The Real Issue With Senate Bill 895

Recently the Laotian community has been in a uproar over their exclusion in the Californian Senate Bill 895. The bill, created by senator Janet Nguyen, originally was about creating a Vietnamese refugee social science course for Californian K-12. Senator Nguyen added Cambodia and Hmong refugees to the bill after speaking with colleagues. After multiple inquires from the Lao community, senator Nguyen, has released a statement saying the final deadline for amendments has passed and any additions would have to wait till next year. While I understand the Laotian community’s issue with being left out. Covering multiple refugee communities around them and even within them, the Hmong refugees that come from Laos, while skipping over them is awkward. But most likely they will be added next year so it hopefully will be resolved. There is a bigger issue here with these courses that I would like to address.

Cultural and racial studies have been a big tool in leftist indoctrination. The social sciences have been a far left area of study for many decades. Liberal professors outnumbering conservative 12 to 1 in general and is even higher in the social sciences, reaching 17 to 1 in philosophy, history, and psychology and as high as 70 to 1 in religion. This creates a very strong echo chamber around these areas of study that limits the students to only one perspective.

They have not been subtle with this. Many degrees have been changed in the last few decades to require these cultural and racial courses over previously integral courses. According to Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute, at UCLA, a Bachelors degree in English literature requires courses in gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexuality, imperial transnational or post-colonial studies, but has no requirement for students to study Shakespeare, the most important English writer in history. This is a normal trend in the social sciences. A focus on equity, diversity, and inclusion while disregarding the core pillars of the subject and even going as far as to destroy the previous foundation. It is not surprising as in many colleges, professors are required to have activism on their resume to be hired or promoted. Professors are now activists and are training students to be activists rather than teaching them to be critical thinkers, speakers, and writers as they remove the substance courses and fill them with rhetoric based fluff where they get to complain, destroy, and supplant.

The focus in essentially everyone of these courses is the apparent corruption and tyrannical force of either American, white, imperialism, capitalism, or male supremacy. Ignoring any facts that contradict their narrative.

They accuse Shakespeare of being a racist that perpetuates white supremacy, elitism, stateism, or patriarchy for just being a successful white male, even though much of his writing actually attacked every one of those things. Othello was centered around a Moor General. The Merry Wives of Windsor focused on the lower and middle class. In Anthony and Cleopatra he talks about the interaction and integration of middle east with Europe. Yet Students and faculty argue he wasn’t diverse or inclusive enough, but it seems they haven’t read a single word of Shakespeare, which isn’t surprising for the students since they are removing him from their curriculum, but what is the excuse for the faculty. It seems they are conflating diversity within the literature with diversity of the writer to push their activism narrative. He absolutely was a herald of diversity and inclusiveness in his writing. But that doesn’t seem to matter to them. They just care he wasn’t a person of color and therefore not diverse or inclusive “enough” for their needs. Some go as far to label him a racist that promulgates hate and bigotry. Clearly putting their narrative above facts in their scholastic activism.

While I have issues with their methodology, logic, and dishonesty, I don’t necessarily have issues with the existence of these courses, students should learn from all perspectives even ridiculously bad ones and figure out what makes sense and why, but for the fact they put narrative over facts. This is clearly propaganda and indoctrination. On top of that they portray themselves as objective and progressive while simultaneously being dishonest and skirting facts.

Shakespeare, who wrote about diversity on racial, economical, and intellectual levels, but is somehow still a racist because he was a white male. So he must be replaced with their more diverse and inclusive courses.

Also the fact these courses are subsidized by taxpayers. If a private school that takes no tax dollars wants to teach students ridiculous false narratives, that is fine. I would like them to be honest about their bias perspective, and have ethical, intellectual, and moral standards, but if I’m not paying for it, they can do what they want. We can let the students and their parents decide if it is a worthwhile institution and the free market decide if they should exist with such low standards and essentially no educational value.
These narratives are present in many other fields of study. They teach that American settlers intentionally used smallpox blankets as biochemical weapons to kill natives. Which is absolutely untrue and you literally have to cut and edit historical fact to get that position. There are several other less than credible interpretations of history like Lincoln was a racist white supremacist, Columbus was a genocidal murderer, the gender pay gap is caused by the patriarchy, I even recall my political science professor laying a defense for Osama Bin Ladin and Sadam Hussien as a victims of American imperialism and implying that we were responsible for their creation and actions they would later commit, later teaching unequivocally that the only reason we were in the middle east was oil. Never mentioning the numerous terrorist attacks, presidential assassination attempts, or the human rights violations. 9/11 not even existing in their world. At the time I hadn’t realized how intellectually lazy and dishonest it was and just accepted it because they had some evidence and assuming since it was taught in college, it must have been vetted, extensively researched, and peer reviewed. The list of horribly bias narratives with minimum evidence and exclusion of any conflicting facts goes on.
The strongest evidence of this anti-American narrative is the fact that the Lao and Hmong children of communists survivors, some even spending their childhood in refugee camps, literally saved by America; are the ones that spit on it’s name. They sing along in the chorus of anti-American propaganda with no facts, just narrative. Their families persecuted, imprisoned, oppressed, and executed by the communists, yet they often defend the communists and attempt to bring that corruption in to this country. It is quite disgusting and the most extreme example of leftist anti-American indoctrination in the American school system I can find. If a school system can turn people saved by America against America, it has become a dangerous machine.

