Earlier this month, former Secretary of State and potential GOP Presidential candidate Mike Pompeo released an interview clip on Twitter, in which he argued that “Toxic wokeness in schools is a bigger threat than the Chinese Communist Party.”
(Full Disclosure: I am a College Professor) I would like to point out one thing Slover omitted: the growing influence of the CCP on Western Universities. I don't have time to write a good summary so I suggest folks look up "Confucius Institutes" in the US & UK. The PRC is exerting soft power on American institutions (check out how they influence our entertainment industry - and therefore our news media)
There is one ray of hope: respect for America's education system is low and rapidly falling. Even University students lack respect for education - most don't care about learning, they just want that piece of paper that will get them a good job (or so they have been told). Tuition is so high and they go into so much debt more and more students expect to get good grades automatically - and if the prof doesn't accommodate them they simply cheat. Seriously, does Higher Ed really think that they can shape the minds of this generation of students? When student loan debt is so terrifyingly huge, that it is adversely affecting our entire economy why would any tax payer support expensive but useless degrees? Look up "student debt + economy" and pay attention to how Higher Ed is hurting underserved communities by burdening them with outlandish debt after a promise of a brighter future. Some see Higher Ed as just one more example of the system exploiting the poor and powerless - we no longer have chattel slavery so we invented debt slavery.
The masses are waking up. A Bachelor's Degree in Liberal Arts doesn't provide significantly better job skills than a High School Diploma so why spend all that money on it? STEM majors have significantly better job prospects - and the degrees are worth the expense. Plus, in our fields we do not indoctrinate students we don't have time to fit that into our curricula ... but, alas, math is hard so most don't want to go down our path (which is why the job prospects are so good).
Woke degrees do not make economic sense. Free Market economics might solve the wokeness problem - take that Communism!
..I have to disagree with the 'ray of hope' concept... (sorry) " "One ray of hope is that respect for America's educational system is low and rapidly declining. Even university students lack respect for education - most are uninterested in learning,"
so they didn't get indoctrinated at uni...
Humanity has always centred its power on those with technological prowess. (this is why the US held ascendancy for so long - innovation, science! - what if the nazis invented the V2 before the british won the war or US didn't bomb Hiroshima? etc...)
Defunct education and decline simply hands an illiberal system the victory! All nations pick up technology and are inspired by the drivers of change and innovation - from bronze age until now, it was they they won the borders, negotiated territory and had influence.
Secondly: Imagine being a dissident in the digital age in a country that is so closely monitored - beyond what the Stasi has ever been capable of!... but then combine that with it being the driving global culture - personally, I give it 10-20 years.
China is now nearly equaling the states in terms of patents. - this is inspirational but also sad! Freedom is fragile and precious (we are living in a historical bubble - that for a tiny time there has been an opportunity for what we have - lets hope we can keep it..)
I agree with much of what you are saying. The thing about STEM degrees is they do not get as much indoctrination as Liberal Arts, Humanities and Social Science graduates - and even if they do get some indoctrination, they are taught critical thinking skills and the value of evidence & data (and can usually discern the difference between a fact and an assertion).
I see far more in STEM fields fighting for privacy and freedom of expression that I see from the Humanities. STEM folks understand that freedom and innovation go together and can make things like encrypted communication (c.f. Signal) which can get around the surveillance state. For every measure there is a counter-measure.
Some expect the STEM boom in China to have a liberalizing effect as more Chinese citizens are educated in STEM. In support of this, the STEM-savvy Russians opposed the war in Ukraine early on and many had the info to anticipate the mobilization and left Russia long before Russia closed its borders. The mustered troops are not well educated and cannot perform with modern military technology - that is why Russia desperately wants to motivate tech educated citizens (and why NATO does not want to 'escalate' the war - IOW: provide a casus belli to stir patriotism in the educated Russians who could deal with modern military tech)
I believe that STEM is more liberalizing than Liberal Arts. Humanity had liberal arts, religion & philosophy for millennia and humanity barely improved - women were treated as property and slavery was commonplace (and socially acceptable). After science and technology came along within a few centuries the world became a much more liberal and humane place. The reason humans ended slavery was technology not some awakening - one machine could do the work of a hundred slaves.
The history of the human race seems to be that we make social advances only after technology makes it convenient.
I have a deep love of STEM too but there is no reason to think a country can have this and not also be illiberal (Nazi's had some of the best scientists, Russians and Chinese do currently) I expect Chinese STEM surpremacy in 10-20 years (yes I'm annoying cynic 🤪) Let's hope the west can pull itself together - humanism needs a united front.
Your comment about Nazi scientists illustrates my point very well - and foreshadows what happened to Russia's science community and likely will affect China's science.
There is a popular myth of _Nazi_ super-scientists that has little basis - with a few exceptions like Werner von Braun (who was exploiting the Germany war effort to build rockets for space instead of for war - fun fact: Nazi Germany was the first nation to get something into space!) Postwar investigations showed that Germany was not doing very well in atomic energy. Their top atomic scientist, Heisenberg, maintained that he intentionally thwarted the development f the atomic bomb because he didn't want the Nazis to get that much power. Some claim he was trying to repair his reputation - but either way the Nazi super-scientist myth is busted.
There were German super-scientists, like Einstein, but they did their work well before WWII and fled when the Nazis came to power. In fact, the USA owes Adolf thanks for jump-starting our lead in Physics because his hate-based government drove out those scientists who were courted by the USA. What is more delicious is that since many of those super-scientists were Jews, the Nazi party disapproved of their "Jewish science" and did not develop it!
