“Black Kidnappers Matter”

The title mocks Ricky’s narration of how the police handle the arrest of Amber Neal.

The story in this clip is not that the woman is getting arrested at gunpoint by LAPD. The story in this video is the commentary from Ricky, the owner of the video.  The woman being arrested is Amber Neal, one of three suspects who kidnapped two people back in May 2017.

The Associated Press writes

LOS ANGELES — Three suspects were charged Tuesday with kidnapping two people from a Los Angeles home and holding one of them naked in a bathtub for 30 hours while demanding the other pay a $10,000 ransom, prosecutors said.

Keith Andre Stewart, Johntae Jones, and Amber Neal were charged with kidnapping, assault with a firearm and other offense in connection with the May 3 incident. It was not immediately clear whether they had attorneys who could comment on the allegations.

Who did they kidnap?  Daisy McCrackin and Joseph Capone.  


Neal’s arrest at gunpoint by Los Angeles police officers on Monday was captured on video by a bystander and had been viewed more than 2.4 million times on Twitter. It wasn’t immediately known when the others were taken into custody.


Prosecutors allege the trio went to Daisy McCrackin’s home in South Los Angeles on May 3, where they say Stewart pistol-whipped a man who was in the home, Joseph Capone. The three then placed bags over the two victims’ heads and drove them several miles to Jones’ home in Compton, prosecutors said.

Once they were at Jones’ home, the suspects forced Capone to strip naked and then held him in a bathtub for 30 hours without food, prosecutors allege.

Investigators said Jones and Neal then took McCrackin’s car and drove her to several different banks while demanding she pay $10,000 for Capone’s release. Eventually, she was forced to write a $10,000 check to Neal, prosecutors said.

The next day, they brought McCrackin — an actress who has appeared in several films, including the horror flick “Halloween: Resurrection” — back to her home, where she escaped from them and called police, authorities said.

Jones and Neil were being held on $1 million each, and Steward was being held on more than $2 million bail, according to prosecutors. If convicted, they each potentially face sentences of up to life in prison.

In his “Black Kidnappers Matter,” Robert Wenzel made a great point–that Ricky immediately assigns aggression to the police because Amber Neal is unarmed.  And so he blames the police first without knowing the facts.  That is Cultural Marxism in action, where after a few years’ long of media race coverage has yielded blame on police first before facts come to light.  This is pre-crime in reverse . . . for certain groups.  And this type of thinking is the direct result of Cultural Marxism to soften judgment on one group while condemning another.  Amber Neal is a violent thug.

This is a typical case of cultural Marxism on display. Without any knowledge of the facts, it is deemed inappropriate for coppers to show firepower against a black, when in fact this woman is alleged to be a serious, violent, violator of the non-aggression principle.


Using anti-fascism, anti-racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism, Cultural Marxists work to destroy white, male, Christian and traditional moral values

from the Tom Woods Show.

  1. Cultural Marxism is not a form of Marxism.
  2. Cultural Marxism is a term of derision from critics of the Frankfurt School, mostly on the inter-war right.
  3. The Frankfurt School would not have rejected this term; they would have been quite happy until their enemies describe them as cultural Marxists.
  4. Cultural Marxists were unacceptable to real Marxists and certainly to communist regimes.
  5. After the Nazis came to power in Europe, George Lukacs went into the SU and changed his theories considerably the destruction of reason, straight Marxism/Leninism and made effort not to sound like a member of the Frankfurt school. He was not a historical materialist the way Marx was. 

Can still use the term descriptively but not as a category of Marxism. 

4:40 Frankfurt School.

1920s organized in Frankfurt, around the friends of Max Horkheimer. Most important collaborator was Theodor Adorno.  Like Horkheimer spends the WWII in the US.  Frankfurt tries to combine Marxism and critique of cap9italism with its own brand of Freudian psychology.  The critique of capitalism which Frankfurt school puts together under the influence of Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Erich Fromme famous author of Escape From Freedom [here’s a summary] that fuses their interpretation of Freudian psychology with Marxists materialist understanding of history and his critique of capitalism, a kind of shotgun wedding, a mashes of these forces.  They produce neither Marxism nor Freudian psychology. Freud was extremely critical of what they cultural Marxists do. 