Back to Bill 895. I am not against them teaching the refugee experiences of Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, Laos or any other group. My issue is they will use this class to continue anti-American falsehoods in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion, while ignoring facts. These courses just become propaganda and indoctrination paid by tax payers and a waste of time for students. They come out with negative perspectives based on false narratives and just learn to regurgitate over simplistic rhetoric, not knowing what anything means.

A common belief within the Lao and Hmong community is that America started the war in Laos and used them as puppets. The Secret War being proof that Southeast Asia was another chapter of American imperialism. Laotians and Hmong were some how victims of America. This is a pervasive belief among young Lao and Hmong Americans. I have no doubt that in these new refugee social studies course this false narrative will be a underlying theme if not the main point. This is absolutely untrue. America did not use Laotians and Hmong, they did not start the conflict or civil unrest, and Southeast Asia was not a example of American imperialism.

This may have been America’s secret war, but it was always first and foremost Laos’ civil war. The war originates more than 10 years before it turned into America’s secret war. In 1950 the Lao communist party, the Pathet Lao, was created with the help of the Vietnamese communist party to fight off the French colonialists, who recruited Lao soldiers to help them keep control. This french supported army would later become the Royal Lao Army. They also had Hmong and Thai help to fight off the communists so they could retain control of Laos. Hmong soldier, Vang pao, who would later become the general for the “secret” CIA army, fought in this war with the french, RLA, and Thai.

The communists eventually win the French Indochina War and force out the french from Laos as well as the rest of Southeast Asia. In the Geneva Accords of 1954 Laos is split between the communists, Pathet Lao, and the Royal Lao Army, where the Pathet Lao would have north Laos and the Royal Lao Army would retain the rest. After this the Pathet Lao grows in power and eventually take over the capital city, Vientiane, in 1960, with the help of the Vietnamese communists. The Royal Lao Army organized a defensive in reaction to fight the communists. The war started without America and would have happened no matter what.

In 1961 the CIA created a paramilitary using the Hmong ethic group of Laos. Some believe this act directly forced Hmong into the war, but that is also untrue. The more than 60 thousand Hmong soldiers enlisted by the CIA came from the Royal Lao Army. Who were allied with the French and fought against the communists during the French Indochina War. So the Hmong had already fought against the communists in the French Indochina War, and were currently apart of the Royal Lao army fighting the communists again. So Hmong were already directly involved in this war. According to General Vang Pao, the leader of the secret Hmong Army, the reason he agreed to fight with the CIA was he was expecting persecution for helping the French and Royal Lao Army in the previous civil war. Which seeing how decades after the war the communists are still punishing the Hmong for their role, was a safe assumption they were going to be persecuted no matter what choice they made.

During this time America dropped more bombs than in any other conflict, making Laos the most bombed land per capita in history. Which again is blamed on America, but it was admittedly demanded by Vang Pao, So even the biggest complaint Lao and Hmong American’s have against America, was done by request in war. America has been giving millions a year in aid since the 1960s through the World bank and International Monetary Fund, then directly giving additional millions in aid and bomb removal since 2001. Obama recently gave an additional 90 million on top of that in 2016.

After the war, America’s involvement gave the Royal Lao sympathizers and Hmong a way to escape the communist oppression and persecution. The communists imprisoned 40k within the first few years after the war. They continued to imprison more war refugees, even having thousands forcefully repatriated for decades from thailand up until as recently as 2010, so they could put them in political reeducation prison camps. Nearly 50 years after the war ended they continue to persecute political enemies. With vicious regimes that hold even the families accountable 50 years after later, How many more would of died if America had not got involved. Easily hundreds of thousands more would of died in this war if not for the American support, and even more after, upward of 300,000 refugees left after the war, though not all were successful.