Also, we must understand that science is a community effort - I cannot think of a single scientist who did great work in isolation (even 'Lone Wolf' Newton bounced ideas for Principia off of his peers). To have top notch science programs requires much international cooperation. When scientists are stuck in a silo they will not keep up with others' work and cannot cross-pollinate ideas. They also do not benefit from others scrutinizing their work. People talk about the importance of the scientific method but never understand how central peer review is to the scientific endeavor.
This isolation from the West greatly hindered Soviet science during the Cold War - they could not bounce around ideas outside of their circle and could not access outside labs and facilities. Much of Soviet science was utter rubbish - some times embarrassingly so because it was beholden to Soviet ideology (like the Nazi view of Jewish physics).
One of the interesting but unnoticed things about the investigation of the Lab leak hypothesis is the revelation of how much much the PRC squashes science for the sake of ideology. To the point that Chinese medical scientists were afraid to openly talk about the new virus because the party came down HARD on those who did discuss it. It is likely that millions died because information did not flow in the early days when it was most crucial...
So, although you are technically correct that an oppressive government can have top notch science, that marriage will not last long. Either the government will become more liberal or the science with wither from being starved of what it most needs: open collaboration. You cannot have free exchange of ideas _and_ government control of expression. This is what concerns me most of the trend in academia - they are becoming oppressors and that harms science and most other intellectual creativity. Some results cannot be published and that means a LOT of research isn't even done.
BTW: China is not the only other nation supporting science - Europe, India and Japan have very good science programs (I have personally worked with many scientists from those places). If/when America falters, liberal countries in Europe will most likely pick up the slack - this century does not have to be an American century as long as humanity progresses. After all, we got our jump-start in science from Europe after they did so well for a few centuries. But there are many nations with good science programs - they may not be as well funded as American programs but they still do great work. Go to any big science conference and you will see. You will also see that scientists from oppressive regimes are under represented at major science conferences - and that includes PRC.
China may take the lead for a while but if they remain stuck in their silo the rest of world will pass them - regardless of what happens to America. Liberal societies tend to make the best science. (But fascists seem to be able to find great artists and musicians)
I agree that science is a collaborative effort, and that open exchange of ideas is crucial for the advancement of scientific knowledge. Governments that restrict this exchange or control scientific research for political or military purposes can hinder scientific progress and ultimately harm society.
However It is important to acknowledge that science is not immune to political and social influences, The claim that Nazi super-scientist myth is busted may not be entirely accurate, as some German scientists actively supported the Nazi ideology and contributed to the war effort (so too some Russian scientists!) . Similarly, the claim that the USA owes its lead in physics solely to the Jewish scientists who fled Nazi Germany is partly true, as other factors may have also contributed to scientific advancements such as government investment, access to funding and resources, strong research institutions, a culture of innovation, and international collaboration contributed to the USA's lead in physics.
Scientists face numerous challenges when considering the ethical and military implications of their research, particularly in countries where the government has a history of controlling or manipulating scientific research for political or military purposes. These challenges can include:
Fear of retaliation or retribution from their government, such as loss of funding, imprisonment, or even harm to themselves or their family members, if they speak out against the government's use of scientific research for military purposes.
Lack of transparency the government may not provide clear information about the intended use of scientific research or the potential military applications of scientific discoveries, making it difficult for scientists to assess the ethical implications of their work.
Limited resources: Scientists may be constrained both in terms of funding and access to equipment or research materials, which can make it difficult to pursue research that is solely focused on peaceful applications.
Pressure to prioritize military applications even if they personally believe in the importance of peaceful applications.
"Signal" China has invested heavily in developing advanced technologies, including those related to information security and cryptography and has a large cybersecurity industry that includes many highly skilled researchers. In recent years, China has faced criticism for its human rights record and for its use of surveillance technologies to monitor its citizens....
Lets mope science can throw off the politics and build worlds beneficial to all people.. lets hope STEM gets taken up far far more.
I also agree that there are many countries with strong science programs, and that international collaboration is crucial for scientific progress. It is important to foster a culture of open exchange and collaboration (but carefully - *business too!), while also acknowledging the potential risks and ethical implications of scientific research especially in countries with poor human rights records...
Overall, the pursuit of scientific knowledge should be guided by a commitment to advancing the well-being of humanity, rather than by political or military objectives (but that is not always the case - not even in the west!) Because "America's educational system is low and rapidly declining... I worry the other team takes the cup
*The pursuit of economic gain through globalism has led to the normalization and acceptance of illiberal regimes, which may have negative consequences for human rights and democratic freedoms. - Resource scarcity will create even more precarious situations.
Lets hope stem picks up and we find a way to invest in that and excellence/ competence/ skill - We will need it!
I am sorry I did not think I had to explain that my comment was in the context of the article which addressed the CCP & wokism ... in any case, I invite you to present your view of how the masses are waking up.
I still have much to learn, so please educate me :)
You are deluded. Almost all college professors are liberals. Most right-wing groups on campuses have shriveled, and their events are routinely attacked or cancelled by the CCCP wokesters.
Most profs, if not all, are full on woke or pretending to be until they can collect a pension. There are no right wing koch bro or similar orgs as they’d be cancelled, and students wont risk joining one anyway. Is your comment coming from a place of “belief” vs first hand experience?
Well stated Grayson, thank you. Especially salient is your point that both the external axis of autocracies and the internal tsunami of Woke ideology seek the same goal, namely, the end of the America-led liberal global order, and its replacement by what inevitably would be a hellish dysoptia. The flourishing of the liberal order hence requires that the liberal democracies reduce their supply-chain dependence on China, and that America reduce the influence of Woke ideology across its education sector. And that we restore policies that enable robust economic growth, to achieve those vital ends.
This is one of the most incisive articles I’ve read on the subject. Your description of “equity” is also one of best. You are also wise to mention Douglas Murray’s brilliant book. Thank you.