They go off in 2 different directions: one direction sought to get rid of sexual repression.  Wilhelm Reich, proper sexual orgasms to some extent with Marcuse, polymorphic sexuality being repressed under capitalism but not under Stalinism.  True, Marcuse told me [Gottfried] this.  Soviets were moving to overcome sexual repression I suppose by putting people in concentration camps. 

The other direction in which this moves is toward anti-fascism.  Seeing fascism as a product of both an irrational economic system and the organization of the family in a repressive manner, one that represses homo urges, women put in submissive positions relative to men.  Also stressed anti-Semitism, as part of an irrational system of capitalism and sexual repression.  Ultimately it’s a package of bad things they’re trying to overcome: anti-Semitism, sexism, homophobia, and capitalism.   They all sort of form a package.  People who emphasize sexual liberation are usually a bit different from the ones who stress anti-fascism and anti-Semitism though they do make a group, they tend to work together as a school. 

After 1933, they come to the United States.  They set themselves up at Columbia and they stay there until after the Second World War.  In the United States, the Frankfurt school leaders, Adorno, Horkheimer, produce the work studies in prejudice, paid for by the American Jewish Committee [or AJC], which also puts out Commentary Magazine.  The most important volume is the Authoritarian Personality, [published in] 1950, and that is quoted by social psychologists.  Adorno and Horkheimer come up with their own F [meaning Fascism] scale to determine which employee has a fascist authoritarian personality.  One of the enduring legacies of the Frankfurt school in the United States.  During the Cold War, anticommunism becomes associated with fascist authoritarian personality.  This is a common leftist criticism that comes out of the Frankfurt School.  Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, and Helph were sympathetic to the soviet union than to their American host.  The antifascist that we’re still dealing with and is more virulent comes out of the Frankfurt School and typically linked to racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism.  Part of the legacy of the Frankfurt School.  They were sent back to Germany by the American occupation who wants to re-educate the Germans.  Horkheimer gets a position at Frankfurt and invited Adorno, address the residues of the fascist, authoritarian personality established in Nazi Germany as well as the US.  In the United States, the authors of the Authoritarian Personality, are not considered works of the radical Left.  They are paid for by Commentary Magazine, an anti-communist, liberal magazine.  Also Zionist.  They’re also praised by Seymour Lipset.  They’re right about the authoritarian personality but they should apply it to the Soviets as well as the fascists and the far-right in the United States.  So there were attempts by Cold War liberals to integrate the authoritarian personality to their leftist or liberal form of anti-communism. 

Woods:  Okay, so a lot of what you just said really does have its roots in Cultural Marxism.  We have people hysterically worried about fascism.  Of all the things to be worried about.  They’re worried about an extreme right-wing that is unbelievably marginalized with no institutional or financial support to speak of, they want to demonize people by calling them anti-semites, racists, and so forth.  They probably have a more exaggerated view of sexism than the Frankfurt School had.  So it’s not conspiratorial or an odd quirk of ours to note certain similarities here. 

Gottfried:  13:33.  No, you’re absolutely right.  what we have here is a continuation and a deepening and intensification of the Frankfurt school ideology.  The second generation of the Frankfurt School represented by Jürgen Habermas is much more radical than the first.  It’s radical in certain ways.  It’s violently anti-Germany, in the case of Germany.  The entire course of Germany history is seen as moving psychologically and culturally toward in the direction of Nazism. The terrors and the taint of Nazism have not been fully removed no matter what you do.  It requires constant social engineering.  And in the case of the United States, we’ve taken over Frankfurt School ideas but we’ve carried them well beyond what the Frankfurt School envisaged.  They were not looking for gay marriage.  They were not looking for transgendered bathrooms.  Many of these weird ideas have become part of Conservative, Inc. you know they buy into them because they don’t want to have to fight the Left over them.  So it’s not only that the Frankfurt School persists in our society but in some ways, it has become even more radicalized.

