Search the Community

I will begin with the question and provide the backstory. The question is: Given my background and the evidence I have, how can I embark on a campaign to spur students at my former college into demanding an end to their curriculum's corrupt diversity and ethnic studies requirements? Now, time for a story. Remember back in 2015 when Ben Shapiro went to go speak at a little college in Southern California named Cal-State LA, and a bunch of leftist bastards attacked the innocent students who wanted to hear him speak, barred the doors, and essentially deprived those innocent students of their 1st amendment rights? Well, those leftist bastards were my friends. I'm Fernando. I attended Cal State LA (California State University - Los Angeles) from Aug. 2012 to Jun. 2014. In my first year there, I got involved with a group called "Students for Quality Education." If you were to walk along the campus "free speech zone" on any one afternoon during the school year, those guys handing out flyers about ostensibly fighting unjust tuition hikes will tell you that their organization (SQE) is all about organizing the student body to mobilize against overreach and graft at the administrative level of the university, and ensure student success by protesting unfair legislative and administrative initiatives that threaten the "quality of education," maybe even citing that teachers' teaching conditions are student learning conditions or some crap like that. I believed this crap too, and I even spoke on behalf of SQE at a rally in 2013 when Old Moonbeam Gerry Brown decided to push his "unit cap" agenda onto the school system (in short, unit caps made it so that after a student took a certain amount of classes, if they didn't graduate, their tuition doubled because the state no longer subsidized it). I gave a hilariously misunderstood speech about political manipulations of the student body to ransom tax money out of regular citizens, warning the citizens that they should not vote for any new taxes and instead sign our little petitions to tell their local representatives that they would be out of a job if they continued to support this budget, and it went RIGHT over every little leftist's head in the audience. One dipshit can even be heard squaking at the end, "We have to raise the property taaaaax!!!" Youtube: Now, SQE is actually sponsored and paid for by the teachers' union, The California Faculty Association. They give the resources and the orders to SQE to mobilize the students towards a particular cause, and SQE follows their orders, but makes it seem like it's an independent group of students acting of their own accord. The California Faculty Association's chapter in Cal State LA is run by a set of professors (at least three of which are outspoken Cultural Marxists) who chair various departments in the university. https://www.calfac.org/los-angeles-executive-board Now, let's direct our attention to one name on that list, Dr. Melina Abdullah. Dr. Abdullah was the chair of the Pan African Studies department at CSULA. Dr. Abdullah is also an outspoken member (middle management) of Black Lives Matter. Now, here's the budget for the Pan African Studies department For Year 2013-2014: (http://www.calstatela.edu/sites/default/files/groups/Budget Administration/2013_14/ye_vpaa.pdf) line 201750, $393,926 expended, $280,389 available. At around this time, the unit cap proposal was long behind SQE, and orders came "from the top" (from the CSULA teacher's union run by this "lady") to begin a campaign to demand ethnic studies in higher education so as to assuage racial violence in our society (right out of a George Soros playbook). Dr. Abdullah rallied ALL of the on-campus activist organizations, among others, Black student organizations, SURGE (representing undocumented Hispanic students), the Muslim Student's Association, and of course, SQE as her administrators and enforcers. I sat at the meeting and listened to Dr. Abdullah rant about racial violence, apathy, and then I heard her say something extremely significant. She mentioned that the university administration was thinking of cutting the Pan African studies department because it had more teachers than students in the major. For reference, here are the university's demographics: https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/california-state-university-los-angeles/student-life/diversity/ So, in short, Dr. Abdullah (and I have no problem publicly charging her with this) mobilized on-campus student groups as brown-shirts to foment a false narrative of racial injustice among the student body and the university administration so as to guarantee her own job security by facilitate a vote imposing a requirement on CSULA students that, among other diversity requirements, each student is required to take an ethnic studies course specifically within an ethnic studies department in order to be able to graduate from college. This is significant because such legislation would guarantee her job in the face of an administration