America didn’t create a war in the east. The war started before them and would of continued with or without them. The only difference would have been how many would of died during and after the war. Once the Pathet Lao defeated the Royal Lao Army and the secret Hmong army in 1976, they promised peace and prosperity. Showing propaganda films and singing songs ensuring forgiveness. As we saw 40 thousand were throw into prison camps immediately, thousands executed. Many of these camps exist today and they continue to persecute political enemies from a war nearly 50 years old now.

So America didn’t use Lao and Hmong people, they had a mutual political goal and in the process helped them in a landslide war, then gave them asylum afterwards. A much different and factual perspective from the imperialism and war mongering one social sciences always push. We can include the bad events as well, but it must be done when relevant, remain objective, and stay factual. Once you put narrative above facts you are no longer teaching, you are indoctrinating.

The last thing we need is more false narratives, lies, and propaganda. The school system is full of it. Even though including these cultural studies would be nice spotlight for my ethnic group, I can’t back it because of the damage it will do to students, the school system, society, culture, and America, which includes Lao Americans, unless they prove the curriculum is objective, fair, and factual before hand, I cannot support it.

Sources and further research:–did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext,8599,2005706,00.html


Understanding Enforced monogamy: The latest Jordan Peterson hit pieces

Anyone in the Jordan Peterson controvers-sphere is getting the same enforced monogamy quote thrown at them. I saw Joe Rogan talk about it on his podcast with Dave Rubin. Disagreeing with the quote on it’s face. While I agree with Rogan that, enforced monogamy isn’t a sufficient solution and making incels, and all men for that matter, better mating candidates is a better solution. Peterson would agree as well as he has said that in the past. The first 5 minutes of his Cathy Newman channel 4 interview was him putting a fire under weak incompetent men to get their act together and grow the hell up, so they can contribute to society, the world, and their partners. So they can be someone their partners would want to be with. So when Peterson’s incel quote is taken on its own and read sternly of course it is lacking. But anyone who follows Peterson, knows that is not his only solution and that he has been trying to raise weak men to compete in all facets of life, including the mating hierarchy, for almost as long as he has been speaking publicly. You can find a good amount of his old lectures on YouTube talking about men becoming stronger, better, and more competent for women as well as themselves. So he is absolutely a advocate of self improvement of weak men as is Rogan.

Many of his detractors take the quote

“Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married. He was angry at God because women were rejecting him, {Toronto killer}. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

from the NYTimes article, where they call him the “Custodian of Patriarchy”, and try to infer Peterson thinks women marrying violent men is how you stop violence against women. That Peterson wants women to enter dangerous relationships with violent men to make them not be violent.

The guardian jumped on the band wagon with their follow up hit piece that makes that same inference. Stating “we’re just told we should cure violent men with our magical vaginas, and if we fail to do so, our vaginas were presumably insufficiently magical.” no one “told” you that or said that in any way. You will find all his detractors using that Peterson quote and making the same inference, but no he did not imply vagina is the cure to violent men. Simply monogamy reduces male violence in general on women and other men. Studies show long term relationships, like marriage have a lower rate of domestic abuse. It could simply be not jumping around from man to man puts you in less risk of running into a violent man. Either way studies show marriage helps with longevity of life, reduces domestic violence, depression, various diseases like STDs, but even seems to effect things like heart disease. This is true for both men and women. While the effects seem more potent for men, they live longer in marriage have reduce health issues, which seems to be a bigger issue in men, I think monogamy is most useful for women as the main purpose for marriage at least up until recently was reproduction and it was the way to ensure a woman’s security before they entered the work force as well as their children’s before child support.
Now lets try to understand the quote specifically. What is his view that enforcing monogamy would help violent men, in addition to all the other stuff he advocates of course, based on? The way I see it he is talking about the hierarchy of mating. If you think about it, mating follows market principles. Women and men compete in the free market to get a suitable mate for their needs, there is a hierarchy to it as the most viable men gets first choice and the most choices. Previously these men get one choice, they pick the best mate, marry, then are removed from the market as the old saying goes. But since the sexual liberation movement has changed the dynamics of the market. These viable men are no longer taking one women and removing themselves from the market, they are taking multiple women and essentially locking them down in various open relationships. The sexual liberation of women is arguably most harmful to women as before a man would have to work to get a woman and commit to them to have sex, hardest case, get married to them. Now no one has to work at all to have sex with many women. Men get all the free and easy sex they want with little to no commitment, who really won that? Women? Who have higher rate single motherhood since then and all the economic hardships that come with it, since the movement started in the 70s, which is arguably the worse situation to come out of it other than death from abuse, but you also have higher rates of domestic abuse from promiscuous relationships, issues with emotion health like depression, higher rates of diseases like STDs, ect. Or did men win by getting easier access to sex with more women with less strings attached? Though promiscuous men also have many of the same negative outcomes such as worse emotional health, higher rates of STDs, domestic violence, ect, but as far as the mating hierarchy/market, woman’s sexual liberation benefited predatory men the most.

