Home Page

Mission & Principles

Economy & Jobs

Illegal Immigration


Globalism in Academia

AFP Ohio Newsletters

Founding Documents


Some Opinions

Contact Us

Globalist Propaganda in Academia

Joe Spitzig

As one whose livelihood has been torn out from under him after several decades honing his skills and developing prudent judgment for an occupation that no longer exists as a result of so-called “free trade,” I have returned to school in order to retool for the "new economy."  I only hope that my efforts do not prove futile.  Although my children are nearly all grown and on their own, I do not wish to leave my dear wife in penury when I die.

This semester, I took one of the courses required in my curriculum, a course innocuously titled "Human Relations in Business and Industry."  What it really is, however, is globalist indoctrination.  Having gotten perfect scores on every quiz throughout the course (except for one question on one quiz on material covered in a class I had to miss due to illness), I approached the final paper poised for an "A."  Yet my final grade was a "D."  Based on the point allocation for each part of the course, the only way I could have gotten a "D" was to get a zero for the paper.

The criteria for the paper were to state the five most important learnings [sic] in connection with the course, and to explain their importance to us. The text of my paper follows herewith:

Tactics of Cultural Predation

By Joseph A. Spitzig
IET 305 - Human Relations In Business & Industry
Spring Semester, 2005

The principal learning I have derived from this course is to recognize a number of tactics employed in the process of cultural predation. In my life as a philosopher, recognizing such tactics is essential to ensuring that my thought, writing and action address issues relevant to the social, economic and political phenomena that actually confront us today.

By definition, predation is the act or practice of plundering or marauding, or the capturing of prey as a means of maintaining life. When prey is captured, of course, it is consumed. The popular expression, “you are what you eat,” has it backward. On the contrary, what you eat becomes you. In predation, nutritive matter is extracted from a prior life form, as constituted in the prey, and conformed to that of the predator. The predominant phenomenon in today’s world is reflected in both senses of the term.

In the present context, the predator is the neopagan culture of New World Order globalism, and the prey consists of the remaining vestiges of our American heritage, which has embodied key elements of Western Christian culture.

It should be observed at the outset that the implicit agenda of the course is that of globalist indoctrination. This agenda is advanced, however, through insinuation rather than through overt persuasion. Insinuation does not present its premises openly, but instead slithers stealthily amid shifting shadows. The course is not titled “Globalist Indoctrination,” which would be accurate, but “Human Relations,” which is misleading. Whereas presenting a premise openly invites debate, insinuation forestalls debate, fostering unquestioning acceptance of the premise. Insinuation is achieved through a variety of specific tactics.

The first tactic to be considered is presupposition. Presupposition treats even dubious propositions as matters of fact, often obliquely through offhand passing reference. The treatment of unfettered globalism as an unqualified good thing is a paradigm of presupposition. Under the heading of “Diversity and Global Leadership,” for example, Lussier [the author of the text] asserts, “thinking globally and having global leadership skills are essential to effective organizations.” From that ostensible axiom, he proceeds to stress the importance of multicultural diversity. With the axiom presupposed, the question of whether we the people have a rightful interest in whether our country ought to be “globalized,” to what extent, or under what conditions, is averted.

Another tactic is obfuscation, which is often accomplished by the appropriation of terms to express meanings that conflict with established definitions. An excellent example is the appropriation of the term “perception” to mean “a person’s interpretation of reality,” rather than “the process, act, or faculty of perceiving,” which is its established lexical definition. The established lexical definition of “perceive,” in turn, is “to become aware of directly through the senses.” Traditionally the word “perception” has been used specifically to differentiate the acquisition of sensory data from other cognitive operations, such as mental associations, recollections, inferences, conjectures, assumptions, imaginings, and so forth. Within recent memory, most people were too circumspect in their use of language to countenance such abusage. Indeed, semantic circumspection has historically been a hallmark of academic life. Hence that such a breach should issue forth under the auspices of academia is not a little alarming.

The distinction between perception and interpretation is an important one. While perception has to do with the presentation to the mind of the objects of experience, interpretation may comprise an assortment of elements – a bit of perception perhaps, mixed with a tincture of recollection, a dash of association, a smattering of inference, a minim of conjecture and a pinch of imagination. From our perceptions of objects, properly speaking, we abstract the natures and attributes that inhere in actual objects as they exist objectively, and it is through this process that we come to know what objects are. Our interpretations, on the other hand, may bear no relation whatsoever to the objects themselves.

The distinction between bona fide perceptions and other cognitions such as interpretations is essential to a lucid understanding of our own cognitive processes. It is for this reason that the distinction is the cornerstone of classical epistemology. Appropriating such a key term as “perception,” then, and equating it with the contrary notion of “interpretation,” obscures this distinction. The effect of this obfuscation is to subvert certitude even toward things about which people have every reason to be certain. Moreover, it renders the term “perception” useless for expressing a crucial distinction and reduces the likelihood that people will even notice the distinction in the first place.

According to the globalist mentality, people’s “perceptions” are “not the truth” because they are merely “interpretations of reality.” The implication is that, since they are not the truth, they may be utterly disregarded out of hand with impunity. By contrast, the pronouncements of the globalist mentality are conveniently represented to be the truth. It should be obvious, however, that this assessment itself and indeed all other globalist pronouncements are nothing but interpretations. Taking the globalist mentality on its own terms, then, the entire globalist mentality may be utterly disregarded with impunity precisely because, being merely an interpretation of reality, it is not the truth. That is, the globalist mentality’s own justification is self-invalidating.

