Dear Uncle Joe:

Mr. President, while you are not my uncle Joe, we did grow up in the same neighborhood in Scranton. I know Scranton’s values well. Unfortunately, you lost those values many years ago.

You remind me of my old, crazy uncle Timmy. He was an embarrassment to us all. He was a danger on the streets, touching everyone who walked near him. And certainly, we never let him walk down the street to the popcorn vendor with a monkey.

Occasionally, we had to be very direct so he understood the seriousness of what he was doing. Unfortunately, this is one of those times your American family must deliver you a straightforward message – your actions are diminishing the value of American citizenship. Let me explain.

The government you “manage” identifies the benefits of citizenship, specifically: protection from deportation, easier entry and reentry into the U.S., travel without restriction in the states, the right to pay taxes and receive the same tax benefits as other Americans, the right to work for the federal government and receive government subsidies and the right to vote.

Before you assumed “management” of the U.S., these benefits were of great value. They generated patriotism, love of country, and respect for the rule of law. Your management style is so disrespectful to citizens. You treat us as commodities that send money to the government for the horror of watching the nation wither into a chaotic, authoritarian state.

And when you rudely turn your back and walk out of the room when reporters ask you simple questions, you act exactly like my crazy uncle. Worse, turning your back is an insult to us citizens. A good mother in Scranton should have told you it is not polite.

Perhaps your craziest decision is opening the southern border for anyone to freely enter the country. You have inflicted more crime on our cities. You are forcing local governments to care for the illegal, mostly unvaccinated, masses. This drains resources needed for schools, police, and health care. Worse, it is a violation of your oath to defend the country. You may not remember it but you were on television on January 20, 2021 and repeated the oath in front of millions of us. Many Americans thought you understood what you were swearing to?

No one knows why you opened the border; you may truly believe drug cartels; sex traffickers and the slave trade are capitalist enterprises. Please note it is not the type of business activity most parents want in their neighborhoods.

Also, no one understands why you stopped building the southern border wall after we paid for it? Obviously, you like walls since you ordered the American people to build a huge wall around your beach house. I am assuming it is your modesty when swimming nude. Believe me, Uncle Joe, no one will look—we would all be too embarrassed for you.

If one of the benefits of citizenship is the ease of entry and exit from our country, you have made it far easier to enter and exit for illegals than citizens. Almost two million illegal immigrants from 75 countries walked across the southern border into the U.S. this year. None were required to prove they had been vaccinated or tested for Covid-19. At the same time,  citizens, returning from a foreign country could not reenter the U.S. without proof of “a negative COVID-19 test, taken within three (3) calendar days of departure, or proof of recovery from the virus within the last 90 days.”

Another of the mentioned benefits of citizenship is freedom to travel throughout the U.S. While citizens have such a right, it is limited to lawful activity. Citizens committing crimes are arrested, no matter where they are caught.  Illegals, however, under your new order, have many safe areas where they cannot be arrested. These locations include schools, daycare centers, medical facilities, playgrounds for children, social service establishments, churches and demonstrations, and parades. You are giving those coming to the U.S. illegally more protection than given Americans. That doesn’t seem fair, crazy uncle Joe?

And now, you want to give illegals who were separated from their children when detained at the border, $450,000 per person, as damages for the temporary separation. What about our homeless and/or disabled veterans?  Are they less valuable than illegals because they fought to defend the U.S.?

The most ironic passage in one pamphlet is the discussion which notes all citizens have the same tax benefits as other Americans. I do not know many Americans who believe paying taxes and having the same tax deductions as other Americans is a benefit. First of all, most Americans do not have the same tax benefits as the super-wealthy. Few Americans can take advantage of the carried interest tax avoidance scheme for hedge fund managers or the $12 million estate tax exemption or trillions that can escape taxation forever, with a stepped-up basis for capital gains at death. You have such benefits, but very few Scrantonians have those benefits. You should nominate the brochure’s writer for inclusion in Ripley’s Believe It or Not Museum. There will be a hefty referral fee for Hunter, and the author will live forever as the dumbest person in the world.

The right to work for the federal government may be the one positive benefit of being a citizen that non-citizens cannot have. It is as close to nirvana as anyone can get. It requires little work, no creativity, and a talent to write what no one can understand. Clean clothes are not required and for the last 18 months, they did not even have to appear in an office. There are 2.8 million of them. Sounds like a lot of jobs to apply for, but openings only happen when a government worker dies or retires. There is a long wait even for citizens.

Fortunately, the illegals know you are trying to get rid of Trump’s Public Charge requirement. If you are successful with your Build Back Better legislation, the illegals will receive free community college, housing, and food subsidies. Since federal subsidies never go away, uncle Joe, the illegals may just get benefits rivaling a federal job without the need to show up for work.

The big benefit of being a citizen is the sacred right to vote. What does the right to vote mean anymore? Hillary Clinton and the entire mainstream news media told us the Russians, with a massive disinformation campaign, elected Donald Trump in 2016. Trump and his 75 million supporters tell us that millions of illegal ballots, fake news, and the suppression of news like the contents of Hunter’s laptop, elected you in 2020.

