Henry Giroux, the man Gottesman considers to be the father of Critical Pedagogy is the focus of the 4th chapter of The Critical Turn in Education. While Giroux didn’t coin the term Critical Pedagogy, he was certainly one its greatest champions and popularizers. Interestingly, this chapter is largely about the ways in which Giroux adapted and modified the ideas of other Marxists before him (and, reading between the lines, from Postmodern thinkers as well) into a vision and strategy for turning North American education into a tool to advance his radical ideology.
Summary: Critical Pedagogy
Giroux studied history and education before becoming a high school teacher in Rhode Island during the 1970s. He was, “trying to do all kinds of innovative things,”1 when his supervisor told him that he didn’t want high school students to be taught history while sitting in a circle, which Giroux had no response to (the fact that he considered sitting in a circle to be some sort of innovation, but was then unable to summon any justification for it may speak to the actual creative power of his mind). In frustration, he picked up Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which had been gifted to him shortly before the circle incident. Apparently, it changed his life.
Giroux was inspired to pursue an academic career, first at Carnegie Mellon, where he received a Doctorate of Arts degree in Education, then as tenure-track professor at Boston University. Ultimately, he would be denied tenure at Boston unless he agreed not to publish anything for two years and take a course in basic logic. Giroux, of course, refused and found a tenured position at Miami University, Ohio instead.
Through any setbacks, Giroux’s mission has always been to proselytize Freire’s vision as the way forward for education in the developed world. But it wasn’t as simple as having everyone read Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Giroux had to craft something a bit more specialized.
Adapting Freire
James Lindsay has likened Giroux as a sort of “Paul the Apostle” figure to Freire’s messianic prophet.2 The comparison is apt: just as Paul adapted the message of Jesus to the gentiles all over the Roman world, so Giroux adapted Freire to the developed nations of the world.
Freire conceived his pedagogy in the context of impoverished South American nations that often had a great deal of corruption in their governments. For him, the poverty of the common people juxtaposed with the power and control of government officials made the dynamics of oppression self-evident. Giroux needed a way to retain the Freirean worldview of omnipresent oppression and the purpose of education being to oppose it, but in a form that was applicable to wealthy, industrialized nations. He did this in two ways: One—a significantly more Gramscian conception of oppression, and two—the use of existing institutions to bring about radical social change within existing systems rather than a desire to replace them with communist institutions.
In the 20th century, every experiment with communism resulted in oppressive totalitarian control of the society, a genocide, or more commonly, both. Furthermore, the developed nations of Western Europe and the United States had not been the ones to evolve into communism as Marx had predicted. Giroux’s move towards Gramscian conceptions of oppression through ideology and hegemony was the standard way in which Neo-Marxists explained away the failures of communism, while maintaining it was still an ideal to be pursued. In the realm of culture, the forms of oppression that may be conjured, decried, and mobilized against are nearly endless. Giroux had his own spin on Gramsci as well, but more on that in the next section.
Giroux’s emphasis on change via the existing public sphere echoes the need for a “long march through the institutions” as communist Rudi Dutschke argued. It’s worth noting that this sort of transition from capitalist to communist institutions was probably more in line with how Marx envisioned a communist takeover, rather than the violence associated with the Soviet and Chinese Marxist revolutions.
Modifying Gramsci
Gramsci characterized Cultural Hegemony as a largely binary phenomenon wherein one group benefited from the hegemonic culture and the other group was oppressed by it. Placing the oppression in the cultural, rather than economic sphere was invaluable to Giroux, but he still needed some changes if he wanted an oppression narrative useful for critiques of modern, developed nations. After all, oppressed people from many nations have flocked to the West, to America in particular, and found it to be a vast improvement over their homeland.
Rather than seeing individuals as being oppressed by a hegemonic culture, Giroux reformulated things such that it was various subcultures present in Western society that were being oppressed by the dominant Western culture. In practice, this means using the dynamics of oppression to explain the disparities between different cultural groups in a society.
This shift became a central tenet of leftist thought. The Critical Social Justice movement problematizes phenomena along cultural lines. The various cultural “phobias” are defined as oppression of particular cultural values by refusing to partake in or engage with them, ultimately causing them to fail. Cultural Relativism means that criticism of all subcultures and their cultural values is forbidden, while condemning the mainstream culture is required. “White flight” is driven by a fear of inner-city cultures. “Gentrification” is characterized as domination, suppression, and crowding out of inner-city cultures. “Cultural Appropriation” casts partaking in different cultures as driven by an oppressive desire to mock or absorb the culture in question.
