RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://goudsmit.pundicity.com/27868/chapter-25-philanthrocapitalism-and-collectivism
Pundicity page: goudsmit.pundicity.com and website: lindagoudsmit.com

In order to fully comprehend the scope of the planned globalist assault on your children’s minds, it is helpful to review Norman Dodd’s 1982 interview with G. Edward Griffin, and Dodd’s stunning 1954 Report (Chapter 9). You will recall that Norman Dodd was appointed Director of Research of the Reece Committee to investigate tax-exempt foundations and determine if their activities could justifiably be labeled un-American. Dodd examined the recorded minutes of the Carnegie Corporation’s board meetings and discovered how tax-exempt foundations in America, since at least 1945, had been operating to promote a hidden agenda. The foundations’ real objectives were to influence American educational institutions and control foreign policy agencies of the federal government in order to condition Americans to accept world government. The government was to be based on the principle of collectivism (socialism) and ruled by the same interests that control tax-exempt foundations.

Twenty years after the Dodd Report, in 1974, Congress passed and President Gerald Ford signed into law the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Steve J. Sands explores its seismic societal consequences and reviews the history of third-party investment management in America in his previously referenced article, “Who Owns Corporate America?”[i] Prior to 1980, most investments were made directly by each corporation. Sands asks, “What changed around 1980 to make the market shift toward third-party investment management?” The answer is fascinating:

In 1974 The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was passed. One of the elements of ERISA was that it made it clear that companies could use third-party investment management. Hence the rise of third-party investment management by companies like BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard Group. BlackRock was founded in 1988. Vanguard was founded in 1975. While State Street was founded in 1792 [as Union Bank], it created the Standard & Poor’s Depositary Receipt (SPDR) in 1993. State Street’s SPDR 500 (SPY) Trust exchange-traded fund (ETF) was the first of its kind, and they are now one of the largest ETF providers worldwide. Trading on SPY began January 29, 1993. ETFs are widely used for mutual fund investments by third-party investment companies. The clear demarcation from direct to third-party investment management was the passage of ERISA.

It is interesting to note that while ERISA’s intent was to fix pension problems [crisis], one of the solutions was to introduce the allowance of third-party investment firms. The report from the WEF states:

With economic and demographic fundamentals promoting ever faster growth in institutional assets since around 1980, the stage was set for the emergence of the modern asset management industry.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/chinas-cash-for-power

Sovereign Funds: How the Communist Party of China Finances Its Global Ambitions, by Zongyuan Zoe Liu (Belknap Press, 288 pp., $39.15)

Sovereign wealth funds (SWF) have long been an anomaly in market economies. In 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department defined SWFs as “government investment vehicles funded by foreign exchange assets, which manage those assets separately from official reserves.” Such funds blur the traditional distinction between the state, which serves as market regulator and guarantor of rule of law and property rights, and the marketplace, in which private actors freely compete within parameters established by law and morality.

Countries’ reasons for creating such vehicles vary. Norway established its Government Pension Fund Global to invest tax and license revenue generated by its oil sector and grow its national pension funds. Other nations have used SWFs as instruments for pursuing industrial policy at one remove from direct government control.

These funds’ intrinsically political character raises questions about their marketplace operations. As state-owned entities, they will not have the same incentives and priorities as private actors. For example, SWFs are less likely to prioritize profit-maximization, and may not even be required to do so. Some, for instance, primarily function as another macroeconomic tool for governments to try and smooth the business cycle’s ups-and-downs. SWFs are also subject to political pressures, encouraging investment based on the regnant government’s current needs, which may not be the same as pursuing long-term economic growth.

Then there are concerns about these funds being weaponized by their government owners. What happens if a SWF decides, at the behest of its controlling government, to use its stake in a publicly traded corporation in another country to pursue specifically political goals in that nation? And what if the SWF’s owner also happens to be an authoritarian regime that does not consider itself bound by Western norms of government accountability and transparency? And what if that same government uses the SWF to serve geopolitical ends that clash with other states’ national-security interests?