Woods:  14:57.  What’s the endgame that they’re seeking?  And in many ways, that’s an unfair question because there’s never an end with these folks.  But let’s imagine that they could read what’s at least the goal they’re moving toward?

Gottfried:  15:10.   Total eradication of white Christian, male society as it has existed up until now in the western world.  Now they don’t seem to be particularly concerned with fighting Muslim homophobia or Hindu misogyny or whatever.  All of their anger is directed toward the white Bougeouis west.  And I think they will not be happy until they have totally destroyed or reconstructed the society that they’re constantly attacking.  But the direction from which they’re coming is no longer from a traditional Marxist socialist direction.  It is a radicalized cultural Marxist direction. 

Woods: 16:10 now you say this as someone who’s written numerous books on this subject, Someone who is widely published,  you speak numerous European languages,

Gottfried:  16:30.  Can they tell me anything that would refute what I just said?  Is there anything which the cultural left establishment is doing that would suggest that he is wrong?  Everything they do seems to tend in one direction.  Sort of a nihilistic direction.  And they also bully.  It’s not just random bullying.  They bully people who are seen as representing the culture or the civilization they’re trying to destroy.  Or the family structure they’re trying to destroy.  It’s not just that they’re concerned with poor women who are carrying unwanted embryos that were planted by men who raped them or something.  They’re quite happy to have women destroy their infants up until the moment they come out of the birth canal.  There’s an effort to destroy all traditional social morality as it’s existed in the Western world and just about everywhere else.  These are not random acts by the alt-scene to be directed toward a pre-meditated goal of some kind.  This would be my response to someone who said “They’re just being nice.  They’re just trying to liberate people.  They don’t form any gestalt.”  Yes they do. 

And they all seem to be moving in the same direction.  Even the attacks I read in the Conservative, Inc. press that this is just Marxism is nonsense and a deliberate obfuscation.  We are not dealing with the socialists of the 1950s. We’re dealing with something else.  Very often those people who are supportive of this nihilistic effort are corporate capitalists and internationalist businesses and so forth who do not think that they’ll be abolished.  And they won’t’ be abolished.  Crony capitalist will go on.  The primary interest of the cultural Marxists is destroying white Christian bourgeois civilization.  Everything else is secondary.  Including socialism.  Socialism is a means toward that end.  If they destroy the economy, they can destroy the culture. 

Woods:  19:28  Where and if the State comes into this.  We know that there is the therapeutic or administrative state.  In the absence of that though, it seems that a lot of this is being carried out through, at least ostensibly, private institutions.  Is this being done through pressure being exerted by private channels or the state? 

Gottfried: 20:10.  Yeah, it’s being done by both sides. I always make the invidious comparison between the present system of therapeutic administrative management and cultural Marxism with the Nazi state.   In the Nazi state, there were people anti-Semitic and anti-Polish trying to oppress groups people without the heavy hand of a centralized state  [20:41] this would not have resulted in the disaster that it did.  I have never claimed that if the state goes away all of these problems would vanish; they won’t. But I have argued that they would become less acute.  The universities are being pressured by the state to go after sexists to fight unwanted advances by males, to introduce Affirmative Action programs one way or the other.  And once you recruit groups, this will bring with its academic programs.  It is very hard to see the present situation without looking at state action or the actions of the deep state.  So I would not argue that these problems are going to vanish if the state goes away here or in Western Europe where the state performs similar actions.  But I would argue that these problems would probably become more serious without the intervention of the state. 

Woods: What if there was a complete defunding of higher education?

Gottfried:  Oh, that would be marvelous.  Oh, yes.  I agree.  Defunding of everything.  

