Meet the schmucks trying to kneecap the anti-woke alliance



Until recently, “woke” was a term that anti-Marxist liberals, nationalists, and conservatives had in common. It was a term we could use to communicate with one another and understand one another in our post-2015 battle against a virulent and ascendant strain of neo-Marxist revolution. In other words, the term “woke” played an important role in building a broad coalition that looked like it could be strong enough to defeat this enemy.

It was a pretty big achievement for such a small word.

But now a handful of anti-woke liberals have decided to turn this formerly unifying, coalition-building term into a weapon to use against the right.

True, some of the most malicious liberals have been intentionally using “woke right” to cover just about the entire nationalist right, whereas other, more naive liberals, having taken the bait, are trying to apply the term “woke right” only to what used to be called the “alt-right” or “white nationalists.”

I get it. I really do. I understand that some of the liberals who’ve been pumping up the term “woke right” are deceitful scoundrels and that others are just honestly, nerdishly trying to work out a way of answering real questions in political theory that bother them.

But for present purposes, it doesn’t matter if you’re a deceitful scoundrel or an earnest nerd. Every liberal using the term “woke right” is being a schmuck.

What they are all doing is taking a flag and a symbol that for 10 years was highly effective at rallying opposition to the neo-Marxist revolution — and worked well to cement a coalition that could defeat it — and throwing that flag to the ground and trampling on it so it can’t be used any more.

Yes, you schmucks, “woke” always meant exactly one thing: It referred to that part of the neo-Marxist left that liberals, conservatives, nationalists, Christians, and Jews had to join forces to defeat. And by repurposing that term as a weapon against this coalition, you’ve turned it into gall in our mouths. You’ve taken a shared term of discourse, gutted its common and universally accepted meaning, and mangled it so we can’t use it to talk to one another any more.

Targeting the anti-woke coalition

This is why so many on the nationalist right are so amazed by the treachery of certain anti-Marxist liberals who have been promoting the theory of the “woke right” — and by the wretched folly of so many other liberals who have walked right into the trap.

Turning the term “woke” on the nationalist right isn’t just redefining any old term. It’s a betrayal. A betrayal that, if it goes through, will mean the end of the anti-woke coalition that looked, for a few short months, like it could actually win.

Sure, there were always different streams on the right. There was always an “alt-right” (as Richard Spencer called it) or a “white nationalist” right that set itself up in opposition to mainstream nationalist conservatives. There was also the “dissident right,” which had a somewhat broader reach. Then there were mainstream nationalist conservatives (or “NatCons”). These were all well known and reasonably accurate terms for talking about the various movements on the political right. And of course, if you didn’t feel like using reasonably accurate terms, you could always use the corporate left-wing media’s go-to favorites like “illiberal right” and “Christian nationalist right” — typically employed when the idea was to deplore everyone who wasn’t a liberal.

In other words, there were plenty of terms available for those anti-Marxist liberals who just wanted to criticize various factions of the right. Those terms existed, and everyone knew what they were referring to.

Why they’re using this term

So why weren’t all these existing terms good enough? Why did some of the super-geniuses who spend their time competing for the title of grand poobah in the anti-Marxist liberal camp feel like they had to manufacture this entirely new term — “woke right” — and work day and night to get it to take off?

Obviously, it was because, in the eyes of a few anti-Marxist liberals, “woke right” had advantages that more accurate terms like “alt-right” or “white nationalist right” didn’t have. Let’s count the advantages these aspiring poobahs thought they could milk out of using “woke right” instead:

1. “Woke right” is intentionally designed to be humiliating. The whole point of the term “woke right” is to target people who have devoted their best efforts for years — often with serious personal and professional consequences — to mounting a viable opposition to the “woke” left. The whole point is to tell them: Sorry, pal, but you’re not a whit better than the Maoist revolutionaries you were out there fighting. And coming out of the mouths of anti-Marxist liberals who were at least sometimes out there on the barricades with us, that is in fact a pretty demeaning thing to hear.

2. “Woke right” is perfect for virtue-signaling. Because the term “woke right” signals a rupture and a betrayal of the coalition that some anti-Marxist liberals forged with the right, it serves as proof of ideological purity. It says: As for me, I’m still untainted. I will keep delegitimizing and canceling nationalists and conservatives forever.