I agree with the Grayson Slover that the CCP and Critical Social Justice are really just different manifestations of the same threat to liberal democracy. CCP is a Marxism-Leninist regime and Critical Social Justice is a variant of cultural Marxism. Both seek to destroy Western democracies and replace them with worldwide communism, a form of totalitarianism. For a look at how we got where we are today and why it matters, see "Legacy of Lies" on my latest Substack at https://2026.substack.com/p/legacy-of-lies
"the altar of equity" - Surely another word for communism... (but of course wokeness is based on marxist texts... so nothing to be surprised about...) Amazing nobody questioned it sooner.
And when politician combats this insidious ideology (DeSantis), he is targeted with vicious smears and lies by the media. Why is the media so invested in toxic wokeness?
The assumption that China’s belt and road initiative is worse than America’s unipolar neoliberal blood-soaked imperial designs is a bit hard to swallow. Wokism is a distraction from the negatives of our war mongering, but if the US really wants to combat/compete with the CCP, how about investing in peace and infrastructure, instead of cluster bombs and military bases?
Wokeness is the flip side of populism- both believe in homogeneous groups, blood purity, over individual dignity and nuance. Us vs them, Both use fiery rhetoric over community building. Neither are bridge builders to a greater humanity or sustainable. Neither believe in democracy - both favour their "team" and make rules to favour themselves.
Humanism (and universal rights) believes in everyone equally, loves cultures and individuals.... regardless of sex, race, creed.
What people forget is democracy only works when there is a representative speaking for what they feel represents them... if so Where is the humanist answer? (That elusive off menu option..)
We only have two choices! - one that is Marxist inspired and one that is populist... What about the option that normal people promote... fairness.
One that promotes internationalism over globalism? (meaning you can control labour laws and ecological laws and borders?) *borders were made to skip taxes, import infinite cheap labour or outsource ...where is that option? Because with that comes the taxes to repair the infrastructure to health and education....
Excellent commentary! Murray's book is a fantastic resource, and so is FAIR. FAIR has been very helpful to many of us here in woke Vermont. Thanks you!!
With respect, I disagree. China’s Communist Party is by far the greatest threat. Grayson, both you and former Secretary of State Pompeo appear close sounding hysterical about “toxic wokeism”. Claims that America is a “racist nation” are overdone, but we do need a reckoning about injustice and past wrongs that critical social justice seeks, in its faltering way, to address. Right now this argument is being conducted on the extremes. It is possible and even wise to criticize wokeism and dogmatic conservative detractors. Empathy, kindness, and even humor need to play a greater role in our discussion about intolerance and racism.
The key question from this article and the comments section seems to be which form of institutional capture is best, left or right, and is a humanist approach to institutions actually possible? In my opinion the latter is impossible and fraught with the historical issues all utopian movements encounter. So if we are faced with having to choose between leftist, Marxist etc capture or populist capture I think the populist is by orders of magnitude the best option. Ask yourself this; which worldview or philosophy would be more compatible with our constitution? Which would seek to abolish said constitution? Therein lies your answer
Humanism and utopianism are not the same thing. Humanism promotes the development of human knowledge, creativity, and ethical behaviour by emphasising the value and agency of humans. Utopianism, on the other hand, is a vision or theory of an ideal society that is frequently distinguished by a high level of social and political perfection. Unlike utopianism, which seeks to impose a single vision of society, humanism celebrates the diversity and complexity of human cultures and identities. (As the homogenizer, the underlying push towards universal human rights) Humanism recognises that people have different needs, interests, and perspectives, and that in order to be truly just, these differences must be respected and accommodated. It is also not an either/or situation, but rather the preservation of human rights. (This is something that populism and communism both fail to do because they both value homogeneous groups over individual dignity and nuance. Both sides use fiery rhetoric, lack community building. Neither are they sustainable or bridge builders to a greater humanity. Neither believes in democracy; they both favour their "team" and make rules to benefit them.
"Ask yourself this; which worldview or philosophy would be more compatible with our constitution?" Neither of those options appeal to me! - I prefer democracy and universal human rights. Populism can be anti-democratic if it undermines democratic institutions and principles like the rule of law, human rights, and press freedom. Erdogan's Turkey: Erdogan's populist rhetoric and appeals to Turkish nationalism have weakened democratic institutions. Viktor Orban. Rodrigo Duterte, Jair Bolsonaro's attacks on the media and democratic institutions. etc . Populist movements do not always oppose democracy but, can be viewed as a threat to democracy when they undermine democratic principles and institutions. In contrast Leaders who support universal rights take democracy and free speech as a shared valued! based on our shared humanity... (unlike populism, woke marxism and communism), which is why I prefer the option not provided (and not given in politics either) 'which form of institutional capture is best' - The one the focuses on universal human rights based on shared humanity... the one that has no representative.
"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill" Sun Tzu's That is why people should read The Art of War to better understand what is going on. "Toxic wokeness" is also based on Marxist texts, so we are once again confronted with the battle of homogeneous identity versus human individuality and universal human rights (Equity and inclusion are not the same thing!) - we already know how this ends - in Gulags, as with all things Marxist...
Some numbers would be nice. Out of the 200K plus public K-12 schools’ textbooks, how many actually teach this doctrine of perpetual racism? The failure of the right to ever trouble itself with any kind of quants on this issue makes me think that its adherents simply loathe those very liberal teachers in ethnic skirts and hairdos. I admit I don’t like them much, either, but having gotten my own daughter through a NY public high school where she learned science and now works in defense, and having scrutinized her history textbooks (she graduated ten years ago), it’s difficult for me to believe that a bunch of well-meaning bleeding hearts such as the kind who used to educate her, are a threat on par with the CCP. Without something like evidence, this post is just another useless piece of agit-prop.