On this view, individual people and their culture are seen as largely interchangeable. On one hand, the decisions of particular people are not evaluated in the context of that individual life, but as some sort of cultural power play (i.e., a white person who enjoys tacos is actually reflecting the desire of White, American culture to dominate Hispanic culture). Conversely, an evaluation of a person’s culture acts as a substitute for judging his ideas, choices, and beliefs (i.e., the claim that the “white, cis-male’s story has already been told.”) In this way, Giroux’s narrative of cultural oppression is even more collectivist than the Gramsci’s because these “acts of oppression” are made by collective groups against other collective groups irrespective of how the individuals involved think about or interpret them.
Bringing the Fight to the Public Sphere
One of the reasons that Giroux is often taken to be a “Post-” rather than “Neo-” Marxist is that he explicitly abandoned the tactic of overthrowing the existing social order with new institutions (more on the idea of Post-Marxist later). This is a departure from both Soviet-style Marxism, which advocated a revolution against the bourgeois class, and Neo-Marxism which sought a Maoist-style overthrow of cultural norms and practices.
In one way, this position is more in line with the trajectory Marx and Engels originally intended. Commenting on the class struggles in France, Engels wrote:
“And so it came about that the bourgeoisie and Government feared far more the legal than the illegal action of the workers’ party, more the successes of elections than those of rebellion.”3
In the violent communist revolutions of the Soviet and Maoist systems, it’s sometimes forgotten that communists originally viewed winning elections as a tool that could be far more effective than violence.
But Giroux moves several steps beyond electing sympathetic politicians. Incorporating the Gramscian focus on culture, Giroux argued that the battles for social change should be waged in all areas of the public sphere. This means not just voting for the people who will bring about social change, but engaging in political activism, protests, and boycotts. It also means trying to change the standards by which cultural institutions operate. It means finding the ways that large cultural institutions (for instance, regulatory agencies or technology companies) can be made into weapons that bring about the desired cultural changes (more on this in the Prescriptions section).
Giroux’s ideas and policies were not exactly new, but they were innovative in that he constructed an oppression narrative that had a greater degree of plausibility for people in Western nations, and he articulated a way to direct this new “awakened” class towards something that would transform a culture and institutions rather than tear down and replace them with something new (though his goals for social change were just as total). Giroux’s resulting educational project would simultaneously attempt to inculcate the oppression narrative in as many people as possible, then direct those people to positions in society where they could bring about the desired social change.
Prescriptions and Ideas for Education
Multiplicity of Cultures
One of the most essential aspects Giroux brought to the sphere of education was the formulation of oppression as being inflicted by a dominant culture upon a less privileged subculture within a society rather than inflicted by the bourgeoisie upon the proletariat, by the rulers upon ruled, or by elites upon commoners. Instead, Giroux presents the oppressor as the mainstream Western culture and the oppressed as those subcultures in a society that are unfairly exploited by the dominant group.
In education, Giroux argued that students should be primed to engage in this struggle between oppressed and oppressive cultures. Practically, this requires several steps. First: insist that lessons and thinking patterns emphasize “cultures” or “communities” as primary actors. Whenever possible, bring up disparities between communities and the ways in which they’re marginalized or receive inequitable treatment. Everything, from the curriculum, to the classroom activities, to the attitudes of the staff and faculty should encourage thinking in these terms. Second, articulate that the only way to be an “authentic” member of such communities is to adhere to the ideology of Critical Social Justice. This serves as a shortcut to dismiss dissenting views from members of these subcultures. Finally, prompt the students to see themselves as a member of one or more of the marginalized communities. Such communities could be based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and many others (for example, the trend of joining the trans or queer “communities” is becoming more common for students of younger and younger ages).4
It’s through this process that Giroux’s educational vision grants what Freire would have called a “rebirth in solidarity with the oppressed.” Once achieved, the products of this educational system can be turned towards social activism that advances the goals of Critical Social Justice.
Use of the Public Sphere
Giroux’s methods of activism advocated for the use of the public sphere to keep existing institutions more or less in place but changing them such that they advanced the goals of the radical left. This means that Giroux’s goal was not to produce students primed to engage in revolutionary violence (though the persistence of groups like Antifa indicates that this strain is certainly still present). Instead, activists should be ready to move into positions in HR departments, they should push for “Terms and Conditions” that codify leftist values, they should seek to enter bureaucratic positions that allow them to write and enforce new regulations. They should be in position to change large corporations, regulatory bodies, media outlets, and law enforcement agencies into institutions that advance their leftist agenda. It’s through getting sympathetic voices into these kinds of positions that Giroux’s approach uses the public sphere to undermine a culture from within. Effectively, this is putting legions of activists (or at least those sympathetic to the goals of activists) into positions where they can monitor and attempt to force the social changes they want to see.