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20728/can-israel-win-by-winning

A week before the October 7 Hamas assault on Israel, Daniel Pipes, a longtime respected foreign policy expert, a former board member of the United States Institute of Peace and the president of the Middle East Forum, had turned in his manuscript for his new book.

What emerged in the final months of 2023 was Israel Victory: How Zionists Win Acceptance and Palestinians Get Liberated. The foundational thesis of Pipes’ work, that Israel had spent far too much conciliating the Islamic terrorist groups that dominate Gaza and the West Bank, offering them the promise of peace and prosperity, emerged from the rubble more relevant than ever.

“Israeli leaders seek to improve Palestinian economic welfare: I call this the policy of enrichment,” Pipes writes in Israel Victory, criticizing Israel for not adopting “the universal tactic of depriving an economy of resources, but on the opposite one of helping Palestinians to develop economically.”

The quintessential liberal fallacy also at the root of America’s failures in the War on Terror held that wars were fought against regimes, not people. Even when Israel achieved its victories on the battlefield, it still believed that peace would come through mutual prosperity and befriending foes. This vision is alien to the region and rather than bringing peace has only perpetuated generations of war.

In the months before Oct 7, Arab Muslim workers from Gaza were allowed in increasing numbers to work in Israel. And in the months since Oct 7, Israel, under political pressure, has flooded Gaza with aid. The pre-10/7 appeasement failed to prevent the massacres, rapes and kidnappings and the post-10/7 benevolence only convinced Muslims in Gaza they would win.

Israel Victory contends that Israel can’t win through conciliation, it can only win by winning and that furthermore, victory is ultimately the best possible outcome for both sides. Israel’s reticence to achieve a conclusive and decisive victory, and then to act like winners infused generations of Arab Muslims living in the West Bank and Gaza with the conviction that they can destroy Israel if they transform their societies into killing machines and turn over political power to terrorists.

It is as if instead of defeating Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, the Allies had left a core regime and population intact and free to plot war for another 50 years. That is what happened in Israel.

https://goudsmit.pundicity.com/27850/the-politics-of-pronouns

In an information war, fought without bullets or bombs, language is weaponized. The globalist campaign promoting gender fluidity in order to destroy individual selfness manipulates spoken and written language to achieve its goal. Perversion of pronoun usage in the English language has a particularly destructive political purpose. The enemies of national and individual sovereignty are revising language to reflect human existence without the boundaries of self. Words matter. The switch to third-person plural, gender-neutral language is a weapon of mass psychological destruction that begins in early childhood.

Consider this: young children who do not learn the first- and second-person individual and possessive pronouns I, me,mine, you, yours, he, him, his, she, her, hers do not learn to name or identify themselves or others as individual gendered selves. Without a personal, individual, gendered, identifiable self, children become confused, destabilized, and vulnerable.

Instead of singular pronouns, young children are intentionally being taught to use the third-person plural pronouns they,them, theirs, so that they identify themselves in terms of the non-gendered collective. It is linguistic demolition of the individual. Plural pronouns effectively erase the concept of an individual self from the English language, and support the replacement of the individual with the preferred non-gendered collective identity.

Globalism’s tactical strategy is to have the Left focus its Marxist ideological values of diversity, equity, and inclusionon cultural and educational institutions. The incremental strategic objective is for those values to be accepted as normative, then become social policy, and ultimately become the law of the land.

This is how globalism’s linguistic hoax works to change the hearts and minds of America’s children in classrooms K–12 and online. Disingenuously presented as diverse, equitable, and inclusive language to make people feel respected and included, gender-neutral substitutions are promoted as empathetic, kind, and caring. Grammarly, the popular cloud-based typing assistant, instructs writers on “How to Use Gender-Neutral Language at Work and in Life”[i] in an article by freelance journalist Devon Delfino, June 17, 2022:

Gender-neutral language is simply a way of talking about people without assuming their gender. For example, it’s referring to someone you don’t know as “they” rather than using the pronoun “he” or “she,” or addressing a group as “everyone” rather than saying, “Hey, guys.”

https://www.city-journal.org/article/renewing-the-republic

Keeping the Republic: A Defense of American Constitutionalism, by Dennis Hale and Marc Landy (University of Kansas Press, 2023). 