who would be seeking to eliminate it due to its redundancy. At this point, I distanced myself from the organization because I personally was against the movement. Imposing even more requirements on already overburdened students did not strike me as activities protecting the quality of student education However, they were still my friends (and I was still misguided), so I didn't stand up against them. When Ben Shapiro was invited on campus, it was this very "ethnic studies coalition," my old friends and colleagues, who were ordered by Dr. Abdullah and her ilk to attack innocent students and publicly shame and excoriate anyone who dared attempt to attend Shapiro's lecture. http://abc7.com/news/ben-shapiro-escorted-from-csula-due-to-angry-protesters/1219358/ I publicly disavowed my former colleagues' actions on facebook (I had already graduated a year prior) and told them that their actions were not helping race relations, but rather destroying 1st amendment protections for students whose interests they ostensibly claimed to protect. Not only that, I publicly called them out for outright attacking innocent students whom they, again, ostensibly claimed to be advocating for! What was the reaction? I was called a privileged scumbag with my blue eyes and light skin, and I had no right to relay to these exalted people of color any perspective on their experience (this is basically verbatim). At that point, I cut ties. And about the ethnic studies requirements that got passed in June of 2014? What was the effect? Here is the CSULA budget for the next two fiscal years: 2014-2015: http://www.calstatela.edu/sites/default/files/groups/Budget Administration/2014_15/ye_vpaa.pdf Line 201750, $619,419 expended, $425,912 available 2015-2016: http://www.calstatela.edu/sites/default/files/groups/Budget Administration/2015_16/ye1516_aa.pdf Line 201750, $819,767 expended, $95,374 available (I guess there was a cut!) As one can see, my friends who sold their souls, and those innocents who bled in their indignity, the reason they suffered was primarily for Dr. Abdullah's job security. And given that her budget is almost running dry, it might just be time for another rush of "racial awareness campaigns." Not on my watch. I felt horrible being impotent in my unemployed depression while witnessing this going on. Now, with resources at my disposal, I feel like I can do something about it. It's too late to expose Dr. Abdullah; she's too powerful and the university too far invested in her scheme for any exposure to have an effect other than empty virtue signalling. But I don't think it's ever too late to take down the diversity requirements and to expose the truth behind them. Our country is no more racially united than it was before these stupid requirements. We don't see these leftist bastards cheering about how their campaigns are bringing about racial unity. In fact, they claim the opposite, that race relations are worsening, and thus their presence and activities are ergo ever more necessary. I want to stand up and do something to put my old colleagues in their place, but I'm not sure how to go about it. Maybe some of you have some ideas as to how to do this? I've e-mailed this to Ben Shapiro and received no response (probably because his show and his inbox are WAY bigger than this one incident ), but any ideas are appreciated. Reference: CSULA Budgets (https://www.calstatela.edu/budget/year-end-reports) - check under "academic affairs"

I have been reading about the identitarian groups in europe and their fight. Briefly on how they see things: * The socialists took power by first winning what they call meta-politics (everything in society besides politics), by activism, pushing their views in the face of people, slowly taking control of the culture, later the media and government. * The old right have (as Stefan also points out) used the same failed method: "the best argument will always win". Problem is that most problem can't think critical, the best arguments don't win. * And the old right have been trying to please the left. When the left went crazy, the right backed out and gave up. The left keep repeating this until they win. These old right-wingers are also known as cuckservatives. * The last 10-15 years the right wing battle in europe has been fought by the lower class (often people impacted by the problems of middle eastern immigration in europe), but these people have poor argumentation skills, are "uncool" and can't start a counter culture. * The new rights strategy, use the cultural marxist strategy (activism, make fun of their opinions in public, shaming, expelling them, build our own medias and communities, produce our own culture etc.) except for their bad strategies (violence and lying). And don't compromise with the left when they start whining, ignore them. What do you guys think about it, can the right-wing win meta-politics? I think it's very interesting to see the Identitarians work. Check out Martin Sellner's videos. Hint hint: Stefan should do an interview with him.