Even incremental successes with this method pay dividends. We’ve even seen whole departments created to focus on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) in many organizations. We are currently seeing law enforcement and media selectively target a former president with a series of marginal charges, while selectively failing to investigate potential crimes and corruption on the part of his opponent.5 This has been achieved by getting a relatively small number of Critical Social Justice advocates into key positions that set the priorities of these organizations.
Critical Pedagogy
With Henry Giroux, the picture of Critical Pedagogy fully emerges. Philosophically, it has a Gramscian-style worldview involving Cultural Hegemony and oppression but molded into a form more useful in the developed world: Identity Politics. Different identity groups are each defined by having their own culture that is necessarily oppressed by the dominant culture (often, the “white, cis-hetero, patriarchy”).
The overarching purpose of Critical Pedagogy is to inculcate this world view into the students who pass through the system. More concisely, education is defined to be the “raising of a Critical Consciousness.” Ideally, this pedagogy would not just produce students who saw the world through the lens of identity politics but also acted to change it, through “criticism” (thus, “Critical” Pedagogy). And the cohort of students who become true believers are pointed towards positions where their “critical consciousness” can most effect the desired social changes: HR managers, Trust and Safety teams, bureaucrats, political staffers, and ultimately, elected officials.
But for the larger group of students who don’t have their consciousness raised to the point of wanting to change the world, Critical Pedagogy still serves a purpose because it normalizes thinking about the world through the lens of oppression and identity. For those who have no desire to become active in Critical Social Justice, receiving an education saturated with Critical Pedagogy still makes them much more likely to be complicit in the face of Critical Social Justice activism.
After years of exposure, students will come to accept that the views of Critical Social Justice at least represent a form of idealism (they may not share the idealism, but they also won’t oppose it). It primes these types of people to accept the changes that the Critical Social Justice activists push at every turn. New “authorities” who hold positions like “Equity Officer” will be passively accepted without remark. Requiring a DEI statement to apply for a job becomes normal. Having one’s race, gender, sexual orientation, or other group membership brought up in the context of their ideas, thoughts, and actions is just the way of doing things.
Not only does Critical Pedagogy want to churn out activists who will push the changes of Critical Social Justice, but a new society that is ready to accept them.
Jargon and Crossover Terms
Post-Marxist
With Giroux, the course of Critical Pedagogy moves into more of a gray area with respect to whether or not it is still “Marxist” or something new. Gottesman, who is very up front about the Marxist roots of Critical Pedagogy, repeatedly refers to Giroux as a “Post-Marxist.” Another way this position might be characterized is “Postmodern.”
It’s an argument among non-Marxists about whether the Postmodern Left (which Giroux and subsequent Critical Pedagogues are certainly part of) should or should not be considered Marxist. In the pedigree of ideas, the Marxist connection is quite clear. Giroux’s two biggest influences were Paulo Freire (a Revolutionary Marxist) and Antonio Gramsci (a Cultural Marxist, or possibly a Neo-Marxist). And it wasn’t like Giroux took bits and pieces as he worked out a new set of ideas, his explicit goal was to take Freire and Gramsci and develop them into a form that was more appropriate to attacking modern, developed, liberal democracies. Giroux’s worldview and goals were thoroughly Marxist.
At the same time, perhaps the shift in emphasis and tactics that comes from the Postmodernists is sufficient to classify them as something new and distinct from Marxism. For one thing, Classical Marxists were convinced that economic relationships were the essential features that would shape the thinking of everyone in a given political economy and spell the death of capitalism in due course. Though the Neo-Marxists moved away from this exclusive focus on economics, there was always the sense that they were just figuring out who the true oppressors and oppressed were in Marx’s narrative. The Postmodern views regarding the exercise of cultural power meant that they went on to critique all narratives, including Marx’s.
Furthermore, by the time characters like Giroux come onto the scene, there is an explicit rejection of the strategy of forming new communist institutions that would replace those of liberal democracies. The idea by this point was not to overthrow the existing system, but to use the levers of power within it to bring about the desired social changes. This represents a departure from the methods that were favored by Marxists of all stripes.