Woods:  You see this is how . . . people talk about that we need to be more open, and reach out to people.  If I were to reach out to people on the Left, I would never get that kind of agreement.  Deist says I can’t find one area any more of life that I can confidently say that somebody on the Left would say “Yeah, certainly the State should not be involved in that.”

Gottfried:  22:56.  No.  BEcause they control the state.  And they’re achieving exactly the nihilistic and destructive goals that they intend to pursue, so there’s absolutely no reason that they’d want to pull the state out of any of this.  Now there are somethings they’d want to pull the state out of like giving money to some religious organization that is conservative, but on the whole, they’re very happy with state power.  And the conservative establishment really doesn’t mind either as long as the state makes wars that they favor.  And as long as it looks out for certain corporate capitalist interests that are giving the conservative movement money.  And they’re not against the state either.  Except for Paleo-Libertarians and some Paleo-Conservatives, there are very few political groups in the United States that oppose the group of the Therapeutic State.  [What is the Therapeutic State?  It’s a term taken from a book by Philip Reiff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith After Freud, 1987.

Most social commentators emphasize that the rise of a therapeutic worldview, grounded in psychological approaches to private and public life, redefined the understanding and conduct of political life during the last half of the twentieth century. For conservatives concerned with the growth and power of the state, the implications of therapeutic culture are especially important because the justifications and uses of state power have increasingly become therapeutic—the treatment or melioration of pathologies and assurance of citizens’ sense of well-being—rather than the protection of rights and liberties or the provision of support for conventional moral constraints and democratic conceptions of citizenship.

We can’t tolerate the right.  That’s going to undermine progressivism.  Even this is not a new thing; even that goes back to these folks.  Regressive tolerance.  That’s it.  I am leaving you on your own from the 24-minute mark onward.  

“These days we live in a world in which ‘diversity’ is the goal, rather than competence.”

by David Cole at Taki Magazine

Well, that is damned inconvenient. A state-of-the-art pedestrian bridge hailed as the inevitably wondrous result of diversity in engineering has collapsed within days of being paraded before the media. Did I say inconvenient? I should have said symbolic.

“Diversity Bridge” (that’s not the structure’s official name, but I think it fits) was designed to connect Florida International University to the city of Sweetwater, where many FIU students and staff reside. The bridge, installed (though not yet opened to the public) a mere four days before its failure, spanned a busy Miami highway, and the collapse crushed cars and people underneath. Authorities report at least six deaths.

Prior to pancaking, Diversity Bridge had been championed as “an engineering feat come to life.” One of the geniuses who accomplished this “feat” is an engineer who was hailed by President Obama in 2015 as a “champion of change”: Atorod Azizinamini, director of FIU’s Accelerated Bridge Construction Center (now renamed the Accelerated Bridge Destruction Center). The firm that built the bridge, Munilla Construction Management (MCM), is run by the Munilla brothers—Raul, Juan, Jorge, Lou, Fernando, and Pedro (is that a construction firm or the latest incarnation of Menudo?). And then we have Leonor Flores, MCM’s senior manager. On March 14, as Diversity Bridge was being installed, Flores was quoted in this breathless puff piece on the FIU website:

Twelve-year-old Michelle Flores shared a special moment with her family at FIU this past Saturday: She and her sister Gabriela joined their parents, FIU alumni Leonor and Henry Flores MIS ’01, to watch a 950-ton section of a pedestrian bridge swing into its permanent position across Southwest 8th Street. Leonor Flores ’98 is a project executive and one of 63 FIU alumni who work for MCM, the construction firm building the FIU-Sweetwater University City Bridge. She was excited to share her work with her family, especially Michelle, who is interested in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) in school. Said Leonor: “It’s very important for me as a woman and an engineer to be able to promote that to my daughter, because I think women have a different perspective. We’re able to put in an artistic touch and we’re able to build, too.”

She’s an artist, all right. That bridge became a pile of junk art that would have made Arman jealous.