Ahhh, the “show me what books teach CRT/woke ideas” statement. If books are the only thing that educate kids, why do we pay teachers and school administrators? The history book my 11th grader uses has a slightly different version of several historical events, but they certainly promotes the liberal viewpoint while bad mouthing the conservative viewpoint.
It is well known that most, not all, but most public school teachers vote Democrat. My kids teachers have no problem sharing their thoughts with my kids and those thoughts are left leaning.
The pattern has already been seen on this topic. It’s not happening - ok, it’s happening but not a lot - it’s happening but only in certain areas- it’s happening...so what? - and finally, it’s happening and you’re a racist, misogynist, bigot if you don’t agree.
Yes, I believe he is very fair and portrays himself as a thoughtful and kind man, demonstrating where the media has gone wrong (and why the US needs to consider all view points - where its all gone wrong) It's a big battle now... with the majority of universities not by majority "liberal".. (taken not by militants - but by majority nice people that have forgotten history and the value of free minds and the power to question bad ideas - to protect different view points and maintain a diversity of thought.)
I am uncomfortable with the erosion of universal equal rights! as well as humanism... Marxism is the foundation of woke ideology in terms of teaching material and based of marxists texts! - Equality one with bloodshed... that never becomes equality but just brutal oppressive totalitarianism, Everywhere Marxism was attempted, it failed horribly (Gulags, starvation, corruption, oppression, loss of freedom of speech. As a humanist, I couldn't care less about a person's race, sexual orientation, or religion - what I care about is equality under universal human rights - this is not the same as equity and inclusion, far far far from it!) -
"it’s difficult for me to believe that" - Return to the source and research what they are learning.... If it does not include universal rights, it is not worthy.
"A threat and bleeding hearts": ..Communism wasn't created by blood thirsty people! but by some people that believed in something beautiful but that took advantage and control! Every-single-time it was attempted communism ended in gulags, famine, corruption loss of freedom of speech. The concern is not so much "how many are educated woke" as "who is" - If it is targeted to the most influential schools that hire for media, law, politics, and corporations - as these are drivers of culture. Be concerned about institution capture! For example (not how many but who:), 80 people in this world have the same amount of wealth as the world's 3.6 billion poorest people. 35 of the world's top 80 wealthiest people are American citizens. Imagine they go marxist woke....! (or their corporations) Freedom and universal equality is not a given but something people need to be vigilant on. Learn some game theory, Read Sun Tzu, read up on their learning material theory, and marxism and communism... we are in scary times. As for partisanship: jonathan haidt sees both sides as necessary I agree! Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist at NYU and author of The Coddling of the American Mind, The Righteous Mind, and The Happiness Hypothesis. worth a read to see the failure of our educational institutions - less division is better!
You're barking up the wrong tree with respect to the CCP. China has reached out to America numerous times seeking cooperation and working together on difficult challenges around the world, and the American government has snubbed their noses at them. Is China a perfect country, and have a perfect system? No, and they are humble enough to admit that, unlike America. There is not a scintilla of doubt that sooner, rather than later, China will be the dominant player in global economics and foreign policy. As an American, I would rather work in cooperation with China, then make them an adversary, and fight a losing battle.
Gee willikers Mr. Observant, I forgot that China has been invading numerous countries around the world amounting to the deaths of millions of innocents, and is the largest supplier of weapons of war and mass destruction in the history of the world.
“deaths of millions of innocents” oh the rich irony. Like, you’re not concerned that Xi is modeling himself on the mass killer Mao? I can never understand why hatred of America must somehow always go with effusive praise of the communist regime in China. Must be something very ideological.
I love china for its ability to transform itself in the last 40 years - a story of guts, tragedy, determination and change - at the same time, We have to come to terms with the concept of who ever is technologically advanced in the world calls the shots (China will overtake the west in the next 10 - 20 years) already boasting some of the best AI investments and patents. Humanity has always gravitated to the drivers of technology and innovation. So the question is what will happen when the mantle of leadership falls from the west to China. Human rights, freedom, freedom of speech in a technological age.
You might be right, but I wouldn't count the US out quite yet. Yes, for sure, a large part of the massive reduction of absolute poverty in the world has been due to China's embrace of the globalized economy, no small feat, but the eye must always be on the costs to freedom, as you say, human rights, speech, also the rule of law. China's power, as it is currently configured, can only usher a darker age.
"embrace of the globalized economy" also comes with huge complications - growth cant go forever - the world is only so big and only produces so much... (but that is how our economy is designed - for infinite growth...)
One we hit resource scarcity - we come into conflict both with world ecology and its possible output, but also with each other -other nations.... (Id vouch we are at a stage when growth causes more wars... and GDP is simply propping up unsustainable practices (what we spend on war and social unrest also it calculated as economic activity as a plus to GDP - and not a minus) ... other tricky times which will also make human rights, speech, also the rule of law difficult here too. Its a battle on multiple fronts.
"China has reached out to America numerous times seeking cooperation and working together on difficult challenges around the world" what were the conditions of that cooperation?
Well written!
(Full Disclosure: I am a College Professor) I would like to point out one thing Slover omitted: the growing influence of the CCP on Western Universities. I don't have time to write a good summary so I suggest folks look up "Confucius Institutes" in the US & UK. The PRC is exerting soft power on American institutions (check out how they influence our entertainment industry - and therefore our news media)
There is one ray of hope: respect for America's education system is low and rapidly falling. Even University students lack respect for education - most don't care about learning, they just want that piece of paper that will get them a good job (or so they have been told). Tuition is so high and they go into so much debt more and more students expect to get good grades automatically - and if the prof doesn't accommodate them they simply cheat. Seriously, does Higher Ed really think that they can shape the minds of this generation of students? When student loan debt is so terrifyingly huge, that it is adversely affecting our entire economy why would any tax payer support expensive but useless degrees? Look up "student debt + economy" and pay attention to how Higher Ed is hurting underserved communities by burdening them with outlandish debt after a promise of a brighter future. Some see Higher Ed as just one more example of the system exploiting the poor and powerless - we no longer have chattel slavery so we invented debt slavery.