Lastly, it’s often said that Marx and his followers were advocates of reason who thought they had identified a scientific method for predicting history. The postmodern leftists like Giroux don’t even pretend to be advocates of reason anymore, instead they advocate for some variant of critical consciousness—seeing the world in the “correct” way and engaging in activities that bring about social change. The idea is that having a critical consciousness is the only reasonable way to look at the world, so students don’t need to be taught how to reason, they need to be given a critical consciousness.
In a sense, the term “Post-Marxist” provides a certain amount of strategic cover as well. It allows someone like Giroux to criticize communist regimes, without criticizing underlying ideas. This allows Giroux to reject the outcomes of communism while holding to the ideals of communism tighter than ever. Tamer methods along with the rebranding into “Post-Marxist” have allowed the modern left to fly under the radar without raising any of the red flags traditionally associated with card-carrying Marxists (though fewer and fewer people seem to care that avowed Marxists are seeking and gaining positions of power).
In my view, the distinction is irrelevant. Whatever you call this set of ideas that germinated under Giroux and his contemporaries, it is at least as bad (and arguably worse) than Marxism because it retains the fundamental assumptions that make Marxism so awful. Politics was always primary for Marx, not economics and not reason. He was motivated by a sort of “curdled envy” for the class of people who owned capital and land because he saw them as those who had unjustly seized control of the world. Then he dressed up his hatred with accoutrements from economics and ultimately redefined reason as coming to see how the dialectic would inevitably progress towards the destruction of capitalism and the formation of communism (basically “reason” was agreeing with him). The Postmodernists are just the next logical step—curdled envy not just for owners of capital and land, but for anyone who could be seen as having privilege of any sort.
In podcasts from early 2023, James Lindsay gave several talks in which he discusses the concept of “gnosis” or “gnostic epistemology” as the principle that unifies both Marxism and Post-Marxism (as well as dozens of other philosophies and religions).6 I think this idea of a shared (and thoroughly corrupt) view of knowledge may be the fundamental aspect that links Marxists with the Post-Marxists, who, coincidentally, just happen to share all the same political goals.
Culture/Cultures
Motte
An aspect of a group of people defined by a set of shared customs, values, institutions, and/or creative achievements.
Bailey
The group that defines the individuals who comprise it via customs, values, race, gender, sexuality etc. It is the cultural experience that defines a group of people (and hence the individuals in that group) as either oppressed or oppressor.
Strategy
Giroux’s use of the concept of culture is often incoherent and deliberately contradictory because the idea is not intended to explain any observed phenomena about individuals or societies. It is intended to provide a framework that allows nearly any institution, action, or characteristic to be part of a society that is systemically oppressive. Furthermore, the use of cultural critique as a proxy for engaging with individual arguments acts as a continual ad hominem argument that is portrayed as the pinnacle of insight rather than logical fallacy it is.
Since these methods of defining and critiquing cultures have no rules of proof or logic, the use of them in this incarnation of the oppression narrative ranges from obscure nitpicks, like trying to ban the term “blacklisting,” to blatant stereotypes like, the idea that the promiscuity in homosexual bathhouses is an essential part of gay culture. However, a few patterns do emerge: first, traits that allow an individual to be successful will often be framed as a part of the “oppressive culture.” An example would be the claim that “punctuality is part of white supremacy culture.”[REF] Generally the purpose here is to attribute some or all of the success of a given individual to the fact that he is adhering to, and participating in, the oppressive culture. In other words, he isn’t successful because of his individual merits, he’s successful because he’s playing his role in keeping other people down. Second, as many difficulties and struggles as possible are framed as a result of one’s culture being oppressed. For example, framing the firing of an individual as resulting from his or her noncompliance with cultural norms for hair, dress, etc.
The underlying idea is that there is a form of cultural determinism, which, at minimum, stacks the deck against those outside the dominant culture, and, at worst, makes success outright impossible. This perspective has the bonus of explaining away exceptions to these patterns by arguing that members of oppressed cultures can find success if they adopt the characteristics of the dominant, oppressive culture. For example, by playing the game and getting on board with “white supremacy culture,” black or brown people can be very successful. For this, people who find success but do not conform to the ideology of Critical Social Justice are to be reviled, not admired or emulated—thus the “logic” of the claim that a man like Larry Elder is “black face of white supremacy.”7
Seize the Motte and Bomb the Bailey
When evaluating any culture, we have to be open to the idea that there will be aspects that may benefit or hinder its members. We should not expect that, in the absence of any sort of oppression, all cultures will have the same degree of success. Some cultures are more successful than others for reasons that have nothing to do with oppression. Rejecting, or even condemning the values of a particular culture does not constitute oppression of that culture. Engaging, or incorporating the values of another culture does not constitute a desire to obliterate it. It is possible and desirable for different cultures to interact with one another, to exchange with one another, and to change as a result of those interactions without some form of oppression occurring.