In the 2000 election, George W. Bush was elected by the U.S. Supreme Court. Every other year, our congressional representatives are elected by a rigged system called gerrymandering. The reelection rates for incumbents range from the low 90% to as high as 98%. Congressional districts are drawn for winners, not losers. Seriously, there was more turnover in the old Soviet Politburo than in Congress.

On its face, having the right to vote is a big deal. It seems to be a distinguishing right for which citizenship is needed. But nothing is more political than voting. Whoever controls the voting process wins. The Democrats are pushing the 800 page, “For the People Act.” If enacted, it would nationalize voting. Whoever controls the DC swamp controls voting in the nation. The bill would require every state to allow voting by mail, mandate online and same-day voter registration. It effectively eliminates voter identification requirements by requiring non-registered “voters” to sign a statement attesting to their identity. The bill would mandate drop-off boxes for mail-in ballots, and allow voters to designate another person to drop off their ballots.

Uncle Joe, the “For the People Act” reminds me of the first time, at age six, I accompanied my uncle Timmy to a Scranton polling place. Afterward, I asked him who would win. He told me the Democrats since they vote early and often so the dead are always well represented.

My message to the illegal immigrants is, do not get discouraged. Uncle Joe will soon have you casting ballots for Democrats. As for my vote, it is becoming less and less valuable.

Image: Photographer/ NJ Governor’s Office

The post Uncle Joe, You Have Diminished the Value of My Citizenship appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

“Under My Thumb” – The Rolling Stones 

This bluesy Rock n’ Roll tune by one of the leading groups of the British Invasion of the mid-1960s is sure to make a blue-haired man-hater’s head explode.

In this song, Mick Jagger tells a story from the perspective of a man who has been in an emotionally abusive relationship. It’s a classic case of the old saying, “you can’t have your cake and eat it too.” After having fun running around, she realizes how good she had it with her previous lover and comes back begging for his affection and will do whatever he says. As he says, 

 “It’s down to me
Yes it is
The way she does just what she’s told down to me
The change has come
She’s under my thumb
Ah, ah, say it’s alright.”

 Payback’s a bitch, isn’t it?

“Stand By Your Man” – Tammy Wynette 

Tammy Wynette’s classic country ballad, which she co-wrote with her record producer Billy Sherrill became a #1 hit on the country charts in 1968 and a top 20 pop hit. The song was written as a love song by a woman who ironically was preparing for her second divorce. It was marketed as Wynette’s response to the women’s liberation movement of the late 1960s.

The ballad will make all the femininazis cringe as it discusses a woman being loyal to her man even when he does things that aren’t right. The song faced just as much criticism by the women’s liberation when it was released as it has in more modern times.

“A Newsweek article called it a song, quote, “for the beleaguered housewife who grits her teeth as destiny dumps its slop on her head.” And fellow singer Jeannie C. Riley of “Harper Valley PTA” fame said, quote, “It sounds like you should take anything he dishes out.” Ironically, Wynette, while recording the song, was preparing to divorce her second husband for George Jones, another turbulent marriage she would eventually leave. Evelyn Shriver says Wynette defended the song, calling it a reflection of her background.”, according to NPR.

 The ballad was even mocked by former First Lady Hillary Clinton, according to The Wallstreet Journal.

 “Hard Headed Woman” – Elvis Presley 

Elvis the Pelvis was known for his ability to make women faint with his high energy shows, soulful southern voice, and legendary leg shakes. Feminists would be throwing something harder than themselves at the King of Rock ‘n Roll for this track.

In this song, Elvis takes us all the way back to creation in which he states that all the world’s problems have been caused by a “hard head woman and a soft-hearted man who have been causing trouble ever since the world began.”

The track highlights three biblical stories, including “Adam and Eve”, “Samson and Delilah”, and Jezebel and King Ahab. The lyrics light-heartedly poke fun of the female characters in each story, claiming that they were the source of each man’s downfall. Presley then relays his own frustrations with his own love interest in the last verse.

The song is great because it will throw the same logic feminists use by asserting that the patriarchy is the source of the world’s problems right back in their faces in a joking way.

 “A Woman’s Place is in the Home” – Gilbert O’ Sullivan

 1970’s Irish Pop Star Gilbert O’ Sullivan bangs out a ballad on his piano that will wreck every bra-burning broad’s mind. Sullivan’s song defends traditional western values, which he boldly states is that a woman belongs at home. In the mid-1970s, when the song was released, popular culture had already started to reject the idea of a woman staying home to raise her children and began pushing the idea that women should be in the workplace. Sullivan notes that he admires a woman “who can make it on her own,” but he believes a woman’s place in the home. If you want to destroy a loud-mouthed man-hater’s day, cranking this up on your nearest sound system should do the trick.

 “Bitches Ain’t Shit” – Dr. Dre

 To round out the list, Dr. Dre’s 1992 West Coast Rap classic is guaranteed to trigger any feminist tramp! Dr. Dre’s bumping beat talks about screwing women and using them for sex and kicking them to the curb. I should note that in no way do I think this is acceptable behavior, but if third-wave feminists are going to degrade good men, why not throw it back at them and have a little fun with it?  

There you have it, guys—five more fantastic tunes to trigger those self-loathing, man-haters who deep down are in desperate need of getting laid but too consumed with hate to admit it.