The masses are waking up. A Bachelor's Degree in Liberal Arts doesn't provide significantly better job skills than a High School Diploma so why spend all that money on it? STEM majors have significantly better job prospects - and the degrees are worth the expense. Plus, in our fields we do not indoctrinate students we don't have time to fit that into our curricula ... but, alas, math is hard so most don't want to go down our path (which is why the job prospects are so good).
Woke degrees do not make economic sense. Free Market economics might solve the wokeness problem - take that Communism!
..I have to disagree with the 'ray of hope' concept... (sorry) " "One ray of hope is that respect for America's educational system is low and rapidly declining. Even university students lack respect for education - most are uninterested in learning,"
so they didn't get indoctrinated at uni...
Humanity has always centred its power on those with technological prowess. (this is why the US held ascendancy for so long - innovation, science! - what if the nazis invented the V2 before the british won the war or US didn't bomb Hiroshima? etc...)
Defunct education and decline simply hands an illiberal system the victory! All nations pick up technology and are inspired by the drivers of change and innovation - from bronze age until now, it was they they won the borders, negotiated territory and had influence.
Secondly: Imagine being a dissident in the digital age in a country that is so closely monitored - beyond what the Stasi has ever been capable of!... but then combine that with it being the driving global culture - personally, I give it 10-20 years.
China is now nearly equaling the states in terms of patents. - this is inspirational but also sad! Freedom is fragile and precious (we are living in a historical bubble - that for a tiny time there has been an opportunity for what we have - lets hope we can keep it..)
I agree with much of what you are saying. The thing about STEM degrees is they do not get as much indoctrination as Liberal Arts, Humanities and Social Science graduates - and even if they do get some indoctrination, they are taught critical thinking skills and the value of evidence & data (and can usually discern the difference between a fact and an assertion).
I see far more in STEM fields fighting for privacy and freedom of expression that I see from the Humanities. STEM folks understand that freedom and innovation go together and can make things like encrypted communication (c.f. Signal) which can get around the surveillance state. For every measure there is a counter-measure.
Some expect the STEM boom in China to have a liberalizing effect as more Chinese citizens are educated in STEM. In support of this, the STEM-savvy Russians opposed the war in Ukraine early on and many had the info to anticipate the mobilization and left Russia long before Russia closed its borders. The mustered troops are not well educated and cannot perform with modern military technology - that is why Russia desperately wants to motivate tech educated citizens (and why NATO does not want to 'escalate' the war - IOW: provide a casus belli to stir patriotism in the educated Russians who could deal with modern military tech)
I believe that STEM is more liberalizing than Liberal Arts. Humanity had liberal arts, religion & philosophy for millennia and humanity barely improved - women were treated as property and slavery was commonplace (and socially acceptable). After science and technology came along within a few centuries the world became a much more liberal and humane place. The reason humans ended slavery was technology not some awakening - one machine could do the work of a hundred slaves.
The history of the human race seems to be that we make social advances only after technology makes it convenient.
I have a deep love of STEM too but there is no reason to think a country can have this and not also be illiberal (Nazi's had some of the best scientists, Russians and Chinese do currently) I expect Chinese STEM surpremacy in 10-20 years (yes I'm annoying cynic 🤪) Let's hope the west can pull itself together - humanism needs a united front.
Your comment about Nazi scientists illustrates my point very well - and foreshadows what happened to Russia's science community and likely will affect China's science.
There is a popular myth of _Nazi_ super-scientists that has little basis - with a few exceptions like Werner von Braun (who was exploiting the Germany war effort to build rockets for space instead of for war - fun fact: Nazi Germany was the first nation to get something into space!) Postwar investigations showed that Germany was not doing very well in atomic energy. Their top atomic scientist, Heisenberg, maintained that he intentionally thwarted the development f the atomic bomb because he didn't want the Nazis to get that much power. Some claim he was trying to repair his reputation - but either way the Nazi super-scientist myth is busted.
There were German super-scientists, like Einstein, but they did their work well before WWII and fled when the Nazis came to power. In fact, the USA owes Adolf thanks for jump-starting our lead in Physics because his hate-based government drove out those scientists who were courted by the USA. What is more delicious is that since many of those super-scientists were Jews, the Nazi party disapproved of their "Jewish science" and did not develop it!
Also, we must understand that science is a community effort - I cannot think of a single scientist who did great work in isolation (even 'Lone Wolf' Newton bounced ideas for Principia off of his peers). To have top notch science programs requires much international cooperation. When scientists are stuck in a silo they will not keep up with others' work and cannot cross-pollinate ideas. They also do not benefit from others scrutinizing their work. People talk about the importance of the scientific method but never understand how central peer review is to the scientific endeavor.
This isolation from the West greatly hindered Soviet science during the Cold War - they could not bounce around ideas outside of their circle and could not access outside labs and facilities. Much of Soviet science was utter rubbish - some times embarrassingly so because it was beholden to Soviet ideology (like the Nazi view of Jewish physics).
One of the interesting but unnoticed things about the investigation of the Lab leak hypothesis is the revelation of how much much the PRC squashes science for the sake of ideology. To the point that Chinese medical scientists were afraid to openly talk about the new virus because the party came down HARD on those who did discuss it. It is likely that millions died because information did not flow in the early days when it was most crucial...
