RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://goudsmit.pundicity.com/27902/chapter-27-pronouns-and-pantheism

The weaponization of language is not a new phenomenon. The politics of pronouns has dimensions in both form and content. Gender-neutral plural pronouns, the grammatical form for linguistic deconstruction, were introduced in America almost fifty years ago. The pro-pedophile advocacy group Child Sexuality Circle advocated passage of a Child’s Sexual Bill of Rights that included use of “the new unisexual pronoun…co for he/she/him/her and cos for his/hers” in January 1977.

Gender-neutral language that blurs male/female identity with plural pronouns derives its ideological content from the unifying sexual ideal of androgyny. The new sexuality that deconstructs traditional Judeo-Christian sexuality and replaces it with total sexual liberation and freedom from all sexual boundaries is an ideological return to ancient pantheism—the belief that God and the universe are one and the same.

Pantheism predates monotheistic Abrahamic religions by thousands of years, but the word pantheism was not used until the early 18th century. The word is derived from Greek (pan = everything, theos = God), and means “All is God, and God is all.” There is no distinction between the two; all things are connected and are ultimately of one substance. Pantheism is a belief system rather than a religion, comparable to the terms monotheism (belief in a single God) and polytheism (belief in multiple gods).

Pantheism revered the androgyne as the archetype of human beings before the Judeo-Christian recognition of man and woman as two sexes. The globalist wrecking ball is attempting to shatter Judeo-Christian religions with the narrative that they are not “true” religions, that before Judaism and Christianity, the true religions were monistic (the doctrine of oneness that denies duality between man and God, or matter and mind) and revered androgyny.

 https://goudsmit.pundicity.com/27886/chapter-26-pronouns-and-publishing

goudsmit.pundicity.com   lindagoudsmit.com 

The acceptance of philanthrocapitalism as the munificent foundation for globalism’s New World Order provides the philosophical rationalization for social engineering throughout the publishing industry. Over the last twenty-five years, the U.S. trade publishing business has been centralized and reduced to five main players. The Big Five are Simon & Schuster, Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Hachette Book Group, and MacMillan.

British-owned Pearson Education is the largest publisher of educational books, professional training manuals, and educational assessment services in America. Pearson Education was created when its parent company, Pearson PLC, purchased Simon & Schuster’s education division from Viacom and merged it with its own education division in 2011.

In February 2019, Pearson sold its U.S. K–12 business to the private equity firm Nexus Capital Management LP for $250 million. In July 2019 Pearson announced its decision to move to a digital-first strategy, and began phasing out the publishing of printed textbooks.

BlackRock and Vanguard are among Pearson PLC’s top ten institutional shareholders, and BlackRock is among the top three institutional shareholders of Cevian Capital, Pearson PLC’s largest institutional investor.

The Big Five publishing companies and Pearson publish digital and printed books that follow an ESG/DEI editorial formula. Let’s take a look.

Kiri Jorgensen, Publisher and Senior Editor at Chicken Scratch Books, posted an excellent article in The Federalist on July 13, 2023, “A Woke Children’s Literature Cabal Is Conditioning Your Kid to Be an Obedient Leftist.”[i] Jorgensen begins with a warning:

Children’s books are one of the most powerful tools parents have to help teach their kids how to be good human beings. From picture books being read at bedtime to novels being read by flashlight under the blankets, kids flourish in the safety of stories as they develop their belief systems. Resilience, respect, and many other noble traits are portrayed and experienced vicariously through books. What a powerful tool!

AVAILABLE FOR PRE-ORDER

In an era where technological innovation evolves at an exponential rate, Inside Cyber: How AI, 5G, and Quantum Computing Will Transform Privacy and Our Security by Chuck Brooks emerges as a critical roadmap for understanding and leveraging the next wave of tech advancements. Brooks, a renowned executive and consultant, breaks down complex technological trends into digestible insights, offering a deep dive into how emerging technologies will shape the future of industry and society. 

In the book, you’ll: 

Gain clear, accessible explanations of cutting-edge technologies such as AI, blockchain, and quantum computing, and their impact on the business world 
Learn how to navigate the cybersecurity landscape, safeguarding your business against the vulnerabilities introduced by rapid technological progress 
Uncover the opportunities that technological advancements present for disrupting traditional industries and creating new value 

Perfect for entrepreneurs, executives, technology professionals, and anyone interested in the intersection of tech and business, Inside Cyber equips you with the knowledge to lead in the digital age. Embrace the future confidently with this indispensable guide. 

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.”