"Gough Whitlam must be turning in his grave. The Great Man dedicated his life to the principles of the Age of Enlightenment: that rational, evidence-based argument could create a better and fairer society. Not only is the post-structuralist agenda anti-reason, anti-science and anti-family, it is also anti-education." From reason to radicalism: Gender fluidity May 30, 2016 11:30pm Mark Latham The Daily Telegraph The more I research the BRR and Safe Schools programs, the more bewildered I am as to how Labor leaders like Bill Shorten and Daniel Andrews endorsed this rubbish, says Mark Latham. WHEN John Maynard Keynes declared “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler a few years back”, he knew what he was talking about. The craziest trend in Australian politics is to teach Neo-Marxist genderless programs in our schools through the Orwellian-named Safe Schools and Building Respectful Relationships (BRR) curriculum. Even though Australian students are falling down the international league tables in maths, science and English, teachers are devoting class-time to the mechanics of breast-binding and penis-tucking. As Keynes envisaged, the thinking behind this madness is distilled from an academic scribbler a few years back. BRR’s author, Debbie Ollis from Deakin University, has attributed the intellectual inspiration for the program to a “post-structural understanding of gender construction”, drawing on the work of a Welsh academic Christine Weedon in her book Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. To understand what’s happening in today’s Labor Party and its attitude to education, Weedon’s tome is compulsory reading. I got my copy last week from the NSW State Library and was spellbound by its contents. Parents deserve to know where the Safe Schools and BRR philosophy comes from, and Weedon brazenly sets out the ideology behind these new teaching materials. Post-structuralism argues for a different way of looking at society, especially in understanding the nature of knowledge and learning. Since the rise of the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, people have applied reason, rationality and observable truths in trying to build a better life. Weedon regards this process as inherently misleading. She thinks that from our first moments alive, we are brainwashed into accepting the social order around us. Governments, schools, churches, the media, popular culture and even fashion trends combine to reinforce the “power relations” and dominance of capitalism. The things we know from observing nature and studying science are dismissed as “biological determinism”. Former Labor leader Mark Latham /. Picture: Ian Currie So too notions of truth, commonsense and life-experience are disparaged as “historical constructs” — delivering “false consciousness” and tricking people into a misunderstanding of their best interests. For Weedon, the process of social conditioning denies its “own partiality”. “It fails to acknowledge that it is but one possible version of meaning, rather than ‘truth’ itself and that it represents particular (political) interests.” For instance, growing up with two straight parents is said to “lead to the acquisition by children of a heterosexual gendered identity”. Weedon writes of how: “For young girls, the acquisition of femininity involves a recognition that they are already castrated like their mother”, forcing them to submit to patriarchy, or male dominance. No one is immune from the process of false gender identity. Individuals are said to be “sexual beings from birth”, reflected in the “initial bisexuality of the child”. This is the kind of thinking behind the Start Early program developed by Early Childhood Australia (ECA), which teaches childcare and preschool infants about sexuality, cross-dressing and the opposite sex’s toilets. An ECA spokeswoman has said that, “(young) children are sexual beings, it’s a strong part of their identity’’. Most parents would be horrified by this stance but it’s become commonplace in the Australian education system. Having lost the battle for economic and foreign policy in the 1980s, Neo-Marxists embarked on a long march through the institutions of the public sector, especially universities and schools. Indoctrination programs like Safe Schools, BRR and Start Early are the inevitable result. This breaks the longstanding, bipartisan practice in Australian politics of keeping ideology out of schools. The purpose of a quality education has been to equip young people with the knowledge and vocational skills of a civilised society. If graduating students wish to pursue social and political change, they can do so through the democratic process in their adult years. Education has been relatively free from ideological indoctrination. But this is not the view of the new curriculum designers, with Ollis depicting schools as “in a unique position to educate for social change”. Weedon also said she wants to engineer an androgynous “ungendered” society through classroom tutoring. The other key Leftist battleground is for the control of language. Inspired by French post-structuralist Michel Foucault, Weedon writes, “If language is the site where meaningful experience is constituted (in capitalist societies) then language also determines how we perceive possibilities of change”. This is why Safe Schools seeks to eradicate the use of terms like “his and her” and “boys and girls”. It believes genderless language will produce a genderless generation of young Australians, self-selecting their sexuality as a fluid identity. Political correctness is not an accident, a random form of censorship. It’s a carefully targeted campaign designed to outlaw the language of observable facts in the discussion of race, gender and sexuality. For every commonsense ­aspect of life, there’s a PC push to eliminate identity differences. Weedon writes of how the “dominant meanings of language” force boys and girls “to differentiate between pink and blue and to understand their social connotations”. “Little girls should look pretty and be compliant and helpful, while boys should be adventurous, assertive and tough … (shaping) their future social destinations within a patriarchal society”. This pink/blue phobia is the basis of the Leftist ‘‘No Gender December’’ campaign, trying to outlaw gender-specific toys each year at Christmas. The more I research the BRR and Safe Schools programs, the more bewildered I am as to how Labor leaders like Bill Shorten and Daniel Andrews endorsed this rubbish. Gough Whitlam must be turning in his grave. The Great Man dedicated his life to the principles of the Age of Enlightenment: that rational, evidence-based argument could create a better and fairer society. Not only is the post-structuralist agenda anti-reason, anti-science and anti-family, it is also anti-education. It wants to abandon the conventional process of learning through known facts and universally established truths, creating a borderless world of genderless individuals. Australia’s political leaders are sleepwalking into an educational disaster. As parents we need to make our views known to election candidates and school leaders alike. Anyone who has researched this issue will know we are fighting for the future of our civilisation. Source http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/from-reason-to-radicalism-gender-fluidity/news-story/832eb330f1e68c0af8ab37521dc402d7#load-story-comments

https://www.gofundme.com/gb3mvqm4 A fat, black woman wants to go Sedona to get her yogi certification and raises thousands of dollars. A fit, white man wants to produce a video promoting universal genital integrity, and can't raise a hundred dollars for a used camera.