So, although you are technically correct that an oppressive government can have top notch science, that marriage will not last long. Either the government will become more liberal or the science with wither from being starved of what it most needs: open collaboration. You cannot have free exchange of ideas _and_ government control of expression. This is what concerns me most of the trend in academia - they are becoming oppressors and that harms science and most other intellectual creativity. Some results cannot be published and that means a LOT of research isn't even done.
BTW: China is not the only other nation supporting science - Europe, India and Japan have very good science programs (I have personally worked with many scientists from those places). If/when America falters, liberal countries in Europe will most likely pick up the slack - this century does not have to be an American century as long as humanity progresses. After all, we got our jump-start in science from Europe after they did so well for a few centuries. But there are many nations with good science programs - they may not be as well funded as American programs but they still do great work. Go to any big science conference and you will see. You will also see that scientists from oppressive regimes are under represented at major science conferences - and that includes PRC.
China may take the lead for a while but if they remain stuck in their silo the rest of world will pass them - regardless of what happens to America. Liberal societies tend to make the best science. (But fascists seem to be able to find great artists and musicians)
I agree that science is a collaborative effort, and that open exchange of ideas is crucial for the advancement of scientific knowledge. Governments that restrict this exchange or control scientific research for political or military purposes can hinder scientific progress and ultimately harm society.
However It is important to acknowledge that science is not immune to political and social influences, The claim that Nazi super-scientist myth is busted may not be entirely accurate, as some German scientists actively supported the Nazi ideology and contributed to the war effort (so too some Russian scientists!) . Similarly, the claim that the USA owes its lead in physics solely to the Jewish scientists who fled Nazi Germany is partly true, as other factors may have also contributed to scientific advancements such as government investment, access to funding and resources, strong research institutions, a culture of innovation, and international collaboration contributed to the USA's lead in physics.
Scientists face numerous challenges when considering the ethical and military implications of their research, particularly in countries where the government has a history of controlling or manipulating scientific research for political or military purposes. These challenges can include:
Fear of retaliation or retribution from their government, such as loss of funding, imprisonment, or even harm to themselves or their family members, if they speak out against the government's use of scientific research for military purposes.
Lack of transparency the government may not provide clear information about the intended use of scientific research or the potential military applications of scientific discoveries, making it difficult for scientists to assess the ethical implications of their work.
Limited resources: Scientists may be constrained both in terms of funding and access to equipment or research materials, which can make it difficult to pursue research that is solely focused on peaceful applications.
Pressure to prioritize military applications even if they personally believe in the importance of peaceful applications.
"Signal" China has invested heavily in developing advanced technologies, including those related to information security and cryptography and has a large cybersecurity industry that includes many highly skilled researchers. In recent years, China has faced criticism for its human rights record and for its use of surveillance technologies to monitor its citizens....
Lets mope science can throw off the politics and build worlds beneficial to all people.. lets hope STEM gets taken up far far more.
I also agree that there are many countries with strong science programs, and that international collaboration is crucial for scientific progress. It is important to foster a culture of open exchange and collaboration (but carefully - *business too!), while also acknowledging the potential risks and ethical implications of scientific research especially in countries with poor human rights records...
Overall, the pursuit of scientific knowledge should be guided by a commitment to advancing the well-being of humanity, rather than by political or military objectives (but that is not always the case - not even in the west!) Because "America's educational system is low and rapidly declining... I worry the other team takes the cup
*The pursuit of economic gain through globalism has led to the normalization and acceptance of illiberal regimes, which may have negative consequences for human rights and democratic freedoms. - Resource scarcity will create even more precarious situations.
Lets hope stem picks up and we find a way to invest in that and excellence/ competence/ skill - We will need it!
Yes Aussie just did an article of CCP influencing learning material for students
Can you provide a link?
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/how-taxpayer-money-is-being-used-to-smuggle-chinese-ideology-into-australia-via-community-language-schools/news-story/3c12424af2ac21624cf0249b5c839da8
Thanks!
I am sorry I did not think I had to explain that my comment was in the context of the article which addressed the CCP & wokism ... in any case, I invite you to present your view of how the masses are waking up.
I still have much to learn, so please educate me :)
You are deluded. Almost all college professors are liberals. Most right-wing groups on campuses have shriveled, and their events are routinely attacked or cancelled by the CCCP wokesters.
Most profs, if not all, are full on woke or pretending to be until they can collect a pension. There are no right wing koch bro or similar orgs as they’d be cancelled, and students wont risk joining one anyway. Is your comment coming from a place of “belief” vs first hand experience?
Well stated Grayson, thank you. Especially salient is your point that both the external axis of autocracies and the internal tsunami of Woke ideology seek the same goal, namely, the end of the America-led liberal global order, and its replacement by what inevitably would be a hellish dysoptia. The flourishing of the liberal order hence requires that the liberal democracies reduce their supply-chain dependence on China, and that America reduce the influence of Woke ideology across its education sector. And that we restore policies that enable robust economic growth, to achieve those vital ends.
This is one of the most incisive articles I’ve read on the subject. Your description of “equity” is also one of best. You are also wise to mention Douglas Murray’s brilliant book. Thank you.
I agree with the Grayson Slover that the CCP and Critical Social Justice are really just different manifestations of the same threat to liberal democracy. CCP is a Marxism-Leninist regime and Critical Social Justice is a variant of cultural Marxism. Both seek to destroy Western democracies and replace them with worldwide communism, a form of totalitarianism. For a look at how we got where we are today and why it matters, see "Legacy of Lies" on my latest Substack at https://2026.substack.com/p/legacy-of-lies
“Abolition of standards at the altar of equity” is a pithy truism. Woke educators sacrifice traditional education for equal group outcomes.
"the altar of equity" - Surely another word for communism... (but of course wokeness is based on marxist texts... so nothing to be surprised about...) Amazing nobody questioned it sooner.