3. “Woke right” succeeds as a provocation where previous terms of contempt like “illiberal right” and “Christian nationalism” failed. The fact is, the term “woke right” really has outraged many nationalist conservatives. And for a small number of especially thuggish liberal trolls, causing that upset and confusion in the ranks of nationalist conservatives is a good in itself.

4. “Woke right” is a term that neutralizes the power of the term “woke” to forge a broad coalition between anti-Marxist liberals and nationalist conservatives. The term “woke right” destroys the flag and symbol of that broad, anti-Marxist coalition and makes it impossible to rally around it any longer.

5. “Woke right” is a term that actively works to destroy the possibility of mutual respect, political alliance, and friendship between anti-Marxist liberals and the nationalist right. Because of its strong connotations of intentional humiliation and provocation, betrayal, and the destruction of shared symbols, getting this term into wide circulation is the best weapon anyone has come up with yet to ensure that anti-Marxist liberals and nationalist conservatives will truly despise one another and do everything possible to avoid working together going forward.

So that’s a lot of reasons why an anti-Marxist liberal might want to use the term “woke right” instead of more accurate, established terms. But notice that he would only use this new term if his goal was to drive a wedge between liberals and the nationalist right, increase mutual distrust and mutual resentment, and cripple the ability of the two camps to pursue common aims.

That’s why I say that every one of you anti-Marxist liberals using this term is being a schmuck. Because either you are purposely trying to destroy the anti-woke coalition, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, or you are completely clueless about the damage you’re doing to the anti-woke coalition and don’t have the political sense to know when you’re being played like a fiddle and who’s playing you.

Either way, there’s an old political term for what you’re doing. You’re being a schmuck.

A common effort endangered

There are lots of things I find aggravating and distasteful about having to work with liberals to achieve common aims. But probably the worst is the way that certain big-shot liberals continue to find ever-new ways of expressing their disgust and loathing for their nationalist and conservative allies — no matter how much their nationalist and conservative colleagues may have contributed to a common political effort and no matter how recent the memory of it.

Some readers may be too young to remember the end of the Cold War. So for them, let me just add a relevant historical comment. If you want to know what happened in 1989 to transform the victorious anti-communist alliance between liberals and conservatives into a dystopian reality in which liberals worldwide ended up trying to grind their former nationalist and conservative allies into the ground — well, it looked exactly like what we’re seeing with this “woke right” campaign.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, a small group of fanatical liberal commissars decided that the victory over communism was the perfect moment to try for a world without nationalists and without real conservatives in any positions of influence anywhere. When they spoke of a “unipolar” world, they didn’t mean that America was going to be the single great power on earth. What they meant was that their liberalism was going to be the single great power on earth, so that no one with any power or influence would ever be anything other than a liberal again. Francis Fukuyama’s grotesque fantasy about banishing anyone driven by “thymos” to jungles at the edges of the political world was only the best known example of this ideal.

It seems like we’re going through an attempted replay of this same liberal fantasy now, although still on a much smaller scale. A small number of fanatical liberal commissars are giddy with the feeling that the Berlin Wall has fallen again. They think (mistakenly) that the war against “woke” is basically over and that our side has already won. They think (mistakenly) that they can safely turn their attention to trying to remove nationalists and genuine conservatives from whatever positions of influence they’ve succeeded in gaining in the last 10 years.

I admit that for now, this effort still looks pathetic. The anti-Marxist liberals who really believe these things are still just a fanatical few. But when you see how quickly they’ve hoodwinked so many in their camp into embarking on an immediate war against their nationalist and conservative coalition partners, it just makes your head spin.

Donald Trump and JD Vance were right to bring anti-Marxist liberals into their coalition and into their administration. They could not have won without broadening their appeal. And that broad coalition will be needed for many years to come if any part of the nationalist and conservative agenda is going to be implemented in reality.

But there won’t be much hope of holding this coalition together if certain fanatical, anti-Marxist liberal commissars continue inflating the lie that nationalist conservatives are an imminent threat to all things good and beautiful — “just like the left.”

Editor’s note: The second edition of Yoram Hazony’s award-winning book, “The Virtue of Nationalism,” will be published in June and is available for pre-order now.

What happens when you tell a philosopher ‘No’



We need more philosophers to resign from their university posts.