Image: Alec Perkins, Flickr

The post 5 More Fantastic Tunes to Trigger Feminists appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation developed a gender diversity committee in 2019 to conduct research for what life was like in Colonial America for lesbians and transgender individuals.

“It’s not that the information isn’t there, it’s that it hasn’t been properly researched, and a lot of other groups are overrepresented in the historic record,” committee researcher Ren Tolson said. “We just assumed that people had similar ideas as current day and moved on, but that’s not entirely the case.”, according to The Virginia Gazette.

As a lifelong student of history, nothing angers me more than attempting to paint history in the image of current events, or trying to mold the attitudes of people from the past to fit our modern attitudes toward what is considered acceptable by today’s standards.

History is never exactly what we may want it to be, but it is there to be learned from so that we may better prepare for the challenges that lay ahead of us in the future. We must take the good with the bad and learn the lessons of the past, or we will repeat the mistakes of our ancestors.

This appears to be a textbook case of trying to rewrite history to fit a modern narrative by the people running The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Don’t just take my word for it—read the words of Beth Kelly, the Vice President of Education, Research and Historical Interpretation:

“We’re very open to making sure that we look for all of the people that were here in the 18th century; those that were in the margins and those whose voices were not able to be recorded or not able to be voiced and bring them forward,” Kelly told The Virginia Gazette.

I am not saying there weren’t people in colonial America who weren’t LGBTQ, as there have been homosexuals of all stripes since the dawn of humanity, but these individuals were not in the majority nor was it considered socially acceptable to be a homosexual during this period of American history. America is and was founded as a Christian nation, even though we have strayed far away from the ideas that birthed this country. People during this time would have been executed for their lifestyle choice if that were discovered as there were very strict laws concerning what was deemed acceptable in regard to sex at the time for both gay and straight people.

It is not to say that it is in line with Christian principles or morally correct for someone to be put to death for their choice of sexual partner, but it’s the way that the majority of people believed at the time. If the people in charge of the town of Colonial Williamsburg are interested in keeping with historical accuracy, will they show examples of people being put on trial and executed for being gay? You can bet your bottom dollar this is not what the researchers at Colonial Williamsburg will do. Instead, this is nothing more than an attempt to rewrite history further to attempt to control the “woke culture” narrative.

As the battle continues to rage between those of us who hold to the principles of liberty and those who aim to fundamentally transform this nation into something totally unrecognizable, we should respect and preserve our history as it is regardless of the past transgressions of our ancestors. If the people in charge of reenacting history cared so deeply about their craft, they would be on the frontlines of presenting the events and atitudes of our history—warts and all. This should be the goal of anyone who cares about history.

These criticisms of The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation are not written with any hatred or animosity toward LGBTQ people, but instead with a deep love for preserving the history of this country. If we wish to strive for a more perfect union that respects the liberties of all Americans, this should be paramount—not encouraging historical reenactors to put on a performance which deals with the sex lives of any individual, gay or straight.

The famous American historian David McCollough said, “Trying to plan for the future without a sense of the past is like trying to plant cut flowers.” If we attempt to rewrite history into our own image, the flower of human liberty will soon wither and die like a flower cut from its roots. That should deeply trouble all Americans.

Image: TLR composite, Flickr.

The post Queer Colonists: Colonial Williamsburg Historical Inclusion or Revisionism? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The tweet and thread have since been deleted, but here are a couple of sample screenshots.

Bone then goes on to list terms that one should not use in order to raise social awareness of how to properly respect people in the “disabled” community.

This is the first time in my over 28 years of living on the earth that I knew there was even such a thing as “Disability Pride Month.” To be honest, I find the whole notion of a pride month for people with disabilities to be just as utterly ridiculous as all the other pride or history months for any other people group. 

As a man with cerebral palsy, I find the idea of a “pride month” for disabled people to be very exclusionary. I have fought to be fit in most of my life, and to be treated just as a man and not defined by my disability or the wheelchair I use as a result. “Disability Pride Month” turns all that effort to stand out as an individual on its head. 

Yes, I have cerebral palsy, but I am not defined by my condition. I want to be judged by my character and respected for my credibility as a commentator and writer who stands up for individual liberty—not coddled because society thinks I am not strong enough to face some of the harsh realities of life because I was dealt a bad hand. On top of the whole dumb idea, Mr. Bone wants to lecture the rest of the world on what we should and shouldn’t say dare we offend a disabled person. 

Life is hard and most people with disabilities know a thing or two about hardships that able-bodied people will never know firsthand. The last thing I want is for anyone to treat me like a baby just because I use a wheelchair to get around.  

I am technically considered a minority because of my cerebral palsy, but I will not be used as a pawn to attempt to destroy America. That is precisely what social justice warrior activists like Jaecyn Bone want—to divide the people of this country by class, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation and every other possible way so that communists can fundamentally transform everything that made us the greatest country in the history of the world. If the citizens of this country think that our nation is fundamentally evil, what is to stop authoritarians from pushing for a total transformation? That is the plan, my friends, and it always has been since the “Progressive Era” began in the 1890s.