They’re both horrific. Both represent bold illiberalism. Both use specific language to attempt to hide their grotesque aims.
Orwell discussed this of course: https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/george-orwells-politics-and-the-english
And when politician combats this insidious ideology (DeSantis), he is targeted with vicious smears and lies by the media. Why is the media so invested in toxic wokeness?
the media invested because it is captured.
The assumption that China’s belt and road initiative is worse than America’s unipolar neoliberal blood-soaked imperial designs is a bit hard to swallow. Wokism is a distraction from the negatives of our war mongering, but if the US really wants to combat/compete with the CCP, how about investing in peace and infrastructure, instead of cluster bombs and military bases?
Just a quick observation: "toxic wokeness" is a pleonasm.
Wokeness is the flip side of populism- both believe in homogeneous groups, blood purity, over individual dignity and nuance. Us vs them, Both use fiery rhetoric over community building. Neither are bridge builders to a greater humanity or sustainable. Neither believe in democracy - both favour their "team" and make rules to favour themselves.
Humanism (and universal rights) believes in everyone equally, loves cultures and individuals.... regardless of sex, race, creed.
What people forget is democracy only works when there is a representative speaking for what they feel represents them... if so Where is the humanist answer? (That elusive off menu option..)
We only have two choices! - one that is Marxist inspired and one that is populist... What about the option that normal people promote... fairness.
One that promotes internationalism over globalism? (meaning you can control labour laws and ecological laws and borders?) *borders were made to skip taxes, import infinite cheap labour or outsource ...where is that option? Because with that comes the taxes to repair the infrastructure to health and education....
Excellent commentary! Murray's book is a fantastic resource, and so is FAIR. FAIR has been very helpful to many of us here in woke Vermont. Thanks you!!
With respect, I disagree. China’s Communist Party is by far the greatest threat. Grayson, both you and former Secretary of State Pompeo appear close sounding hysterical about “toxic wokeism”. Claims that America is a “racist nation” are overdone, but we do need a reckoning about injustice and past wrongs that critical social justice seeks, in its faltering way, to address. Right now this argument is being conducted on the extremes. It is possible and even wise to criticize wokeism and dogmatic conservative detractors. Empathy, kindness, and even humor need to play a greater role in our discussion about intolerance and racism.
The key question from this article and the comments section seems to be which form of institutional capture is best, left or right, and is a humanist approach to institutions actually possible? In my opinion the latter is impossible and fraught with the historical issues all utopian movements encounter. So if we are faced with having to choose between leftist, Marxist etc capture or populist capture I think the populist is by orders of magnitude the best option. Ask yourself this; which worldview or philosophy would be more compatible with our constitution? Which would seek to abolish said constitution? Therein lies your answer
Humanism and utopianism are not the same thing. Humanism promotes the development of human knowledge, creativity, and ethical behaviour by emphasising the value and agency of humans. Utopianism, on the other hand, is a vision or theory of an ideal society that is frequently distinguished by a high level of social and political perfection. Unlike utopianism, which seeks to impose a single vision of society, humanism celebrates the diversity and complexity of human cultures and identities. (As the homogenizer, the underlying push towards universal human rights) Humanism recognises that people have different needs, interests, and perspectives, and that in order to be truly just, these differences must be respected and accommodated. It is also not an either/or situation, but rather the preservation of human rights. (This is something that populism and communism both fail to do because they both value homogeneous groups over individual dignity and nuance. Both sides use fiery rhetoric, lack community building. Neither are they sustainable or bridge builders to a greater humanity. Neither believes in democracy; they both favour their "team" and make rules to benefit them.
"Ask yourself this; which worldview or philosophy would be more compatible with our constitution?" Neither of those options appeal to me! - I prefer democracy and universal human rights. Populism can be anti-democratic if it undermines democratic institutions and principles like the rule of law, human rights, and press freedom. Erdogan's Turkey: Erdogan's populist rhetoric and appeals to Turkish nationalism have weakened democratic institutions. Viktor Orban. Rodrigo Duterte, Jair Bolsonaro's attacks on the media and democratic institutions. etc . Populist movements do not always oppose democracy but, can be viewed as a threat to democracy when they undermine democratic principles and institutions. In contrast Leaders who support universal rights take democracy and free speech as a shared valued! based on our shared humanity... (unlike populism, woke marxism and communism), which is why I prefer the option not provided (and not given in politics either) 'which form of institutional capture is best' - The one the focuses on universal human rights based on shared humanity... the one that has no representative.
"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill" Sun Tzu's That is why people should read The Art of War to better understand what is going on. "Toxic wokeness" is also based on Marxist texts, so we are once again confronted with the battle of homogeneous identity versus human individuality and universal human rights (Equity and inclusion are not the same thing!) - we already know how this ends - in Gulags, as with all things Marxist...
Some numbers would be nice. Out of the 200K plus public K-12 schools’ textbooks, how many actually teach this doctrine of perpetual racism? The failure of the right to ever trouble itself with any kind of quants on this issue makes me think that its adherents simply loathe those very liberal teachers in ethnic skirts and hairdos. I admit I don’t like them much, either, but having gotten my own daughter through a NY public high school where she learned science and now works in defense, and having scrutinized her history textbooks (she graduated ten years ago), it’s difficult for me to believe that a bunch of well-meaning bleeding hearts such as the kind who used to educate her, are a threat on par with the CCP. Without something like evidence, this post is just another useless piece of agit-prop.
Ahhh, the “show me what books teach CRT/woke ideas” statement. If books are the only thing that educate kids, why do we pay teachers and school administrators? The history book my 11th grader uses has a slightly different version of several historical events, but they certainly promotes the liberal viewpoint while bad mouthing the conservative viewpoint.