Graham Parsons, a philosophy professor at West Point, resigned from his tenured position in protest. Good for him. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded bluntly: “You will not be missed.” The question is, what exactly was Parsons’ “principled stand” — and should others follow his lead? I think they should, though not necessarily for the reasons one might expect. If more professors who insist on injecting gender ideology into the curriculum refused to teach, we might finally begin to salvage the American university.

Professors like Parsons saw themselves as soldiers in the struggle for social justice, fighting racism and oppression. Now they’re being asked to face an uncomfortable reality.

So, why did Parsons quit? In his own words: “I cannot tolerate these changes, which prevent me from doing my job responsibly. I am ashamed to be associated with the academy in its current form.” He accuses West Point of “failing to provide an adequate education for the cadets” under current leadership. That’s a serious charge. Parsons blames policies linked to Trump and Hegseth for undermining what he views as essential to a proper military education.

But what does he actually mean by “adequate education”? What does he believe West Point no longer teaches? That’s the real question — and one worth examining closely.

Parsons explains his position in the New York Times: “Whatever you think about various controversial ideas — Mr. Hegseth’s memo cited critical race theory and gender ideology — students should engage with them and debate their merits rather than be told they are too dangerous even to be contemplated.”

There it is. Parsons frames the issue as a crackdown on academic freedom, where professors no longer have permission to address controversial topics or challenge prevailing orthodoxy. Educators, he argues, must now parrot the government’s message and abandon real critical inquiry. He adds that “uncritically asserting that [America] is ‘the most powerful force for good in human history’ is not something an educator does.”

But Parsons isn’t just teaching anywhere — he’s at West Point. His objection isn’t a minor complaint about classroom nuance. It amounts to a rejection of teaching American greatness and a defense of gender theory and critical race theory as serious intellectual frameworks. He calls the academy “uncritical,” but what he really objects to is any attempt to affirm America’s moral legacy. In practice, Parsons sees the affirmation of the United States as inherently disqualifying.

The result? Criticizing CRT gets framed as dogma, while embracing it becomes the default. Rather than weigh arguments, educators must now accept gender ideology and race theory as truth — and sideline any defense of the country’s founding principles.

Parsons does offer specific examples of the curriculum changes he opposes. He claims West Point interpreted directives from Trump and Hegseth not just as a rejection of critical race theory and intersectionality, but as a broader ban on using race and gender as organizing principles in the curriculum.

RELATED: Pride over preparedness: How LGBTQ+ activism is weakening our forces

Cunaplus_M.Faba via iStock/Getty Images

Parsons says department heads ordered a review of syllabi and forced faculty to revise them. “West Point scrapped two history courses — ‘Topics in Gender History’ and ‘Race, Ethnicity, Nation’ — and an English course, ‘Power and Difference,’” he writes. The academy eliminated the sociology major and shut down a black history project. Department leaders also told professors to remove readings by James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, and other minority authors.

He then describes how these directives affected his own classroom. “One of my supervisors ordered professors to get rid of readings on white supremacy in Western ethical theory and feminist approaches to ethics in ‘Philosophy and Ethical Reasoning,’ a course I direct that is required for all cadets,” Parsons writes. He even claims the West Point debate team was barred from arguing certain positions in an upcoming competition.

These details offer a clearer picture of his true grievance. Parsons didn’t resign over routine administrative changes. He stepped down because he could no longer teach what he believes: that white supremacy and feminist critiques of ethics are essential to understanding just war theory — a subject he has written about. He wants to use critical theory to criticize America, but he won’t subject critical theory itself to scrutiny.

Parsons demands that others question everything — except the assumptions behind his own beliefs. He’s like Descartes, but with highly selective skepticism.

In one of his articles, Parsons writes, “War theorists should be much more concerned with the gender and war literature and find common ground with feminists who have treated the problem of the political standing of soldiers as a philosophical priority.” This isn’t a neutral invitation to critical inquiry — it’s ideological advocacy. Parsons seems to think his view is correct and wants his students to adopt it. He’s not interested in weighing all perspectives; he’s advancing a particular dogma.

West Point, by contrast, has begun restoring a classical standard of education. Instructors are expected to equip students to identify flawed arguments and refute them. Professors must demonstrate why certain ideas fall short — and train cadets to do the same.

Parsons wants us to believe he resigned because he could no longer teach students how to think critically. He suggests the academy is censoring dissent. On the surface, that sounds like a position many academics might support. But his resignation tells a different story. It wasn’t about open inquiry — it was about losing the ability to promote his ideology without challenge.