 America is the greatest country in the world. Only in this country could a disabled man such as myself rise from literally nothing to a well-established journalist/commentator in just two-and-a-half years, if I didn’t have the good fortune of being born in this country, who knows what would have become of me? While there are several warts on America’s national nose, the world is a much better place because of the founding of this country. Instead of celebrating this fact, Mr. Bone took the opportunity to crap on this country on its 245th birthday. 

“Happy Independence Day ONLY to white land- owning men. And fuck everyone else I guess.” Bone said Sunday. 

While this country has strayed far from its roots as a freedom-loving, free-market nation, it is only because of these roots that a man like me is able to rise to his fullest potential and reach his dreams instead of being held back by circumstances beyond my control.

It is in this spirit that I say keep your “disabled pride.” I am Caleb Shumate, a liberty-loving American. I am not a victim. Keep your victimhood Olympics and let those of us who are willing reach the dreams no one ever thought possible!

Image: Twitter

The post My Disability Does Not Define Me: a Disabled Libertarian Responds to a ‘Disabled Pride Month’ SJW. appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The episode, it’s a Good Life, examines the terror inflicted on people when they live with the fear of their life being immediately canceled by an irrational power. The irrational power is wielded by a six-year-old boy named Anthony. He can wish people and things out of existence, usually sending them into the cornfield. He created his own world by wishing away machines, electricity, and modern conveniences because they displease him. The adults, knowing this monster could wish them away at any time, for any reason, constantly try to please him. They constantly tell him he does “good” and think only thoughts acceptable to Anthony.

One night during a birthday celebration for their neighbor Dan Hollis, Dan has a few too many drinks and starts singing. Anthony hates singing. Fear fills the adults in the room, they can’t move. Anthony gets angrier; telling Dan he is a “bad man, a very bad man.”  Dan, no longer able to restrain himself confronts Anthony calling him a “dirty little monster” and a “murderer.” Dan challenges Anthony to do what he is thinking about doing to him. As Dan and Anthony are face to face, the other adults are standing in the back of Anthony. Dan states he is sick of living in fear. While Anthony is focused on Dan, Dan frantically begs the adults to hit Anthony on his skull with one of the hard objects near the fireplace and “end this (terror) now.”

Everyone is too afraid to move. They all stand and watch as Anthony turns Dan into a Jack-in-the-box with a human head to enhance the horror. Dan’s wife screams hysterically. Anthony warns her she could be next. Anthony’s father begs him to send Dan to the cornfield (to remove the horror). Anthony agrees; all the adults go about their business telling Anthony he “did swell” and “everything is great.”

Cancel culture is today’s irrational monster. Cancel culture removes people and brands from their speech, work, or school platforms for what is asserted to be objectionable conduct. The canceling usually occurs by accusation and the canceled accused has little ability to respond.

While thankfully cancel culture doesn’t have the supernatural power to send objectionable people to the cornfield, it has the power to irredeemably assign guilt, and to banish people and products as punishment. Cancellations have occurred with hosts of television programs, authors have had their books removed from sales platforms, opinion editors fired from national newspapers, movie stars had contracts terminated, advertisers drop advertising if they dislike any comment from a show’s host, teachers are fired for expressing ideas, manufacturers of beans and mattresses are boycotted for supporting unpopular candidates, a U.S. Senator loses a book contract for exercising constitutional rights, and the names of historical figures are removed from schools because hundreds of years ago they had what is now considered a “dishonorable legacy.” George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Dr. Suess, and Aunt Jemima syrup were canceled. Even a prospective college student was nearly expelled before starting school for objectionable political speech.

The liberal media dismisses cancel culture as old news, asserting for centuries, societies stigmatized that thought to exhibit moral deficiencies. Those canceling believe the people canceled “really deserve it.” Examples include Scarlet letters, the use of the guillotine in the French Revolution, and torture in the Spanish Inquisition. So, today’s cancel culture is mild by historical standards; it is, merely a consumerist verb, noting someone or something is unneeded or unwanted.

Liberal media, however, misses the point. Historically, canceling was inflicted by despotic governments or mob rule. Today, canceling is being inflicted by a combination of self-righteous people, lap-dog corporations, and Big Tech to control the speech and thoughts of people in a constitutional Republic. Canceling is a tool that allows one side to claim a monopoly on virtue and to label other citizens as perpetually evil merely through accusations. Recently Andrew Michta noted, “Democracy cannot survive in a society in which winners and losers are adjudicated arbitrarily according to criteria beyond individual control.” If cancel culture continues to grow, it will morph into despotic rule.

The radical Left wants more than to silence opposing views. It seeks absolute control over “We the people.” In “Public Shaming Has Only Just Begun,” the author writes: “And if we deploy shame strategically – to single out the most egregious offenses and neglect – we might even send some people to prison.” The true goal of the Left and its friends in Big Business and Big Tech is to meld mob rule with government power to subject individuals to the all-powerful state. The Left firmly believes no individual has a right to oppose the state which they will control.

Read the actual words of the radical Left. It hates humans, capitalism, and freedom. Read the 1619 project that rewrites the history of America. Compare the TASS (Russian news service) depiction of the U.S. with the leading books written by the Left which characterize the U.S. as a racist, crime-ridden, poverty-stricken country.

