die based on the practical solution they come up with to this paradox. This paradox is the rub of liberty and freedom.
The Paradox of Tolerance is simply enough stated: must a tolerant society tolerate intolerance that will eventually end its tolerance?
The answer is that there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and the problem is that it's hard to draw a clear line anywhere.
Degrowth is a Communist death sentence. Its purpose is to destroy the West while implementing Marxist government power. It is not being used in China or the Developing World, which are being allowed to rise so they can claim global hegemony under PRC rule.
It's a lot to explain, but this is also why it's significant that Ian Carroll and co. are doing spaces about Thucydides Trap as a part of an inevitable war with China. PRC-associated globalists have been pushing this as *the plan* for decades, and maybe all along.
Never have I been more convinced that Ian Carroll is an op, wittingly or unwittingly (he could just be being fed useful trails of "OSINT" that rabbit trail him into key narratives for the globalist operations) than when he did a space last night talking about Thucydides Trap.
No, Fascism is a progressive ideology, which is inherently idealist (Hitler makes this argument himself about National Socialism in MK vol 2 ch 2). Conservatism is a realist ideology. They're not remotely the same, though both claim to favor the nation and tradition.
Hitler, as indicated: "This is why it is necessary to establish a faith in an idealistic Reich to battle against the reckoning imposed by the present materialistic Republic."
This is not a conservative statement, and it's an anti-realist statement, like Marxism would make.
I've been spending a lot of time trying to figure out what the relationship between Fascism and conservatism is, and it's this: Fascism is what you get when a conservative abandons realism for romanticism and idealism, which are progressive and anti-realist.