Let me explain what it’s like to be a conservative inside a university. I’ve been told to revise my curriculum to fit a “decolonized” version of philosophy. At Arizona State University, I was the only professor who spoke up and said that crossed the line. Where were my leftist colleagues who now applaud Graham Parsons? Where were all the philosophers who claim to care about examining every perspective? For the past two decades, philosophy departments have resembled Socratic dialogues where only one voice gets to speak.

In truth, most professors only raise objections when institutional changes threaten their own deeply held beliefs. When administrators impose leftist ideology in the classroom, faculty members who share that ideology rarely object. They don’t see it as dogma — they see it as truth. They call it justice, a necessary correction to history. But when directives come from a conservative administration, they suddenly call it censorship and resign in protest.

This creates a profound dilemma for professors like Parsons. They saw themselves as soldiers in the struggle for social justice, fighting racism and oppression. Now they’re being asked to face an uncomfortable reality: They may have perpetuated the very racial essentialism they once condemned. For years, they operated within a system that marginalized conservatives — just look at the partisan breakdown in university faculties. That mirror reflects something they can’t bear to see.

They became what they claimed to hate.

It is time we restored the American university to the pursuit of truth and wisdom.

Here’s my final prediction: The immediate response from these professors will be to ask, “But who gets to say what is true or wise?” And of course, that’s the most telling response of all.

That’s critical theory talking.

Philosophy professor, know thyself.

The revolutionary who switched sides — and never wavered



David Horowitz, the ex-radical firebrand who spent the last 40 years of his life exposing the left’s lies, hypocrisies, and crimes, died on April 29 after a long battle with cancer. He was 86.

A former Marxist intellectual and New Left insider who became one of the most prolific and pugilistic conservative writers of his time, Horowitz was many things: essayist, agitator, memoirist, mentor, and iconoclast. But above all, he was a political street fighter of the first order. He saw himself on a battlefield of ideas — and he had no interest in compromise.

Horowitz spent the second half of his life warning Americans about the first half. And he never, ever backed down.

He was also my first boss.

Born in Forest Hills, New York, in 1939 to Communist Party members, Horowitz was steeped in ideological certainty from the cradle. He earned degrees at Columbia and UC Berkeley, gravitated toward literary criticism, and helped lead the radical journal Ramparts in the 1960s. By the early ’70s, he was deep in the orbit of the Black Panthers, whose criminality and murder of Horowitz’s friend Betty Van Patter all but obliterated his faith in the left.

That trauma marked the turning point and the beginning of a long journey rightward. He completed his break from his old comrades in 1985, when he and his longtime friend and collaborator Peter Collier published a scorching essay in the Washington Post Magazine with the cheeky title “Lefties for Reagan.”

“One of the few saving graces of age is a deeper perspective on the passions of youth,” they wrote. “Looking back on the left’s revolutionary enthusiasms of the last 25 years, we have painfully learned what should have been obvious all along: that we live in an imperfect world that is bettered only with great difficulty and easily made worse — much worse. This is a conservative assessment, but on the basis of half a lifetime’s experience, it seems about right.”

Horowitz would later write in his autobiography that his “moral conscience could no longer be reconciled with the lies of the Left.” If it could kill and lie and justify it all in the name of justice, what the hell kind of justice was it?

Horowitz’s political evolution was more than a turn — it was a total break. And once broken, he threw himself into the cause of exposing the radicalism, corruption, and totalitarian impulses of his former comrades. He brought to the right a kind of inside knowledge and rhetorical ferocity that few others could match.

In the late 1980s, he and Collier (who died in 2019) launched the Center for the Study of Popular Culture — originally just a room in Horowitz’s house in the San Fernando Valley. “The name identified its focus,” Horowitz wrote, “but also made it harder for the Left to attack.” It wasn’t a think tank like Heritage or Cato. “Our combative temperament was hardly suited to policy analysis,” he admitted. The CSPC would become the David Horowitz Freedom Center in 1998 — what Horowitz proudly called a “battle tank.”

I started working there in 1994, fresh out of college. David and Peter gave me my first real job. I wasn’t there long — only a couple of years — but the lessons stuck. When I gave notice to join the Claremont Institute, Peter warned me: “I certainly wish you luck. I don’t think David will take the news very well, though.” Oh, boy, was he right.