The United States Constitution is under attack—again. The chorus of critics—including prominent law professors, journalists, political scientists, and politicians—seems to grow louder daily. They call it a broken relic, standing in the way of furthering equality and social cohesion.

They say that the Constitution encourages excessive individualism, inequality, racism, isolation, and anomie. Only by jettisoning this eighteenth-century artifact, the argument goes, can America finally embrace the progressive ideals of unfettered majoritarianism, racial harmony, and economic redistribution. Doing so would make the American people freer, happier, better governed, more equal, and more community-oriented. God himself may even look kindly on us.

Such arguments have stirred two distinguished Boston College political scientists, Dennis Hale and Marc Landy, to mount a vigorous and erudite defense of the American constitutional order. In Keeping the Republic, the authors weave together political theory, institutional analysis, and policy history to offer a compelling case for preserving America’s constitutional democracy and republican ethos.

It’s often said that China is in a cold war with America. The reality is far worse: the war is hot, and the body count is one-sided.

China is killing Americans and working aggres­sively to maximize the carnage while our leaders remain passive and, in some cases, compliant. Why?

If anyone could crack the code, it’s the renowned nonpartisan investigator Peter Schweizer. Schweizer’s previous three number one New York Times bestsellers sent shock waves through official Wash­ington, sparking FBI investigations and congres­sional probes that continue to this day.

For Blood Money, Schweizer and his team of forensic investigators spent more than two years scouring a trove of restricted Chinese military documents, data-mining a mountain of American financial records, and tracking US political lead­ers’ investments and family businesses. Schweizer unloads bombshell after bombshell, exposing the Chinese Communist Party’s covert operations in the American drug trade, social justice movement, and medical establishment to sow chaos and deca­dence in the United States.

A towering achievement of investigative jour­nalism, Blood Money is one of those rare books that makes you clearly see the world anew.

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2024/06/237388/

The Hon. Tony Abbott was Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015

With most conservative parties split between populist and establishment wings, and with the West challenged in ways not seen in almost a century, John O’Sullivan’s Sleepwalking into Wokeness: How We Got Here‘s collection of essays is both timely and instructive. Indeed, there are few better placed to reflect on the travails of the Anglosphere than O’Sullivan, who has been a key conservative intellectual for over four decades. He was Margaret Thatcher’s speech writer at the time of her Bruges oration that marked the beginning of a credible Brexit movement. In America, he edited National Review for a decade. In Canada, he helped to found the National Post newspaper. And in Australia he edited Quadrant for two years. He now runs the Danube Institute in Budapest (where I am a visiting fellow), a think-tank bringing conservative perspectives to economic, social and strategic issues; striving, in particular, to reconcile economic liberalism with social conservatism in ways that “unite the right”. 

This compilation of essays testifies to a depth of insight and consistency of purpose, as well as being a good commentary on many of the big issues since Thatcher’s time. O’Sullivan brings a well-stocked mind and a genial temperament to everything he discusses. As Rod Dreher writes in his foreword, he “has a conservative’s capacity to perceive the severity of the problems about which he writes, with an Englishman’s ability to maintain good humour and sound judgment when everyone else around him wallows in despondency”. As well, he’s great on memorable quotes. A couple of examples: from Disraeli, he gives us the injunction to “read biography, for that is life without theory”; and from Thatcher, this riposte: “Reactionary? Well, there’s a lot to react against.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2024/08/solzhenitsyn-and-the-life-of-truth/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

What The Gulag Archipelago still teaches, 50 years later

Vladimir Kara-Murza’s deteriorating health leads his family and friends to expect that he may soon suffer the fate of Alexei Navalny.

A patriot, freedom fighter, and dissident, Navalny died in February in a remote Russian prison north of the Arctic Circle. Whether directly or nearly directly killed, his life ended under the brutal conditions of his unlawful imprisonment. Navalny fiercely criticized and opposed Vladimir Putin’s illegitimate government, including its political repression, its deep corruption, and its unjust war on Ukraine.