Except for some commentators on conservative news channels and a handful of politicians, the citizens of the U.S., like the characters in It’s a Good Life watch silently as the cancel culture monster threatens to send any of us to the cornfield if we don’t obey and think “good thoughts” about it.

America, the signposts up ahead indicate the next stop is the Twilight Zone. If we go there, every democratic belief the U.S. holds true will be turned upside down. Dogma, punishment, and the lack of individual rights will prevail. Out of fear, falsehoods will be gladly accepted. America does not need to enter the Twilight Zone. We do not have to lie to ourselves just to live. We do not have to tell the cancel culture monster “it did well.” Since silence will ensure we are sent to the cornfield, each of us must confront the cancel culture monster at every opportunity. The repetition of free speech in defense of the speech of others will slay the monster.

Image: screen capture, YouTube

The post The Twilight Zone of Cancel Culture appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

After we finish one of these banned classics, someone inevitably asks, “Why was this banned in the first place?”

Years ago, when I first began teaching, books might be banned because they showed characters having sex, swearing, committing suicide, or advocating for communism. Today, those things barely cause a ripple and, instead, books are most often canceled for reasons related to ‘presentism‘—judging the past by the standards of the present.

It’s funny how literature written hundreds or thousands of years ago tends to represent the ideas, views, values, and social structures prevalent at the time.

For instance, Homer lived around the 8th or 9th century BCE, but the “Iliad” immortalized people from the earlier Bronze Age. Whether or not the events of the Trojan War actually happened, the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean was a violent time. Is it shocking that Homer’s Bronze Age characters see violence as a practical way to solve problems? Why are we surprised that Agamemnon and his troops engaged in pillaging and plundering? It’s not like the Argive army had signed on to the Geneva Convention.

When Shakespeare wrote the “Merchant of Venice” in the late 1500s, anti-Semitism was commonplace across Europe. Venetian Jews were forced into segregated neighborhoods from 1516–1797. If Shakespeare set his play in Venice, doesn’t it stand to reason anti-Semitism might be an issue for one of his characters, who just happens to be a Jewish moneylender residing in the city?

Characters who come to life through historic works of literature show the world as it was—not as we’d like it to be. 

In Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” (another oft-banned book), Atticus Finch tells Scout, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view. Until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.” 

Historians and archaeologists may give us hints about what life was like during the Bronze Age or Renaissance Venice, but outside the realm of speculative fiction it is not possible to visit the past in a time machine as H.G. Wells imagined. 

But we can dive into books, plays, and poems that have stood the test of time, and help us understand what life was like.

There’s no way to know what it would have felt like to be part of a Bronze Age army laying siege to another city unless we turn a page of the “Iliad” and climb inside Achilles’ skin for a moment. 

There’s no way to pop into a Renaissance Venetian market for the afternoon, so instead we read “The Merchant of Venice” and crawl inside Shylock’s head. By doing so, we begin to see the world from Shylock’s point of view; to understand why he asked for a pound of flesh.

Today’s trend of banning or ‘canceling’ authors and their books simply because those books don’t represent modern day values condemns us to know even less about the past than we already do. 

Classic literature gives us the opportunity to gain an understanding of the constants of the human condition. Readers of the “Iliad” come to understand there were wars during the Bronze Age, just as there are wars today that cause immeasurable suffering. Readers of “The Merchant of Venice” learn that anti-Semitism was a problem in Europe long before Hitler’s Germany. 

When we read great books written long ago, we heed Atticus Finch’s advice and it makes a difference. I’ve seen firsthand how reading classics increases my students’ level of empathy. They gain an understanding of the unchanging nature of the human condition. My students also come to see how much progress we as human beings have made because, having read about a Bronze Age battlefield or a segregated Venetian neighborhood, they understand where we started.

We should embrace history—not cancel it—so that we are not doomed to repeat it.

Gina Prosch educates her children at home in Mid-Missouri. She is also a homeschool life coach (and parent) who blogs and shares homeschool resources at www.TheHomeschoolWay.com. She is also the co-host of The OnlySchoolers Podcast. 

The post Canceling Lessons Learned from Classic Literature appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

“White passing” is a loathsome, offensive phrase. No one is responsible for the physical cues that others take from one’s appearance, and you’re not obligated to sport a sandwich board itemizing your racial breakdown.

Fredi was a strikingly beautiful mulatta and exceptional actress, yet Jim Crow segregation barred her from playing non-black roles. The Chicago Defender quoted her in 1945: “Frankly, I do not ascribe to the stupid theory of white supremacy and to try to hide the fact that I am a Negro for economic or any other reasons. If I do, I would be agreeing to be a Negro makes me inferior.”

By identifying solely as Negro, she did tacitly endorse supremacist ideology’s assertion that one-drop of Negro blood disqualifies one from entering the realm of “pure” whiteness. Yet Fredi had no choice; no mixed-race option existed for her to embrace, and that surely would have led to “Trying to be white!” accusations. White passing charges endure even now, as humanity evolves.

The 2020 Census allowed multiracials to again choose multiple boxes, though the government often collapses those responses to reflect exclusively minority race tabulations. That nuanced application of the “one-drop rule” notwithstanding, latter day Fredi Washingtons, like former actress and British royal Meghan Markle, unflinchingly avail themselves of identity choices independent of the societally imposed black/white binary.