“JESUS CHRIST! HOW CAN YOU DO THIS TO ME?” was David’s immediate, explosive reaction. Such outbursts were legendary in the office — others had gotten the same treatment — but after a talk, he settled down. I finished my two weeks, and he shook my hand and wished me well as I left.

It took me a while to understand his wild response. But as he admitted in “Radical Son,” he had “a strain of loyalty in me” and “an inability to let go of something I had committed myself to.” That loyalty was fierce. And once you were in David’s circle — whether as comrade or colleague — he expected you to stay. Nothing mattered but the cause. “I would not run when things got tough,” he wrote of his hesitation to break from the Panthers. It was personal for him, always.

Peter once described his friend to me as “four-fifths of a human being.” That was generous on some days. Horowitz could be cold, irascible, and prone to volcanic rage. But he also had a great heart, one which bore scars from a lifetime of tragedy and regret. One of his most affecting books is “A Cracking of the Heart,” the 2009 memoir of his rocky relationship with his daughter Sarah, a gifted writer in her own right, who died suddenly in 2008 at the age of 44. It’s the reflection of a fully formed human being.

I was proud to publish David’s work years later. It always tickled me when he pitched articles — my old boss, pitching me — but I was pleased to publish them out of gratitude for the start he and Peter gave me.

While David became famous for his political transformation, in some ways he never changed. “You can take the boy out of the left,” one wag quipped, “but you can’t take the left out of the boy.” Venture capitalist Ben Horowitz, David’s son, put it even more precisely: “While David became known for his change in views, in a sense he never changed at all.” His method of ideological engagement — fierce, unrelenting, totalizing, moralistic — remained constant. Once an ideologue, always an ideologue.

And thank God for that.

David launched and encouraged the careers of many others, including Donald Trump’s domestic adviser Stephen Miller and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. His Freedom Center helped shape the new generation of conservative activists — and sharpened the right’s sense of urgency and resolve. Though he often complained that Republicans lacked the stomach to fight, he lived long enough to see another political pugilist from Queens take and retake the Oval Office.

His nine-volume “The Black Book of the American Left” was arguably his life’s last great project, modeled in part on “The Black Book of Communism.” Where others flinched or equivocated, Horowitz named the threat. The left wasn’t simply wrong — it was dangerous, deceitful, and, at its root, totalitarian.

David Horowitz is survived by his wife, April, four children, and several grandchildren.

He spent the second half of his life warning Americans about the first half. And he never, ever backed down.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at Chronicles Magazine.

Advice For The Class Of 2025: Never Put Your Hope In Earthly Kingdoms

From newly minted college Marxists to MAGA social media, many of those who are investing their hearts and hopes in politics are looking for things that politics cannot give to them.

Fired For Exposing The Biden-Era Military’s Marxist Drift, Former Officer Pledges To Restore ‘Accountability’ To The Force

Testifying during his Thursday confirmation hearing, Matt Lohmeier pledged to ensure 'a culture of accountability' in the Air Force.

Mark Levin EXPOSES the Marxist-Islamist plot to destroy the West



There’s a harrowing alliance growing between Marxists and Islamists in this country. It’s why we keep seeing Democrats battling to keep radical Muslims with terrorist ties from being deported by the Trump administration.

While the left claims that it’s just defending constitutional rights, Mark Levin knows what’s really uniting these two groups is their shared mission to dismantle the West.

He plays a clip of a young keffiyeh-clad man in Dearborn, Michigan — America's jihad capital — calling for the destruction of the West.

“The American empire that's been hurting our people since the beginning, the imperial Western powers that have been hurting our people since the beginning — they must fall. Inshallah, inshallah, they will fall. And my message to the people of Gaza and oppressed peoples across the world is that there are people here, both young and old, who are going to be willing to fight and are willing to put their lives and everything they can on the line to bring these empires down because they must come down,” he said.

“What he’s saying is that the West is in the way of Islam,” Levin translates, noting the distinction between peaceable Muslims, “who just want to live their lives,” and Islamists, who are “terrorists or terrorist-supporters.”

This latter group will persecute and kill peaceful Muslims as fast as they’ll persecute and kill Christians, he explains.

The unnamed man from Dearborn calling for the fall of Western powers is “an Islamist,” meaning he hates America and Americans and supports terrorism.

And yet — “The Democrat Party keeps pandering to people like this,” says Levin, and it’s because, like Islamists, it also thinks “the West has to be destroyed.”