Now how does that tie into Peterson’s point on violent men. Well when a hierarchy becomes corrupt or unbalanced like a small amount of men are getting access to a large amount of women and there by restricting access to other men, you get a gap in distribution. What comes to mind is his position on relative poverty and Prado’s distribution. When relative poverty goes up, not actual poverty, there becomes a issue of disenfranchisement. When people see others around them are getting way more than them, anger, resentment, and hatred goes up. When the gap becomes too big, there is a point when these disenfranchised people are willing to turn over the hierarchy to restart the system. In the case of relative poverty it is riots, robbery, violence, crime, ect. But in this case, you get men violently lashing out at society and women, as in the case of the Toronto incel murderer.

I am not against sexual liberation in it’s general premise, I think women should have the choice in who they want to be with and have sex with. I think when the idea of sexual liberation came in contact with the hippy movement and became free love and later became a political tool there was an issue. Rebellious women saw sex as a way to get back at the “man”, so they decided to have sex with as many men and women to attack the establishment, which is ironic and stupid. They pushed this idea of sex being empowering because it was control of their own bodies, while actually hurting themselves with devolving relationships that damage their mental and emotional health, increase of sexual disease, unwanted pregnancy, single motherhood, and domestic violence. And again who benefited most? Predatory men. Good job getting back at patriarchy. What seemed to happen was a conflation of empowerment with control. Stupidly wrong, but not surprising when you look at most logic behind leftwing protest culture created during this time. Control does not necessarily mean power. Self mutilation is control, but it isn’t empowering. It is just destructive. Girls who cut themselves, generally do it out of control (a coping mechanism, a way to control their feelings) and I would hope no leftist would advocate that as a empowering act. Though it wouldn’t be surprising. So why is engaging in sexual acts that potentially will hurt them mentally, emotionally, physically, socially, and economically seen as empowering?

Peterson sees societal enforcement of monogamy as the “redistribution” method to resolve at least that type of violence. No you aren’t going to reform wife beaters by getting them married, I don’t believe he thinks that or ever said that. Simply when society valued monogamy and enforced it on a societal level you get less male violence on both female (domestic violence) and other males (competitive violence), as well as improving other areas of life and health for both genders. That is what the numbers show. That is what I believe Peterson meant with those statements. And I generally agree. Though more for the other benefits of monogamy than the reduced violence of incels. Which I see as a smaller issue compared to the socioeconomic issues of the free love movement of the 70s. But since we are talking about incels, yea it will help with that as well. Though as Rogan and Peterson advocates, bettering weak men so they don’t become incels in the first place is the better solution.

Also a issue has come up about “redistribution” being contradictory to Peterson’s stance on equality of outcome. There is a difference between redistribution by force as the government or some authoritative group makes a policy where they say we want this outcome so we will force individuals to do this to obtain that outcome and Peterson’s position on societal values on the individual level, Peterson no where advocates force to obtain any outcome, but advocates knowledge and values to make the better societal choice. Simply put out information that monogamy is a better and healthier choice on a societal level, and let each individual choose for themselves what they want. He doesn’t want to force someone into getting married or force women to marrying violent men or any man. He wants to allow the free market choice go on with proper information. While so many places advocate sexual promiscuity, women don’t need men, or some other anti monogamous position and often anti man, Peterson just wants to advocate monogamy based on statistical facts, not force it. Every person is still allowed to make their own choice in their own life and not get punished as is the difference when redistribution and equality of outcome become authoritarian policy.


New York Times Article:

Guardian Article:

Cathy Newman Interview:

Single Motherhood Statistics:

Promiscuity on Physical Health:

Longevity of Monogamy:

In Defense of Free Thought: Kanye West

I am not particularly a fan of Kanye, sure I like his music, but never bought an album, went to a concert, or listened to anything other than the singles on the radio. But for transparency I would consider myself a “fan”. Always thought his lyrics were insightful and covered a broad range of topics. I appreciated his perspective, though I thought he was a bit crazy even before this TMZ interview.

