5 Shocking Truths Behind Politically Correct Culture
1.0 Introduction: The Experiment We’re All Living
This was given in 1991 and is more relevant today than ever. Also, keep in mind the brainwashing is not only geo-politics but in includes the truth about the flat earth. This is all part of mind control.
In the crossfire of modern debates about free speech, “cancel culture,” and political correctness, it can feel impossible to find solid ground. What if the confusion is by design? What if the cultural shifts we’re experiencing aren’t a recent phenomenon but the result of a deliberate, long-term agenda?
This article examines a deep analysis of a December 24, 1990, Newsweek cover story on the campus “Thought Police.” The events described over three decades ago were not simple campus politics but key components of a shocking experiment in social engineering. The analysis deconstructs this movement into five interlocking stages of a meticulously planned psychological operation, designed to reshape society by first reshaping the minds of its youth.
2.0 Takeaway 1: The Original ‘Cancel Culture’ Would Have Condemned Biblical Prophets
Biblical Figures Would Be Guilty of Modern ‘Hate Speech’
The analysis begins with the case of Nina Woo, a University of Connecticut student punished under a student behavior code for a list on her dorm room door that included the word “homos.” The code she violated prohibited “abusive matter,” “personal slurs,” and “epithets” based on categories like religion or sexual orientation.
This deploys a classic rhetorical move, questioning the premise itself: are such remarks inherently wrong? The analysis presents a counter-intuitive argument: under these same codes, some of the most revered figures in the Bible would have been found guilty of hate speech. The following examples are cited directly:
John the Immerser called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers” in relation to their religion (Matthew 3:7).
The Apostle Paul warned his followers to “Beware of the dogs” when referring to the Judaizers (Philippians 3:2).
Yeshua (Jesus) referred to the Canaanite woman’s people as “dogs” based on their ethnic origin and religion (Matthew 15:22-27).
Yeshua (Jesus) repeatedly labeled the scribes and Pharisees “hypocrites, sons of hell, blind guides, fools, whitewashed tombs, serpents, and a brood of vipers” (Matthew 23).
Here, is a narrative where modern “verbal abuse” is a corruption of a historically necessary tool for confronting falsehood, thereby positioning the new speech codes as an attack on religious and moral clarity. By reframing righteous confrontation as “hate speech,” the architects of this movement established the foundational principle for policing thought—a principle that would be scaled up from campus codes to mass psychology.
3.0 Takeaway 2: The Stated Goal of ‘Eliminating Prejudice’ Was a Cover for Mass Mind Control
The Campus ‘Experiment’ Was Designed for Mass Psychological Control
The Newsweek article itself described the campus movement in revealing terms, framing it as a conscious effort to re-engineer an entire generation’s worldview.
“There is an experiment of sorts taking place in American colleges… directed at changing the consciousness of this this entire generation of university students. The goal is to eliminate prejudice… but the grand prejudice that has ruled American universities since their founding… that the intellectual tradition of Western Europe occupies the central place in the history of civilization.”
This benevolent goal is a smokescreen, offering the words of Fabian socialist Bertrand Russell as proof of the true, technocratic ambition: to perfect mass psychology to the point where dissent becomes impossible.
“The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated when the technique has been perfected every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”
The campus “experiments” were never about fostering tolerance. They were a form of mass psychology—a brainwashing technique designed to generate the convictions of a population, creating citizens who could be controlled without force because their very thoughts had been manufactured for them. To achieve this, however, the engineers of this project first had to dismantle existing standards of truth by weaponizing the language of social justice itself.
4.0 Takeaway 3: ‘Racism’ Was Officially Redefined to Make It a One-Way Street
Weaponizing Language: The Academic Redefinition of Racism
The analysis highlights a mandatory freshman composition course at the University of Texas at Austin that used an anthology titled Racism and Sexism an integrated study by Paula S. Rothenberg. This textbook provided a direct answer to a question many were asking: why are only white men accused of racism or sexism? The answer lay in redefining the terms not as matters of prejudice, but of power.