“These days we live in a world in which ‘diversity’ is the goal, rather than competence.”

Needless to say, the day after the collapse, damage control needed to be done, and fast. The piece on the FIU website was updated (in bloodred letters, no less) to read: “To clarify, Leonor Flores did not work on the FIU-Sweetwater University City Bridge project in any capacity.” Funny, because in that very same piece the bridge is referred to as “her work.” On its Facebook page, MCM deleted tags with Flores’ name. Also deleted (but archived by me) was a March 8 post declaring: “A strong woman looks a challenge dead in the eye and gives it a wink. Thankful for all of our MCM women who help us overcome challenges every day and #BuildExcellence. #HappyInternationalWomensDay #WeAreMCM.”

A wink? Personally, I prefer engineers who keep both eyes open while looking at challenges.

To be clear, I’m not saying that bridge design is some kind of exclusively white male endeavor. To even suggest such a thing would be ridiculous. But these days we live in a world in which “diversity” is the goal, rather than competence. Who cares if a few bridges collapse? Do we really expect leftists, who still champion communism even after it cost a hundred million lives in the previous century, to worry about six dead motorists? 

Keep reading.  The last part about Willie Odom will put the issue into bold relieft if it isn’t already.

Frankfurt School in interwar Germany fuse[d] Marx’s . . . class struggle to a . . . Freudian-based vision of erotic pleasure.

h/t Lew Rockwell

No wonder communism has a peculiar appeal.

by Paul Gottfried

Franklin EinspruchA commentator in The Federalist, describes me as a “circumspect conservative” scholar who has written responsibly about Cultural Marxism.  I’m also deemed to be a conservative who agrees with other conservative critics of the Frankfurt School on the harmful effects of this group’s radical ideas. But I must part ways with Mr. Einspruch when he tells us: 

It’s plain fact that political correctness and multiculturalism derive from notions hailing from the Frankfurt School, which in turn took most of its cues from Karl Marx.

Although I can discern a connection between feminist attacks on inherited gender roles and Frankfurt School views on sexual liberation, I’d have to question whether the present war against Christian, bourgeois institutions can be traced back in any meaningful way to traditional Marxism.

Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer (my teacher), Herbert Marcuse and other members of the Frankfurt School in interwar Germany worked to fuse Marx’s theory of class struggle and the contradictions of capitalism with a Freudian-based vision of erotic pleasure. In this remarkable fusion, it is hard, at least for me, to recognize Marx’s socioeconomic critique. Marx was concerned about man’s alienation from his own work as a result of productive forces over which he had no control. The father of “scientific socialism” never focused on abetting sexual revolt or fighting the emotional repression created by sharp gender distinctions or the failure to give proper social recognition to homosexuals.         

Orthodox Marxists and Marxist Leninists from the 1920s on vigorously denounced the Frankfurt School and its exponents as social decadents posing as Marxist revolutionaries. Communist regimes would later engage in similar attacks on representatives and sympathizers of the Frankfurt school, such as the Hungarian radical literary figure Georg Lukacs.

They accused their targets of attack of subverting orderly human relations and would have nothing to do with their forced marriage of Marxism and eroticism. Not surprisingly, it was Communist regimes and Communist parties in post-World War II France and Italy that were among the harshest critics of what we now call “Cultural Marxists.” The term “Cultural Marxist” was meant to express derision for this sect; and Orthodox Marxists as well as the European Right seized on it to discredit the Frankfurt School.

In my studies I examine how Cultural Marxists acquired respectability in the U.S., once they set up shop here. They gained recognition for fighting fascism as a cultural and emotional danger and for advocating for a progressive democratic society. Since the Nazis were violently anti-Semitic and since most of the Frankfurt School’s representatives in the U.S. were Jewish, much of the School’s energies after 1933 were focused on “preventing” the eruption of anti-Jewish “prejudice” in their adopted land. But the School also castigated prejudice against other groups, such as blacks, social revolutionaries, homosexuals, and women who were revolting against what they viewed as the patriarchal family.