I first heard Kanye’s TMZ comment in a written transcript, which was very damning. Reading it on paper I had no way to take it other than literal. In the article, which funny enough was from a conservative news site, the statement was separated from the rest of his interview. That being:

“When you hear about slavery for 400 years – for 400 years? That sounds like a choice. Like, you was there for 400 years, and it’s all y’all? You know, like, it’s like we’re all mentally imprisoned. I like the word “prison” [because] “slavery” goes too direct to the idea of blacks. It’s like “slavery,” “Holocaust” – “Holocaust” is Jews, “slavery” is blacks. So, “prison” is something that unites us as one race. Black and whites being one race, that we’re one race. That we’re the human race. “

His interview I saw later on Youtube was a short 3 minute clip that also edited him down and ended with that statement then cut to TMZ’s Van Lathan criticizing him. Again with that statement clipped out it is hard not to take him literal. But what confused me was Van Lathan’s response was not about what he just said, it was about representation, marginalization, being a role model. He mentioned slavery, but only to relate to modern black people today, which Kanye’s sound bite sounded like he was talking about black slaves that lived 400 years ago in oppression. I was confused why Lathan did not say outright slaves 400 years ago did not have a choice, it was slavery, death, or become a lifelong fugitive, which to any reasonable person is not much of a choice. I thought maybe he was being polite because Kanye was a famous guest, but he outright said, “you’re not thinking anything” and called him fake, so he could not be holding his tongue. Something wasn’t clicking. Sure Kanye is a bit eccentric, so maybe he was crazy and thought that slaves had a choice, but then I thought it could just be editing and false narrative.

I went and watched the full interview, which is a 30 minute interview. Literally the next sentence after the statement about “slavery being a choice” was him clarifying he does not mean literally, but was talking about people’s choice to mentally let slavery hold them down now. Stating:

“Right now, we’re choosing to be enslaved.”

then talks about a conversation with Ebro Darden where he says,

“You’re choosing to enslave people’s minds, you’re choosing to not let the truth be free.”

Which explains why Van Lathan’s response, 17 minutes in,  was about modern blacks. If you actually think about what Lathen said, he in fact proves Kanye’s point. Where Lathen states:

“the rest of us in society have to deal with these threats to our lives. We have to deal with the marginalization that has come from the 400 years of slavery that you said for our people was a choice“

Here he points out that they have to deal with “marginalization that has come from the 400 years of slavery”, which is black people choosing let slavery mentally hold them down today. He then misrepresents what Kanye meant by saying “You said for our people was a choice”, taking him literally when he in fact heard him say one sentence after he meant figuratively and with modern blacks.

Also funny he accuses him of being fake and absent of thought when his entire statement was pure rhetoric about representation, marginalization, threats to black lives, and slavery.

I applaud Kanye for standing up and speaking his opinion in a room where arguably everyone disagreed with him, maybe even against him. Standing up for free thought because of the value in it. In the interview he began to ramble and cobble some ideas on the fly after the 8 minute mark, which he admitted openly to clarify not all his ideas are concrete or fully thought out. But that is what free thought and free speech are for. They are tools for each of us to figure out what we believe and what is true. We should express ourselves to either teach someone or get taught when they correct us. Whether or not they agree with us this open dialogue is good and necessary for positive growth. You cannot really get a feel for your ideas if you do not express them and test them out in the world. It is a very scary thing to put yourself out there, especially when essentially everyone already disagrees with you, which is probably why most people would not stand up and say what they think. It is very demeaning when outside parties seemingly purposefully edit and misrepresent your statements, as seems to be the case here. I Think everyone that actually believes Kanye said something wrong or offensive should go and watch the entire interview to see what he actually meant. Also it is pretty entertaining and insightful.

Let me add, taking his entire interview into context, he actually is correct. A lot of people choose to let things hold them down, after a certain point it is your choice to let that burden effect your life.

Frankly, if you are an adult and you are holding on to things from your childhood and letting it effect how you act and live your life, I would say your being silly and need to take some responsibility for your life and seek some therapy to get over your issue. But if you legitimately believe and think that something that did not even happen to you, but your people, hundreds of years ago, has a direct cause in the events in your life today, you are being stupid and using it as an excuse. If you think your great grandfather being a slave is a actual reason why a black kid cannot pass the twelfth grade, cannot keep a job, or had a baby at 16 years old. you are just looking for excuses to cover bad personal choices. These lives will never get better until they accept their responsibility in their decisions in their own lives. If you truly believe slavery 400 years ago is why you cannot do well in today’s society, you are choosing to be enslaved.