But during the 2020 election, political expediency prohibited Kamala Harris from publicly embracing her Asian heritage, and the media’s current insistence on capitalizing “Black” and “White” reinforces the boundaries between supposedly mutually exclusive races. It’s regressive, part and parcel of a campaign that can best be described as willful resegregation.

Consider ABC’s “mixed-ish“ 2019 sitcom about an ‘80s interracial couple and their three kids relocating from a hippie commune to suburbia. The parents struggle with their new life’s challenges; their kids negotiate public schooling in which classmates have difficulty pigeonholing them racially. The family’s encounters typify the struggle in finding one’s identity when the larger society can’t determine to which sociopolitical bloc you belong.

The initial episodes entertained; I even chuckled at installment one’s slave ship joke. Considering Mixed-ish is a prequel spin-off of the popular Black-ish, the writers pleasantly surprised by not overly insinuating one-drop commentary into the dialogue — until the third episode’s treatment of “black hair.”

Then, they let loose with what you had to know was coming. The three siblings are unquestionably black, and their desire to wear their hair au naturel is a sign of their black pride.

Academia’s most notorious one-drop devotees, critical race theorists, have scant objection to Mixed-ish, yet a particular Marxist critique on a Facebook group dedicated to positive mixed-race identity caught my eye. Brother Karl would ostensibly view the show not through the lens of an interracial family, but via proletarians abandoning their communalist ideals to embrace a bourgeois lifestyle centered on careerism and consumerism.

America’s problems do primarily manifest along class lines, but neo-Marxists cannot abandon race, to their detriment. They critically reinterpret Marx’s class conflict meditations into one wherein history is primarily the dramatic struggle between colonialist, oppressive white racists and exploited groups “of color.”

After eight years of the first mixed-ish president marginalizing his MulattX heritage and propagating identity politics, enough working class whites perceived Democrats as hostile to their concerns and swung the 2016 election to Donald Trump—who expertly exploited their fears. 45’s inept handling of the COVID-19 epidemic combined with Black Lives Matter’s proletariat insurrection following George Floyd’s murder combined to deny him reelection, though.

The response that BLM’s impressionable disciples cannot rebut is “All Black Lives Should Matter.” Gangbangers kill far more blacks than do white cops, but that doesn’t fit BLM’s narrative. Even considering the significantly fewer incidents of police shooting and killing unarmed minorities, we need to honestly acknowledge the cause-and-effect relationship in play. Some degree of perceived police brutality is more about unacknowledged biases cultivated through overexposure in high crime areas than naked racism.

Narratives outweigh facts, though. Economist and erstwhile Marxist Thomas Sowell argues that progressives have no interest in creating black wealth—only with the imperative to redistribute what exists, e.g. slavery reparations.

Psychological manipulation compelling kneeling and confessing white skin privilege confirms that what many cannot cultivate through the internal work necessary for individual spiritual growth, they attempt to appropriate from others and redistribute to the collective via repugnant guilt-trips.

Blackness and whiteness are both value-neutral, yet for years I wandered in the darkest mental ignorance before discovering that my purpose on this planet was not as a loyal servant to “woke” racial identity politics. Would that Fredi could have realized the same.

Charles Michael Byrd is a freelance opinion writer whose pieces deal with racial identity politics and religion. He is of white, black, and Native heritage. He lives in Queens, N.Y.. You can follow him on Twitter @ChasbyrdM.

Image: Gage Skidmore

The post From 45 to Biden: Mixed-Race Meditations on White Skin Privilege and Neo-Marxism appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Now, math education itself has been deemed “racist.” A group of educators just released a document calling for a transformation of math education that focuses on “dismantling white supremacy in math classrooms by visibilizing the toxic characteristics of white supremacy culture with respect to math.”

Among the educators’ recommendations, which officials in some states are promoting, are calls to “identify and challenge the ways that math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views,” “provide learning opportunities that use math as resistance,” and “encourage them to disrupt the disproportionate push-out of people of color in [STEM] fields.”

Beyond activism, these recommendations also argue that traditional approaches to math education promote racism and white supremacy, such as requiring students to show their work or prioritizing correct answers to math problems. The document claims that current math teaching is problematic because it focuses on “reinforcing objectivity and the idea that there is only one right way” while it “also reinforces paternalism.”

Prominent Professors Push Back

This week, some prominent university professors spoke out against these new woke math education recommendations. Princeton mathematics professor Sergiu Klainerman wrote a guest post on the topic at journalist Bari Weiss’s website. He says: “Attempts to ‘deconstruct’ mathematics, deny its objectivity, accuse it of racial bias, and infuse it with political ideology have become more and more common — perhaps, even, at your child’s elementary school.”  

Klainerman, who grew up in communist Romania, warns that this current classroom dogma is dangerous. He writes: “When it comes to education, I believe the woke ideology is even more harmful than old-fashioned communism.” 

Columbia University English professor John McWhorter also chimed in against this math education document and its recommendations. 

“This lovely pamphlet is teaching us that it is racist to expect black kids to master the precision of math,” he writes in a blog post. “To wit – its message, penned by people who consider themselves some of the most morally advanced souls in the history of the human species, is one that Strom Thurmond would have happily taken a swig of whiskey to.”