“The Sinaanon of racism and sexism, Rothenberg explains, is subordination, which in western society is exercised only by whites over blacks and men over women. Hence, reverse racism and sexism by definition do not exist.”
This academic maneuver was not without its critics. Professor Allan Griven, who objected to the curriculum, called the course “oppression studies,” charging that political indoctrination had become more important than teaching writing. I assert that this redefinition was an ideological weapon disguised as an academic concept. By creating a system with no single standard of truth, it perfectly served the agenda outlined by Bertrand Russell: to control the populace by controlling the very definitions of their social reality. With language redefined, the movement’s alleged final objective could be cloaked in virtuous-sounding terms like “pluralism.”
5.0 Takeaway 4: The Hidden Goal of ‘Pluralism’ Is the Elimination of the White Race and Christianity
Decoding ‘Pluralism’: The Genocidal Endgame
The endgame of the politically correct movement as the creation of a “totally pluralistic society.” It is argued that this concept is not a benign call for diversity but originates from a “Jewish doctrine of pluralism and world community,” a phrase attributed to Rabbi Mark Tannenbaum. This “pluralism,” is a “politically correct term” for a more sinister objective, citing an 1883 issue of the Jewish World which allegedly stated that “all the separate races and religions shall disappear” into a “greater Judaism.”
A shocking speech delivered in 1952 by Rabbi Emanuel Rabenowich is presented, which outlines the explicit mechanics for achieving this racial and religious destruction. Rabenowich began, “We will openly reveal our identity with the races of Asia and Africa,” before detailing the plan:
“I can state with assurance that the last generation of white children is now being born. Our control commissions will, in the interest of peace and wiping out interracial tensions, forbid the whites to mate with whites. The white women must cohabit with members of dark races and the white men with black women. Thus, the white race will disappear for mixing the dark with the white means the end of the white man.”
The speech allegedly concluded with the vision of the outcome: “And our most dangerous enemy will become only a memory. We shall embark upon an era of 10,000 years of peace and plenty… and our race will rule undisputed over the earth. Our superior intelligence will easily enable us to retain mastery over the world of the dark peoples.”
Citing author Bernard Lazair, another dimension to this “agile task”: “the annihilation of the religion of Christ.” The ultimate conclusion presented is that behind the public-facing language of tolerance and multiculturalism lies a hidden plan for destruction. Such a radical agenda, however, could only be enforced with the full power of the law.
6.0 Takeaway 5: ‘Hate Crime’ Laws Are the Legal Framework for the ‘Thought Police’
‘Thought Crimes’ Are Real: The Legal Push to Police Speech and Intent
The analysis connects the ideological framework of political correctness to a real-world legal apparatus. It points to a 1988 nationwide law student competition sponsored by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to write a model anti-hate law.
The goal of this model law was not merely to punish violent actions but to pre-empt them by targeting thoughts and words. The source describes its purpose as creating “a law which would make illegal thoughts or statements… which might lead to racial violence.”
This is the creation of literal “thought crimes,” moving the legal system from punishing criminal acts to policing ideas and potential outcomes. A real-world example is cited from Wyoming, where a pre-filed bill would “allow law enforcement agencies to take action against white supremist groups that might be involved in military training before they are established.”
This represents the final mechanism of control: using the full force of the state to enforce politically correct ideology and silence any dissent before it can be fully organized or articulated. This legal framework, is the ultimate realization of the “Thought Police.”
7.0 Conclusion: The Battle for Your Mind
The core argument presented is that “political correctness” is not a grassroots movement for social justice but a top-down, multi-generational psychological operation. This was designed to achieve societal control by first controlling language and, ultimately, thought itself. This deconstruction presents a clinical progression: from ideological infiltration on campus via speech codes, to the weaponization of language through academic redefinition, to the articulation of a hidden genocidal endgame, and finally to the codification of “thought crimes” in law.