While they both have different end goals — Marxists hope for the “withering away of the state,” while Islamists hope for “complete control of mankind” — for now, they need each other to keep their visions alive.

The fusion of Marxists and Islamists is a subject Mark Levin covers in depth in his upcoming book.

“I’m very, very excited about this one,” he says.

To hear more about it, watch the clip above.

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Slimy media attack on Pope Francis — or lack of moral clarity?



Pope Francis’ passing has rattled the world, but it was who he was believed to be when he was alive that Liz Wheeler of “The Liz Wheeler Show” is focused on.

“The hallmark of his papacy, in my opinion, was confusion for the faithful, due partially to his Argentine liberation theology, or his theology that was informed by his experiences in very close relationship with Argentine liberation theology,” she says, noting that “he simultaneously denied” being part of the theology, which is a Marxist view.

“It’s also worth noting that Pope Francis differed significantly from his predecessors — his two immediate predecessors, Pope Benedict and Pope St. John Paul II — because Pope Francis did not seem to understand the power of the media,” she continues.


“He never seemed to push back when the media misinterpreted what he said, and that happened often, by the way,” she adds, explaining that most of the time he spoke in Italian or Spanish, which allowed what he said publicly to be interpreted by the American media.

“How it was translated by either international or American media was often incongruent. It was often reported inaccurately, what Pope Francis actually said, and the media, of course, we know, has a bias not only politically but theologically, spiritually, religiously,” Wheeler explains.

“And so, the media often portrayed Pope Francis as saying things that he didn’t say, because it’s what the media wanted him to say,” she adds.

While the media made the pope out to lean left, Wheeler notes that, actually, he was “against gender ideology.”

“And he was very clear about marriage being between one man and one woman,” she says.

However, the pope elevated priests like Father James Martin, who is advocating for changes to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, because he’s “an LGBTQIA+ lobbyist.”

“That’s confusing to me; that’s confusing to the faithful,” Wheeler says.

Pope Francis also once described abortion as “hiring a hit man to resolve a problem.”

“You cannot stand for life more strongly than that, and yet, at the same time, he stated that the church ‘cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage, and the use of contraceptive methods,’” Wheeler says. “He instead suggested a broader focus on social justice issues, and I find that to be confusing.”

“How can you acknowledge that abortion is murder? How can you acknowledge that an unborn child is a human person, with as much right to life as you, that this unborn person with a right to life is made in the image and likeness of our creator, and then dismiss it as just, like, one of many social justice issues?" she continues.

“One of the roles of the pope is supposed to be to speak with moral clarity. There should be no misinterpretation possible when a pope is speaking, especially one of the hot-button issues that is kind of rife with confusion in the first place,” she adds.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Gen Z Is The Most Conservative Generation In Decades Because They’re A Victim Of The Left’s Failures

The mystery is not that Gen Z is the 'most conservative generation in decades;' it is that Gen Z isn’t even more conservative.

Feds probe ASU for racial bias — will other universities be held accountable?



Arizona State University was among a lengthy list of institutions under federal investigation this week for violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a provision designed to prevent discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in federally funded programs. This should be noncontroversial. Yet, universities across the country are engaging in systemic discrimination disguised as social justice under the banner of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Universities justify racial discrimination by applying the Marxist dialectic of “oppressor versus oppressed,” now repackaged in academic jargon as “privileged versus marginalized.” They argue that so-called marginalized groups require extra resources to address past injustices, assigning “oppressor” status based on skin color, sex, and religion.

University administrators who implemented these discriminatory DEI programs should issue a public apology — for starters.

At ASU, for example, DEI employee training explicitly labels “whiteness” and “heteronormativity” as inherent oppressor categories. The training presents as fact — not as one perspective among many — that America has always been a white supremacist nation. Faculty are expected to accept this assertion without question.

I am currently suing ASU to stop this required DEI training. Instead of acknowledging its discriminatory nature, the university defends it in court.

ASU’s inclusive charter has been weaponized into a Marxist dialectic that teaches students to hate the United States and Christianity. The school explains its practices by referring to its charter, which emphasizes “inclusion.” Obviously, a taxpayer-funded university should be inclusive. In practice, however, ASU’s definition of inclusion means privileging some groups — the so-called marginalized — over others — the so-called oppressors.