It is well known that most, not all, but most public school teachers vote Democrat. My kids teachers have no problem sharing their thoughts with my kids and those thoughts are left leaning.
The pattern has already been seen on this topic. It’s not happening - ok, it’s happening but not a lot - it’s happening but only in certain areas- it’s happening...so what? - and finally, it’s happening and you’re a racist, misogynist, bigot if you don’t agree.
Yes Id agree to that - and it is really a worry - id have to say left or right we need more people like Jonathan haidt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHTuI40HjVE
Yes institution capture is something I notice... and he has the stats to show it.
Haidt is one of the most thoughtful commentators of modern day and one of my favorite authors.
Yes, I believe he is very fair and portrays himself as a thoughtful and kind man, demonstrating where the media has gone wrong (and why the US needs to consider all view points - where its all gone wrong) It's a big battle now... with the majority of universities not by majority "liberal".. (taken not by militants - but by majority nice people that have forgotten history and the value of free minds and the power to question bad ideas - to protect different view points and maintain a diversity of thought.)
I am uncomfortable with the erosion of universal equal rights! as well as humanism... Marxism is the foundation of woke ideology in terms of teaching material and based of marxists texts! - Equality one with bloodshed... that never becomes equality but just brutal oppressive totalitarianism, Everywhere Marxism was attempted, it failed horribly (Gulags, starvation, corruption, oppression, loss of freedom of speech. As a humanist, I couldn't care less about a person's race, sexual orientation, or religion - what I care about is equality under universal human rights - this is not the same as equity and inclusion, far far far from it!) -
"it’s difficult for me to believe that" - Return to the source and research what they are learning.... If it does not include universal rights, it is not worthy.
"A threat and bleeding hearts": ..Communism wasn't created by blood thirsty people! but by some people that believed in something beautiful but that took advantage and control! Every-single-time it was attempted communism ended in gulags, famine, corruption loss of freedom of speech. The concern is not so much "how many are educated woke" as "who is" - If it is targeted to the most influential schools that hire for media, law, politics, and corporations - as these are drivers of culture. Be concerned about institution capture! For example (not how many but who:), 80 people in this world have the same amount of wealth as the world's 3.6 billion poorest people. 35 of the world's top 80 wealthiest people are American citizens. Imagine they go marxist woke....! (or their corporations) Freedom and universal equality is not a given but something people need to be vigilant on. Learn some game theory, Read Sun Tzu, read up on their learning material theory, and marxism and communism... we are in scary times. As for partisanship: jonathan haidt sees both sides as necessary I agree! Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist at NYU and author of The Coddling of the American Mind, The Righteous Mind, and The Happiness Hypothesis. worth a read to see the failure of our educational institutions - less division is better!
The Coddling of the American Mind, How to Become Intellectually Antifragile, & More | Jonathan Haidt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elo89pPREYE
You're barking up the wrong tree with respect to the CCP. China has reached out to America numerous times seeking cooperation and working together on difficult challenges around the world, and the American government has snubbed their noses at them. Is China a perfect country, and have a perfect system? No, and they are humble enough to admit that, unlike America. There is not a scintilla of doubt that sooner, rather than later, China will be the dominant player in global economics and foreign policy. As an American, I would rather work in cooperation with China, then make them an adversary, and fight a losing battle.
Is that you, Mr. Chamberlain?
Gee willikers Mr. Observant, I forgot that China has been invading numerous countries around the world amounting to the deaths of millions of innocents, and is the largest supplier of weapons of war and mass destruction in the history of the world.
ladies and gentlemen, meet bluecurl3, the very example of the product of CRT education. I mean, indoctrination.
Prime specimen, really - almost uncanny.
China was too busy murdering and cleansing out their own population to be concerned with nation-building abroad.
“deaths of millions of innocents” oh the rich irony. Like, you’re not concerned that Xi is modeling himself on the mass killer Mao? I can never understand why hatred of America must somehow always go with effusive praise of the communist regime in China. Must be something very ideological.
I love china for its ability to transform itself in the last 40 years - a story of guts, tragedy, determination and change - at the same time, We have to come to terms with the concept of who ever is technologically advanced in the world calls the shots (China will overtake the west in the next 10 - 20 years) already boasting some of the best AI investments and patents. Humanity has always gravitated to the drivers of technology and innovation. So the question is what will happen when the mantle of leadership falls from the west to China. Human rights, freedom, freedom of speech in a technological age.
You might be right, but I wouldn't count the US out quite yet. Yes, for sure, a large part of the massive reduction of absolute poverty in the world has been due to China's embrace of the globalized economy, no small feat, but the eye must always be on the costs to freedom, as you say, human rights, speech, also the rule of law. China's power, as it is currently configured, can only usher a darker age.
"embrace of the globalized economy" also comes with huge complications - growth cant go forever - the world is only so big and only produces so much... (but that is how our economy is designed - for infinite growth...)
One we hit resource scarcity - we come into conflict both with world ecology and its possible output, but also with each other -other nations.... (Id vouch we are at a stage when growth causes more wars... and GDP is simply propping up unsustainable practices (what we spend on war and social unrest also it calculated as economic activity as a plus to GDP - and not a minus) ... other tricky times which will also make human rights, speech, also the rule of law difficult here too. Its a battle on multiple fronts.
"China has reached out to America numerous times seeking cooperation and working together on difficult challenges around the world" what were the conditions of that cooperation?
Great article and absolutely correct on what this teaching does to degrade this country. We will go out with a whimper if this continues. Alarming poll in today's WSJ makes it seem we are in a death spiral: https://www.wsj.com/articles/americans-pull-back-from-values-that-once-defined-u-s-wsj-norc-poll-finds-df8534cd?mod=hp_lead_pos9