The best known English work written in this vein, The Authoritarian Personality (1950), an anthology of polemics warning against “prejudice” in American life, was sponsored by an emphatically liberal but also anti-Soviet sponsor, the American Jewish Committee. The same patrons also sponsored Commentary magazine. Among many others, distinguished sociologist Seymour Morton Lipset hailed TAP [The Authoritarian Personality] (and the series to which it belonged, Studies in Prejudice) as a blueprint for rebuilding American society. Contrary to what some may believe, Lipset was only slightly left of center politically. Even more interestingly, as cultural historian Christopher Lasch points out, Lipset praised the work spearheaded by Adorno in the U.S. as a means of fortifying the U.S. internally to fight Communism as well as the ideological vestiges of Nazism.

Despite the anti-Communist mood in the U.S. at the outset of the Cold War, in the 1950s an Americanized and mainstreamed form of Cultural Marxism made powerful inroads here. Leaders of the Frankfurt school were sent back to Germany by the American State Department to “reeducate” the former subjects of the Third Reich and to make them “good antifascists.” Meanwhile psychological tests were devised for private jobs, government employment, and educational institutions to determine the “f scores” of applicants (as indications of pro-fascist leanings). Equally noteworthy, Frankfurt School pioneers like Eric Fromm became popular authorities on psychological well-being and had their works distributed through Book of the Month clubs.

This was only the initial phase in an Americanizing process for Cultural Marxists that would continue down to the present. Since the 1960s a political and social struggle has been waged here and in other “liberal democracies” to empower disadvantaged minorities in the name of fairness and human rights. Here too the plans and proposals of The Authoritarian Personality are easily discernible: e.g., combatting through sustained political indoctrination antifeminist and homophobic prejudice and isolating the putative Christian poison that has infected the body social. These now familiar initiatives are driven not so much by the claim to be protecting us against mental sickness (although that too has been advanced) as they are by the themes of fairness and “fundamental rights.”

Even self-described conservatives now deplore the unwillingness of the Russian and Serbian governments to allow gay pride parades to take place in their cities, a civic event that I could hardly imagine having been encouraged in the America I grew up in sixty years ago. And I couldn’t imagine even the founders of the Frankfurt School going quite so far in their embrace of “gay rights” as to welcome what we now hail as part of a new political consensus, including the affirmation of gay marriage as a human right and family value. These ideas are admittedly derivative from an older Cultural Marxism, but I can’t find anything here that I would pin specifically on Marx. 

Originally appeared at the American Thinker.

Victimized mentality . . . [is] a justification for the use of power.

With almost anything that Jordan Peterson says you will find some excellent insight on the multi-culturalist, social justice warrior mob’s violent mentality. In this short interview he does not disappoint. The parts that I am referring to is the 4:20 mark to the end where he points out that the victimized mentality that the angry, social justice often female teachers teach.  And these teachers get a pass because they are “passionate,” which I take as code for a willingness to crack a few eggs.  These schools are dangerous, so listen to Peterson . . .

Victimized mentality.  It’s a justification for the use of power.  If you’re a victim and you can ascribe moral superiority to yourself you can justify the use of force. 

Precursors to genocide—was an enhanced sense of victimization. That allows you to lash out at hypothetical perpetrators before they do anything because you’re being victimized.  You saw the same thing in Nazi Germany.  Hitler claimed the Jews were victimizing Germany. Once you’re a victim, you have all the moral status that goes along with being a victim, then you can’t do any wrong essentially. 

Power may seem like a good thing to a lot of folks, but the ones I’ve seen wield power often use it to violent ends where they destroy the rights of others. 