While the growing emphasis on critical theory in American classrooms has broader societal implications, including the devaluation of objectivity and individualism, the real victims of this educational approach are the students themselves. In one of his final articles before he died last December, economist Walter Williams decried the poor academic performance of students in large urban school districts. 

“In two city high schools,” Williams wrote of Detroit, “only one student tested proficient in math and none are proficient in English. Yet, the schools spent a full week learning about ‘systemic racism’ and ‘Black Lives Matter activism.’”

Public School Exodus

As this “woke” worldview continues to penetrate classrooms with mandatory curriculum standards, families who don’t agree with this ideology—or who simply want their children to learn basic academics—should have the opportunity to pursue alternatives to their assigned district school. Currently, 26 states have active school choice legislation that would enable funding to follow students, including adopting education savings accounts or tax-credit scholarship programs. Meanwhile, overall support for school choice policies has grown since last spring. 

The COVID-19 school shutdowns have put parents back in charge of their children’s learning in ways that were unimaginable pre-pandemic, with many parents leaving their district schools in droves. Indeed, the Associated Press reported a sharp decline in public school enrollment this academic year across the 33 states for which data were available. Millions of families have pursued private education options such as independent schooling and homeschooling that can offer more consistent, higher-quality in-person instruction than a district’s Zoom schooling or hybrid offerings. 

As the New York Times reported on Monday, fewer than half of K-12 students are currently attending full-time, in-person schooling and families are increasingly seeking other options. 

“Now many parents are beginning to rebel, frustrated with the pace of reopening and determined to take matters into their own hands,” the Times reports. “Some are making contingency plans to relocate, home-school or retreat to private education if their children’s routines continue to be disrupted this fall — a real possibility as some local school officials and teachers’ unions argue for aggressive virus mitigation measures to continue, potentially even after educators are vaccinated.”

The amplification of “woke” ideology in classrooms is likely to accelerate the current exodus from district schools. Parents have experienced a renewed sense of responsibility over their children’s education. Now they in many cases have had a front-row seat to what their children are actually learning through Zoom school, and hopefully will feel more empowered to push back against new critical theory curriculum standards—and choose education that values individualism over collectivism.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Image: woodleywonderworks on Flickr

The post Woke Educators Release Letter Declaring Objective Math a Form of ‘White Supremacy’ appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The things we have said in the past may not have been outrageously offensive, but we have all made comments, or held opinions, we later regret. We are, after all, inherently flawed creatures.

But imagine if one instance of poor judgment or one “fringe” opinion stuck with you forever. This is the problem our society is now facing with the prevalence of cancel culture.

In 2016, then-high school freshman Mimi Groves posted a video to Snapchat in which she used a racial slur. The video later circulated around her school, though it wasn’t met with controversy at the time.

Fellow classmate Jimmy Galligan hadn’t seen the footage until last year when the two were seniors—four years after it first made the rounds at Heritage High School. By this time, Groves had moved on to focus on her role as varsity cheer captain with big dreams of attending the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, a school known for its nationally ranked cheer squad.

For Groves, summer 2020 had been a time of celebration as she found out she had been accepted to the university’s cheer team. But her joy was short-lived when the death of George Floyd rightly outraged the nation, sparking a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Like many teens, Groves used her social media platforms to urge people to protest, donate, and sign petitions in support of ending police brutality. It was then that her unfortunate video came back to haunt her.

“You have the audacity to post this, after saying the N-word,” one commenter, unknown to the teen, posted on her Instagram.

That’s when her phone began ringing nonstop.

Galligan had held onto the video made four years earlier and had chosen to celebrate Groves’ admission to UT by blasting the footage to every major social media platform.

As the video began going viral, public outrage ensued, calling for the university to rescind her acceptance.

Capitulating to the mob, UT removed her from their cheer team, a decision that resulted in Groves withdrawing from the school because of what she perceived as pressure from the school’s admissions office.

Make no mistake, making racial slurs of any kind is demeaning and inappropriate behavior. But is one comment made four years prior enough to ruin the future of a teen who hadn’t even entered adulthood yet?

The court of public opinion said yes, without giving Groves any chance at redemption.

Why People ‘Cancel’

Groves’ story is just one of many.

Cancel culture has become more widespread over the last several years than anyone could have imagined. When I penned this article on the topic two years ago, I had no idea the problem would escalate to the level it has reached today.

But cancel culture isn’t reserved only for those who have made distasteful comments in the past.

Today, those espousing any opinion that goes against “woke” rhetoric are ridiculed online, fired from their jobs, and some are banned from using popular social media platforms altogether.

One University of North Carolina Wilmington professor, Mike Adams, even took his own life after tweets construed as offensive pushed him into early retirement after years of service to the institution.

Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind and co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind, has been an outspoken critic of the cancel culture phenomenon for some time.

“Part of a call-out culture is you get credit based on what someone else said if you ‘call it out,'” he said in a 2018 interview.

This virtue signaling, which is really just a means of proving to society how “good” and “moral” your views are, is only half of the equation, however. Cancel culture is also about personal destruction, which is obvious in Groves’ situation, since Galligan didn’t use this ammunition against her until the time was ripe for maximum harm.