A successful man of means, Navalny could have chosen a comfortable life. He could have benefited financially under or quietly complied with Putin’s dictatorship — or permanently left Russia. But he wanted a better future for his country: one that would be free, democratic, and happy. He became an opposition leader. For the better part of 20 years, he endured arrests, detentions, prison stays, frequent harassment, curbs on his speech and movement, and permanent damage to his eyesight from acid thrown in his face. His response while recuperating in Germany after being poisoned by the Soviet-era nerve agent Novichok: “I will not give Putin the gift of not returning to Russia.” He knew that returning to Russia would mean immediate arrest, fabricated charges, a show trial, and unjust imprisonment. Navalny left his wife and children — safely, he hoped — in the West and returned to Russia, where he was immediately arrested, underwent a show trial, and died of “natural causes” at the age of 47 in the infamous penal colony IK-3.

Kara-Murza, 42, also stands against Putin’s regime. The son of a journalist who was an outspoken critic of Leonid Brezhnev and later Putin, Kara-Murza is, among other things, a historian of Soviet-era dissidents. Like Navalny, Kara-Murza cheated death and still suffers the ill effects of poisoning at the hands of the Russian state, in his case on two occasions. Like Navalny, he left his wife and children — safely, he hopes — in the West and returned to Russia to work for civil society, freedom, and democracy. Like Navalny, he knew that a denial of due process and a lengthy prison sentence awaited him.

In spring 2022, many pleaded with Kara-Murza not to return to Russia after he spoke the truth about its invasion of Ukraine: “These are war crimes that are being committed by the dictatorial regime in the Kremlin against a nation in the middle of Europe.” For years, he had been speaking the truth about the Kremlin — from Putin’s nonconstitutional retention of the presidency and aggregation of political power to the regime’s chronic violations of human rights to the mounting number of its political prisoners. Each instance enlarged the target on Kara-Murza’s back. Yet, as he recently explained, “if you call on people to stand against the authoritarian regime, you cannot do it from a safe distance — you have to share the risks with your compatriots.” The current place of residence for this Russian-British citizen with three American-born children is Russia’s Penal Colony No. 7, where he is serving a 25-year sentence for the fabricated crime of treason.

https://goudsmit.pundicity.com/27834/chapter-22-what-is-social-justice

The inherent child abuse in Drag Queen Story Hour described by Charlotte Cushman in Chapter 21 is part of the greater Marxist social justice campaign that is attacking America through politicized education in both public and private schools. Cushman defines social justice and explains its political objective in the social justice link[i] on her Authentic Montessori Education[ii] website:

What Is Social Justice?

Social justice is grounded in Marxism, the ideology of communism. Marxists seek to destabilize society so that they can take power. They want an unstable population so they create an educational system that keeps the population uneducated and weak. Then they create constant conflict which results in revolutions. The conflict created is over the issue of oppression. Marxists hold that society is divided into two classes, the oppressed and the oppressors, and seek to take from the oppressors to give to the oppressed. They attempt to make the “oppressors” feel riddled with guilt so that they will cooperate more easily when discriminated against.

Social justice claims that certain groups are inherently evil. For example, they claim that all people that are white are racist. It places groups higher than individuals, and holds that all groups should be equal. If there are any disparities in group outcomes, it is attributed to discrimination and group injustice rather than individual choices and actions, and therefore the more successful groups need to be punished. This results in groups constantly fighting with each other. Currently, social justice sees America as inherently racist and it therefore holds that our country must be dismantled (also known as the Great Reset).

The American ideal of individual justice is equality under the law regardless of group affiliation—such as race, sex, religion, etc.—whereas social justice seeks to reward or punish individuals based on their group affiliation. Actual justice means that every individual must be judged for who he/she is and treated accordingly. If individuals work to earn their living, they can keep the fruits of their labor. If individuals violate the rights of others (stealing, murder, etc.), it means the violators go to jail.

Justice applies to everyone. Therefore, to add the concept “social” is an attempt to change the meaning of justice from equality under the law to equity, equity meaning everyone has a right to something whether or not he has earned it. That requires the use of force to take from one person for the benefit of another. This is racist and the very antithesis of justice. The real purpose of social justice in education is to change innocent children into racists. This will assure class (group) struggles and conflict.