“Western societies are remarkable at generating wealth”

For me at least, this is one of the best presentations I’ve heard from Jordan Peterson, because I find myself all the time arguing the value of capitalism, middle-class and Christian values (even though I am constrained by them), and western thought. While working at delivery and sales jobs, I earned a BA between 1987 and 1992. And Post-modernism during those years was extremely popular in English courses at the local Junior College and at the universities. And everyone was going around praising Derrida and getting their underoos wet from “his presence on campus” but they couldn’t articulate a single thought of his other than he was a deconstructionist. Whoop-de-doo.  I gave up trying to think about Derrida’s importance.  I needed to find a job and get my life going.  And so I hadn’t really given him a single thought since, nor have his admirers to whom they gave their undying inarticulate support.  So it is almost a weeping pleasure here to hear and see a university professor condemn him and other deconstructionists. 

h/t Robert Wenzel @ TargetLiberty

Particularly refreshing is the part where Peterson renounces the ingrates as being resentful with this statement

Post modernism is what you’re up against.  It’s a much more nihilistic and intelligent doctrine . . . . Compared to any hypothetical utopia, it is an absolutely dismal wreck.  But compared to the rest of the world and the plight of other societies of the rest of the world, we’re doing pretty damn well and we should be happy living in this society that we’re living in. The first thing you want to know about Post-modernism is that it doesn’t have a shred of gratitude.  And there’s something pathologically wrong with a person who doesn’t have any gratitude.  Especially when they live in what is so far the best of all possible worlds. 

If you’re not grateful, you’re driven by resentment, and resentment is about the worst emotion you can possibly experience apart from arrogance.  Resentment, arrogance, and deceit–there’s an evil triad for you.  And if you’re bitter about everything around you, despite the fact that you’re bathed in wealth, there is absolutely something wrong with you.  

The black community in the US is the 18th wealthiest nation on the planet.  Relatively.  Western societies are remarkable at generating wealth. 

I weep at this because I’ve seen remarkably smart individuals, leaders in their own right, succumb to this fatalistic vision because of guys like Derrida and others to whose altar they were compelled to kneel.  The folks I am thinking of lost their way.  Any promising career or life, married with a family, were catastrophically torn asunder simply because they were smitten by one of the ugliest ideologies they embraced wholly and no conflicting opinion could be brought to bear to pry these proud folks against what they saw and felt to be a harsh world. 

This is the book that Peterson recommends at the beginning.  It’s titled Explaining Post-Modernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Focault by Stephen R. C. Hicks, 2013.

“The truth is that diversity is America’s greatest weakness.” 

Immigration’s False Premise by Robert Ringer

The Radical Left never tires of making bogus immigration arguments, all based on a major false premise and many false sub-premises as well.  The major false premise is that the purpose of immigration is to help those in other countries whom open-borders cheerleaders like to refer to as “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.”

Note to the open-borders crowd:  These words do not constitute a law — or even an official government policy.  They are nothing more than a couple of lines in a poem that appears on a plaque on the Statue of Liberty.

The author of these words — as well as the sonnet in which appear (“The New Colossus”) — was a woman by the name of Emma Lazarus.  As one would suspect, dear old Emma was a poet, not a legislator.

It’s not just that her words have no legal meaning, they do not even express the feelings of millions of American citizens regarding immigration.  On the contrary, they are the subjective feelings of one individual.  Thus, those who imply that they represent some sort of official U.S. policy on immigration are either uninformed or intent on misleading low-information Americans.

The reality is that no one has a right to become a citizen or permanent resident of the United States.  Even so, so-called progressives love to scream and yell about the rights of those who want to come to America and those who are already here illegally.  However, their viewpoint is based on the false premise that non-citizens are protected by the Constitution.  Sorry, but they are not.  The Constitution specifically protects the rights only of American citizens.

Notwithstanding the phony and pathetic pleas of Barack Obama that “This is not who we are as a nation,” the simple fact is that Americans do not have a moral obligation to welcome anyone into their country.  One can be sympathetic to the plight of hundreds of millions people around the globe who are living lives of quiet desperation, but that doesn’t mean he has to favor unrestricted immigration.