“It(cancel culture) has reached a level of personal vindictiveness, where people go out of their way to find ways the things other people say could be construed as insensitive,” Haidt said.

Slurs and inappropriate comments aside, cancel culture has made people scared to share their opinions lest they be condemned for thinking “incorrectly” about any given issue.

The Costs Cancel Culture

We now live in an era where people are constantly looking over their shoulders, or computer screens, worried that whatever opinion they post might make them victims of cancel culture.

There is no opportunity to change one’s mind, nor is there room to defend opinions you genuinely believe. And this is a huge problem for any civil society.

Haidt spoke of the importance of protecting open dialogue so that we may live in a society filled with varying opinions from which to choose.

“One of the most important [aspects] is that people are not afraid to share their opinions – they’re not afraid that they’re going to be shamed socially for disagreeing with the dominant opinion,” Haidt said.

The odds are high that your opinions about certain issues will change over time. However, some may not, and you shouldn’t live in fear that your beliefs will be met with social condemnation and isolation.

We are no longer given the room to share our opinions today because we are no longer able to disagree with each other respectfully.

You’re not always going to agree with everything other people say — not your professors, your classmates, or your parents. In fact, you might even find that your own views change as you learn new things and grow as a person and adult.

But having the freedom to consider all opinions and decide what you genuinely believe is vital to the human experience and civil discourse.

There is a market of choice in all things, from what clothes you wear, products you buy, and what ideas you subscribe to.

When you go shopping, you might not like the first outfit you try. You might not even like the second or third. But trying on different looks, or opinions, allows you to think for yourself and figure out what it is you want, or believe.

To be truly open-minded, you must be able to consider all opinions, instead of condemning any thought contrary to your own. The free exchange of ideas pushes individuals to share unique ideas and allows for opinions to evolve.

Dissent is what makes democracy strong. Our Constitution has outlasted so many others because the Founders disagreed and debated with each other until they crafted a document that fostered “a more perfect union” than had ever been seen before. We would be wise not to forget the example they set.

Put simply, shaming others doesn’t work. It’s purely punitive, and self-aggrandizing. It also rarely changes a person’s mind and often further radicalizes their beliefs, widening the divide already growing in our country.

To foster a world where ideas can be freely expressed, Pacific Legal Foundation will be hosting an event this Friday featuring Haidt that will examine the many ways free speech serves as a central tenet of innovation, community, and civil society, and how we can preserve and protect this fundamental value that makes our society so extraordinary.

Without the ability to speak freely and consider all opinions, civil discourse cannot occur. In its absence, society as we know it will cease to exist and the divides between us will continue to grow.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

The post Psychologist Explains the Unhealthy Incentives Behind ‘Cancel Culture’ appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

“I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.”

-Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason

Earlier this week, the Jackson County, Missouri legislature gave each resident the right to voice their own opinion in the upcoming November election as to whether or not the statue of Andrew Jackson should be removed from its place in front of the downtown courthouse.

This decision comes on the heels of an article posted in the Kansas City Star that asked whether it was time to rename local counties and cities that memorialized slaveholders. Jackson County, named after the seventh president, was included among the list of potential counties and cities to be renamed.

Andrew Jackson deserves his place in history—that much is certain. But if Kansas City voters do decide to remove his statue from outside the courthouse, and if by chance this mobilization spills into a campaign to rename the county, I propose a new historical figure to become the namesake of this fine county: Thomas Paine.

Paine is tragically one of America’s forgotten heroes. He was the man who electrified early America with his persuasive writing. His compelling pamphlet “Common Sense” not only mobilized early Americans to throw off their tyrannical bondage to Britain through revolutionary means, but it also inspired following generations to uphold reason and logic as the sacred foundation to society. His church was freedom, and he worshipped at the altar of individualism.

But it was because of this strict adherence to logic and reason that he was ultimately ostracized from mainstream society. Paine’s condemnation of religion in favor of reason marked him as a leper to American society, pushing him further and further out of the public eye. Although in his earlier years he had mingled with and even influenced powerful Americans such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, by the end of his life, Paine was forgotten, left to waste away in New York with his right to vote revoked. He died to little fanfare, with only six people showing up to his funeral.

Now, Kansas City has a chance to remedy the disrespect showed to Paine in years past. Currently, there is not a single U.S. county named after Thomas Paine. I propose that should Kansas City voters choose to remove the Jackson statue and change the name of the county, then the most desirable choice would be the main persuader behind the American Revolution.

Imagine a brand new Thomas Paine statue in front of the courthouse. In his left hand, he holds the Rights of Man to his chest. In his raised right hand, he holds “Common Sense”, his magnum opus.

If Kansas City follows this proposal, they will choose a man who has no skeletons in his closet (or skeleton at all for that matter). Paine was a staunch abolitionist (he penned the first major American work advocating for the emancipation of African-Americans and the abolition of slavery) as well as a pro-life advocate (he argued that the French revolutionaries should not kill King Louis XVI).

Historian Jack Green notes that “in a fundamental sense, we are today all Paine’s children”, meaning that even if we don’t realize it, we would not be here today in the United States of America without Thomas Paine’s motivation. It is time to give the forgotten Founding Father his due.

The post Will Kansas City Cancel Andrew Jackson? Who Should Replace Him? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.