This was delivered in 1990—looking at the world today, was the warning ignored?
Christian Flat Earth Ministry 
Before the Civil War: When States Across the North Considered Secession
Alternative Perspectives on Early American Secession Movements
Before the American Civil War (1861–1865), there were several notable movements in the United States that explored or advocated for secession. These episodes reflect the evolving and often contested nature of the American union in its first century.
The American Revolution: Secession from Empire
The first and most well-known independence movement was the American Revolution (1775–1783), in which the thirteen colonies declared independence from the British Empire. This foundational conflict was, in essence, a war of secession—an effort to break away from imperial rule and establish a new, self-governing nation.
New England Federalists and the Hartford Convention
During the early 19th century, New England Federalists expressed deep dissatisfaction with the direction of national politics, particularly under President Thomas Jefferson. Their discontent culminated in the Hartford Convention of 1814, where some delegates discussed the possibility of New England seceding from the Union. Ultimately, they chose to remain, believing they could exert influence from within—and indeed, New England would go on to play a dominant role in shaping national policy.
The Overlooked Middle States Secession Movements
Less widely remembered are the secessionist sentiments that emerged in the 1850s in the Middle Atlantic states—New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. According to historian William C. Wright in *The Secession Movement in the Middle Atlantic States*, these regions saw a range of proposals:
– Some advocated joining a Southern confederacy.
– Others proposed forming a separate “Central Confederacy.”
– Many simply favored allowing the Southern states to leave the Union peacefully.
New Jersey had one of the most active secession movements, followed by New York City and the Hudson Valley. Prominent voices like Edward Everett, the 1860 Constitutional Union Party’s vice-presidential candidate, argued that holding states in the Union by force was both impractical and unjust.
Political Resistance to Coercion
In Maryland, a majority of the state assembly supported peaceful secession. However, in 1861, federal authorities arrested many of its members, preventing them from convening. This action was seen by many at the time as a violation of the principle of voluntary union.
New York City’s mayor, Fernando Wood, even proposed that the city secede and become a free trade zone. Meanwhile, the New York state legislature passed a resolution in early 1861 opposing the use of force against the South. Influential editors like Horace Greeley of the *New York Tribune* and Henry J. Raymond of the *New York Times* also supported peaceful separation.
In Pennsylvania, while the Republican Party—aligned with industrial interests—supported the Union war effort, the Democratic Party largely opposed coercion. Wright notes that most Democratic leaders and voters in the state favored a policy of non-intervention.
New Jersey’s congressional delegation and press were strongly in favor of allowing the South to depart peacefully. Delaware, too, had significant support for a Central Confederacy, but federal troops were deployed to prevent its legislature from debating secession.
The Constitutional Debate
These episodes underscore a broader historical reality: the idea of secession was not always viewed as radical or illegitimate. From the Revolution to the mid-19th century, many Americans—across regions and political affiliations—understood the Union as a voluntary compact among states.
However, President Abraham Lincoln advanced a different constitutional interpretation. Legal scholar James Ostrowski summarizes Lincoln’s wartime doctrine as follows:
– States could not legally secede under any circumstances.
– The federal government had the authority to use military force to suppress secession.
– States could be compelled to contribute troops to suppress other states.
– After military victory, the federal government could impose martial law and new constitutions.
– The president could suspend civil liberties, including habeas corpus, without congressional approval.
This vision of federal supremacy marked a turning point in American constitutional history. Critics argue that it departed from earlier understandings of state sovereignty and voluntary union. Supporters contend it preserved the nation and ended slavery.
Reassessing the Narrative
Much of this history remains underexplored in mainstream accounts, which often emphasize national unity and downplay internal dissent. Yet these secessionist movements—whether successful, abandoned, or suppressed—offer valuable insight into the contested nature of American federalism and the enduring tension between union and autonomy.