Struggle
Motte
The push to overcome obstacles in the way of achieving one’s goals or happiness. Generally, it is through this process that people improve themselves, and how they can attain their goals. In this sense, “struggle” can be thought of as the more difficult aspect of an overall process of self-improvement.
Bailey
The process by which one attains an awakened (Critical Marxist) consciousness and then attempts to move society towards the Marxist utopia.
Strategy
This Marxist distortion goes back to Mao and The Cultural Revolution. The idea is to equate the idea of overcoming adversity and hardship with becoming a Marxist. Giroux frequently refers to something like “the struggle of oppressed cultures to achieve social change.” This seems reasonable and admirable enough, indeed this was the arc of the Civil Rights Movement, but what he really wants is for those “oppressed cultures” that have been spun into existence to see themselves as unified in a struggle in which they (or more accurately their thought leaders…like Giroux who see the world correctly) push for their Marxist social changes. Put another way, “struggle” means changing your mind so you agree with Critical Marxist prescriptions. In this sense, those guilty of wrongthink or an insufficient show of deference to the enlightened can be “struggled” by those with an already awakened consciousness, such as the literal “struggle sessions” that are commonplace in today’s DEI workshops.8
Seize the Motte and Bomb the Bailey
It is essential to strip any sort of nobility from the term “struggle” when it is used by Marxists. The struggles against genuine injustice and tyranny are some of the most inspiring and heroic stories in human history. We must not give Marxists any share in that glory. When they talk about their Marxist “struggle” we must clearly identify that what they really want is uniformity of thought and unbending loyalty to the Marxist worldview. Remind people that Marxist “struggles” were applied routinely in Chinese thought reform prisons with horrific results. It’s the wretch in the prison, not the overcoming hero that Marxists seek through their “struggle.”
Citizen
Motte
An individual who resides within the borders of and is subject to the laws of a sovereign nation. Depending on the nation, this can carry certain privileges or responsibilities.
Bailey
An individual who struggles to transform his society into a socialist/communist utopia through the society's existing institutions and public arena.
Strategy
Giroux's framework largely rejects the use of people as "revolutionaries," instead opting to think of them as "citizens." This provides several advantages and new angles of attack. Rhetorically, it is significantly less inflammatory. While Giroux's goals are no less radical than the Marxists who came before him, it gives more cover to advocate for "democratic citizens" rather than some sort of Marxist revolutionary spirit, as his predecessors would have done. Tactically, it reflects Giroux's instruction to "act within the public sphere" instead of acting to overturn it. It's through participating as citizens that the next generation of Marxists will ultimately bring about the changes they desire to see. Strategically, it lays the groundwork for the claim that only those who have a Marxist, critical consciousness are fit citizens, and thus, only their voices should be heard when deciding on social policy. Ultimately, the purpose of this concept of citizen is to devalue and dehumanize those of us who do not agree with or follow the Marxist prescriptions. It's very likely that Giroux's concept of the "citizen" was influenced by the idea of "global citizen" that became prominent in the 20th century. 9
Seize the Motte and Bomb the Bailey
Classifying a person as a “citizen” is a way of expressing the relationship between an individual and his government. When saying that X person is a citizen of Y nation, we are attempting to identify the nature of the government's power over, and obligations to, the individual as well as the individual's rights and responsibilities to the nation he lives in. We are not saying anything about the individual's thought process, ethical convictions, or political orientation. To claim to know such things based only on a person's citizenship would be a gross oversimplification in and of itself, but to define citizenship in terms of such things should be rightfully seen as an attempt to unperson those who don't share a particular political ideology. Giroux might argue that finding a critical consciousness and ensuring the next generation does as well is just one of the responsibilities a citizen has to his nation and society. If that is what they argue, then what they want is nothing less than totalitarian thought control, and that must be clearly identified. Perhaps this is not so surprising given the nature of Ibram X. Kendi’s proposed “Anti-Racist Amendment” to the Constitution.10
Questions
Where Does Dewey Fit In?