And how do they determine who belongs to which category? Skin color, sex, and religion.

This is not education; it is indoctrination. Yet, professors often claim, “You cannot discriminate against white people because they are the oppressors.” At one event I attended, a speaker stated it was time to “take white men down a notch.” These people are entrusted with teaching your children — on your dime.

Discrimination in DEI

The Title VI investigation at ASU and 39 other universities targets the Ph.D. Project, a program that provides networking and career opportunities for doctoral students but excludes participants based on race. This is blatant racial discrimination. The program defends its practices using the same Marxist logic — arguing that historic injustices justify present-day racial “preferences.”

ASU reinforced this reasoning in 2023 when it hosted Ibram X. Kendi for the A. Wade Smith and Elsie Moore Memorial Lecture on Race Relations. Kendi’s stance, repeated many times over, is clear: “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination.”

That argument fails both legally and morally. In contrast, President Donald Trump’s Department of Education made its position explicit: “The Department is working to reorient civil rights enforcement to ensure all students are protected from illegal discrimination.”

For decades, universities positioned themselves as defenders of civil rights. Now, they are being exposed for violating those very principles. The irony would be amusing if it weren’t so destructive.

From racism to anti-Semitism

ASU isn’t just under investigation for racial discrimination — it is also one of 60 universities under federal scrutiny for anti-Semitism. This is particularly rich coming from the same academics who spent the last decade yelling that “Trump is Hitler.” And yet, the Department of Education now says:

The Department is deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite U.S. campuses continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year. University leaders must do better.

Professors support Hamas, leave their Jewish students open to harassment, and yet take to social media to denounce Elon Musk as a Nazi. They need to look in the mirror. Maybe the Department of Education will help them do so.

University administrators who imposed these discriminatory DEI programs should start by issuing a public apology — not just to Jewish students but to all who have suffered under their race-based policies, as well as to the taxpayers who fund them.

If they refuse, it reveals one simple truth: They have not changed their beliefs. More likely, they will resort to bureaucratic rebranding, repackaging the same DEI policies under a new name while continuing business as usual.

A path forward

The only way to break this cycle is to dismantle the oppressor/oppressed dialectic in all its forms. The Marxist framework behind DEI must be exposed for what it is — a pseudoscientific ideology that justifies discrimination under the guise of justice. It aligns with those who oppose the United States. Parents, students, and faculty must demand transparency and reject participation in discriminatory programs.

Federal investigations are a step in the right direction, but they are not enough. Universities like ASU must face accountability — not just legally but intellectually. Public universities should be required to disclose what professors teach in their classrooms. Taxpayer-funded faculty must be held responsible for their actions like any other government employee.

The woke university system has long relied on an illusion of moral authority, but that illusion is crumbling. Under its leadership, the worst forms of discrimination have flourished, and those who cry loudest about justice have been the worst offenders. The question is: Will we seize this moment to force real change, or will we allow these institutions to rebrand and continue their deception under a new name?

Chuck Schumer mocks the average hardworking American on ‘The View’



New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer fits right in with the women of “The View,” as on a recent segment of the show, he took aim at not only the Trump administration but the American people.

“This is a different, horrible kettle of fish. They hate the government; they want to shut down everything,” Schumer said. “I wake up at three in the morning sometimes, so worried about the future of the country under these oligarchs.”

“And you know what their attitude is? ‘I made my money all by myself, how dare your government take money from me, I don’t want to pay taxes’ or ‘I built my company with my bare hands, how dare your government tell me how I should treat my customers, the land and water that I own, or my employees,’” Schumer continued.


“They hate government. Government is a barrier to people to stop them from doing things; they want to destroy it. We are not letting them do it, and we’re united,” he added.

Pat Gray of “Pat Gray Unleashed” isn’t having it, and he isn’t mincing his words, either.

“Listen to the attitude of this absolute r****d. As long as the word is back, let’s use it where it’s appropriate. He obviously believes that we work for him, that our money rightfully belongs to him,” Gray says.

“It’s exactly what Thomas Jefferson was talking about. This is why they created a small government that was by and for the people. Not the people for the government,” he continues.

“This is what the Democrat Party is all about now. These hideous Marxist principles. That’s a Marxist speaking there,” he says, mocking Schumer’s take on the American people wanting to keep their money. “Yeah, that’s our attitude, Karl Marx, I mean, sorry you don’t share it.”

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.