If we opened the doors to all those who are living in poverty and oppression in other countries, the United States population would quickly exceed 1 billion and the country would collapse into economic and social chaos.  Why would anyone who is concerned about the quality of life in America want that?

One time, loud and clear:  The purpose of immigration is not to help people in other countries.  The one and only purpose of immigration is to benefit America and Americans by bringing in men and women who can add value to the country and thereby improve the lives of its citizens.

The immigration policies of countries like Australia and New Zealand make it clear that they do not want the tired, the poor, or the huddled masses.  What they want are doctors, scientists, and engineers — and then only if they have a shortage of those professionals.  It goes without saying that wealthy people who can contribute to the country financially are also welcome.

Of course, the worst excuse of all for ignoring merit-based immigration is the desire to make America “more diverse.”  Sorry, but immigration was never intended to be a social experiment — and certainly not a lottery.

The “diversity lottery” is a very bad joke, a symbol of America’s decline into the depths of depravity and insanity.  And, as we saw with the recent terrorist attack in New York, it can have deadly consequences.

The claim that “diversity is America’s greatest strength” is the biggest of all lies.  The truth is that diversity is America’s greatest weakness.  We see this not only in America, but in countries like Germany, France, and Belgium, where far-left leaders have destroyed their once proud cultures with immigration policies that ignore the wants and needs of their own citizens.

As is always the case, when I use the term diversity, I am not referring to a person’s skin color, be he white, brown, yellow, or other.  Diversity is about a person’s cultural beliefs and practices.

The hard truth is that tribalism, which has been around since the dawn of civilization, is the underpinning of a civilized and peaceful society.  The reality that those on the Radical Left (and many in the RINO camp) refuse to accept is that people prefer to be around others who are culturally most like them and, the corollary, they have little desire to be in close proximity to those who are culturally different.

Using myself as an example, I wouldn’t mind at all if I never had contact with anyone in the Radical Left tribe.  Why would I want to be in close proximity to uncouth cultural zombies who are prone to violence?

When those in power try to force tribes with different cultural values to live together, it tends to engender hatred and violence, which is why the government should remove itself from the social-experimentation business and let tribes live separately and in peace with other tribes.

And let us not forget the scam known as “the Dreamers.”  The argument that Dreamers are innocent because their parents brought them here when they were small children is nothing but a diversion from the real issue that they did, in fact, come here illegally.

Granted, it’s not their fault that their parents broke the law, but it’s also not a justifiable reason to reward them.  To be rewarded for being brought to America illegally would give other non-citizen parents a huge incentive to continue breaking the law.

Finally, there’s the issue of illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes.  The Radical Left’s argument is that illegal immigrants do not commit any more crimes than legal citizens, which is irrelevant.  Just because some citizens in the United States are criminals is no reason to bring in more criminals.

As painful as it may be for Trump haters to hear, the final word on immigration comes from the president.  He, and he alone, has the authority to ban foreigners from entering the country, so long as he has a “rational basis” for believing they pose a threat to the nation’s security.  If challenged, of course, it’s up to the courts to judge whether or not his basis is rational.

In any event, one last time for the benefit of liberals:  People who are not citizens or permanent residents of the United States have no constitutional rights, and pretending as though they do is not only not true but downright annoying.

That said, why don’t we stop tiptoeing and tell it like it really is:  Bringing in immigrants who are low skilled, do not speak our language, and have different cultural values is really nothing more than a political scheme to add Democratic voters to the registration rolls.  And, at least until recently, most Republicans have seemed to be just fine with allowing the Dirty Dems to get away with this scheme.

As the populist genie that is now out of the bottle continues to gain momentum, it will be interesting to see if the Republicans’ colossal sellout continues.

ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author who has appeared on numerous national radio and television shows, including The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, ABC Nightline, The Charlie Rose Show, as well as Fox News and Fox Business. To sign up for a free subscription to his mind-expanding daily insights, visit www.robertringer.com.