This chapter is the first time that John Dewey is referenced as an influence on The Critical Turn. It seems that Giroux’s engagement with the public sphere was inspired, in part, by his reading of Dewey. Until Giroux, Dewey’s Progressive Education represented a large part of the “status quo” that Marxist educators had set themselves against. I suspect that Giroux performed some sort of “dialectical synthesis” that Marxists are so fond of between Freire’s and Dewey’s methods and philosophies, so I would be very curious to understand more about what Critical Pedagogy took from Progressive Education and what it rejected.
What Do They Think Marxism Is?
I’d always thought that the use of terms like “Post-Marxist” was a cynical attempt by Western Marxist intellectuals to distance themselves from the atrocities committed by Marxist governments in the 20th century (an attempt that has found a great deal of success among the useful idiots who continually carry water for the left). However, even in this book, written by a leftist, for other leftists, he repeatedly makes the distinction. Sure, no modern leftist looks at the Soviet Gulags or the Great Leap Forward and thinks, “Yep. That’s what I had in mind,” at least not openly. But, the standard reply from the left has always been, “but that wasn’t true Marxism.” Why the change? It makes me wonder what they think the essence of Marxism is. Was Gramsci actually a Marxist? He focused on culture as primary, not economics. Was the Frankfurt School (Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Fromm, etc) Marxist? They focused on societal and cultural critique, not proletarian revolution. So where exactly do these people draw the line? Why was Giroux Post-Marxist, but the Cultural and Neo-Marxists weren’t?
Oppressed by Existence
At every step in the Critical Turn, the scope of what they define as “oppression” or “oppressive” has widened. This trend has continued to this day where we have the products of Critical Pedagogy pedaling new ways in which they or others are oppressed in a way that makes the “Don’t you oppress me!” scene from Life of Brian look positively banal. It made me wonder if the originators of these ideas recognized a distinction between oppression by man-made forces and hardship imposed by nature. Do they see a difference between needing to work because a slave overseer forces you to work and needing to work because obtaining things like food and shelter actually requires effort—even in the absence of oppression? James Lindsay’s recent inquiry into the gnostic epistemology that governs Marxist thinking makes me suspect that this perspective is a feature of their thinking rather than a bug.
Cultivating Gnosis?
The more of these ideas that I read and the more analysis I listen to, I find my thoughts starting to coalesce around the idea that the purpose of Critical Pedagogy is to shape a person’s mind to operate on gnosis rather than knowledge. This is probably a far deeper topic than Critical Pedagogy alone, but the short version is that gnosis is a form of unquestionable, revealed knowledge that those with the right type of consciousness have access to. The nature who gets that authority and why changes depending on the situation, but this would explain why there is so much overlap between the Climate Catastrophists, the Social Justice Left, and the Branch Covidians, and why all seem nearly impervious to evidence and incapable of engaging with arguments against their positions.
Gottesman, Isaac H. The critical turn in education: from Marxist critique to poststructuralist feminism to critical theories of race. p. 74 New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016.
James Lindsay has made this references in numerous podcasts, and in his analysis of Freire on the New Discourses website: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-freirean/
Engels, Friedrich, and Henry Kuhn. The Revolutionary Act. Military Insurrection or Political and Economic Action? ... Translated by Henry Kuhn, Etc.. with Portrait. Labor News Co.: New York, 1922.
Accessed via: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/intro.htm
Joshua Slocum takes a close look at this process in action in his show, Disaffected, the episode “A Child Shall Lead Them.”
Multiple sources have made the claim that widespread reporting of the Hunter Biden laptop story and the documented connections to influence pedaling and associations with the CCP would have changed the outcome of the 2020 election. While this is difficult to know for sure, we do now know that there was a widespread effort among many media organizations to characterize the story as “Russian Misinformation.” A claim that quietly went away as more and more of these organizations admit the story was real.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunter-bidens-laptop-and-americas-crisis-of-accountability-nyt-new-york-post-media-allegations-political-connections-11647872692
https://newdiscourses.com/2023/02/gnosticism-in-the-modern-west/
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-20/recall-candidate-larry-elder-is-a-threat-to-black-californians
A basic agenda for a DEI workshop can be found here:
https://theexecutivelearninglab.com/dei-workshops
The parallels to a struggle session are outlined in James Lindsay’s podcast: Surviving a Modern Struggle Session:
https://newdiscourses.com/2022/12/surviving-a-modern-struggle-session/
https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/global-citizenship-new-and-vital-force#:~:text=It%20was%20adopted%20by%20all,cleansing%20and%20crimes%20against%20humanity.
Under Kendi’s proposal, the Department of Antiracism would have totalitarian-level decision making power in nearly every area of American life and Politics.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/inequality/pass-an-anti-racist-constitutional-amendment/