While we’re on the subject of language, Lussier’s attempt at recapping the rules of grammar is bizarre. Not only is his coverage spotty, leaving out such areas as verbals and pronominal agreement, but the fact that he imagines that, if students taking an upper-level course in college haven’t mastered basic rules of grammar, they are somehow going to learn them in a “quickie” lesson in a course on human relations, is ludicrous.

As far as pronominal agreement is concerned, some people subscribe to the erroneous notion that masculine pronouns imply male referents. In some quarters, the error is actually taught as dogma. The error reflects a confusion between grammar and semantics, mistaking a grammatical classification for a meaning. Among the younger generations, this confusion is the result of wholesale dereliction of pedagogical duty to transmit the language with fidelity. For those of us old enough to remember when the language was taught honestly, however, there is no excuse. It is yet another example of the intellectual corruption of contemporary academia.

This linguistic error was promulgated by the feminist movement in its febrile contempt for the role of wife and mother, which it denigrated as demeaning. This attitude is somewhat understandable. The rise of feminism, after all, was largely a backlash against the cavalier attitude that many men exhibited toward their wives and children in the throes of the so-called “sexual revolution.” This “revolution” was spawned by the spurious, pseudo-scientific Kinsey Reports and by the mainstreaming of pornography.

In Christian culture, as reflected in the constant teaching of the Church, wifehood and motherhood are holy stations in life, and nothing to be demeaned. Accordingly, lust, as abetted by pornography, has always been condemned as gravely sinful. The entire feminist movement is thus built upon the desecration of what is holy, and having to contend with feminist angst is a temporal punishment for widespread sexual license and marital infidelity. In the spirit of “diversity,” we are now expected to yield to every demand that comes shrieking from the feminist camp. And although the link between pornography and sexual crimes has been well established, the fact that pornography web sites remain among the most lucrative on the Internet no longer raises an eyebrow, and the incidence of abductions, rapes and murders has increased to the point where they no longer shock us anymore.

The next tactic to consider is double-talk. An excellent example is the course’s treatment of “values.” On one hand, it is said that everyone should be “accountable for supporting deeply embedded values.” On the other hand, the dictum of “change readiness” includes readiness to adopt “new values.” In order to adopt new values, however, it is necessary to abandon the old. Yet if values are genuinely valued, and especially if they are deeply embedded, then there can be only reluctance to abandon them in favor of new values, not readiness. The psychological effect of such a contradiction is to place people in a double-bind dilemma in which they are “damned if they do and damned if they don’t.”

Another tactic is omission. For example, the reasons people resist change were enumerated as liking things the way they are, fear of the unknown, anxiety about learning new things, and fear of losing our jobs, friends and control over our work life. In other words, any misgivings a person may have about change are characterized pejoratively as complacency, irrational fear, indolence, self-interest, sentimentality or pride. The possibility that a person may have sound reasons for resisting change is conspicuously omitted. For example, a person may know from experience that a proposed change is a disaster in the making and be concerned for the well-being of the organization and of everyone who will be adversely affected. The omission of such possibilities as this insinuates that there are no good reasons for resisting change, regardless of what the change may be.

That this omission is not trivial is substantiated by the fact that, when the class was broken up into groups to discuss examples of organizational change, in each case the change described was indeed a disaster in which considerable time, effort and money were wasted. In each case, the disaster might have been avoided if someone had spoken up instead of simply going along. In light of real-world experience, then, maintaining the position that there is no good reason for resisting change defies reason.

This brings us to the tactic of intimidation, as exemplified by a proverbial “woodshed confrontation, ” in which I was censured for having had the temerity to point out the aforesaid glaring omission. For me, this “flashbulb moment” will be preserved forever. After responding to a comment of mine, the instructor continued to look at me, as if expecting a reply. Once I began to reply, however, the instructor stammered the beginnings of several conflicting utterances – he wouldn’t allow a reply, he would allow me to continue, and so forth. The proper protocol at that moment was most ambiguous. Evidently the instructor was not accustomed to having the tactic of omission not work, and he didn’t know what to do when it didn’t. At length, he opted for intimidation one-on-one. How threatened he visibly felt when his indoctrination agenda was questioned, however, will not soon be forgotten.

The foregoing tactics may be implemented in conjunction with one another. The doubt fostered by obfuscation, for example, can be compounded by the insecurity engendered by double-talk. Into the void created by omission, a presupposition can be strategically injected. When these and other tactics are coordinated, people can be unwittingly manipulated into supporting an agenda that is never addressed directly. Like digestive enzymes, these tactics serve to decompose people’s preexisting understandings and convictions, rendering the people pliable to be “repurposed” for integration into the New World Order.

The course has treated ethics as mere reciprocity. Within the field of ethics, ethical reciprocity in commerce is known as commutative justice. The barebones notion of reciprocity as presented in the course, however, does not fully measure up to the principle of commutative justice, since the aspect of parity is not included. Even if it did, there is more to ethics than commutative justice alone. While commutative justice is certainly a necessary condition for commercial interactions to be ethical, it is not a sufficient condition.

Commutative justice has a prominent place in the moral spectrum. At one end of the spectrum are things that it is inherently wrong to do, and at the other end are things that it is inherently wrong to fail to do. In between, in the broad elective range, are things that it is neither wrong to do, nor wrong to fail to do. It is within this elective range that commutative justice applies, where it is appropriate to weigh relative value, where we may consider which things are better and which things worse. The middle of the spectrum is filled with shades of grey, but the ends of the spectrum are black and white. Considering reciprocity alone looks only at the greys in the middle and ignores the black and white at the ends.

Inasmuch as the theme of the course is globalism, we should consider the fundamental ethical aspects of globalism, particularly in contrast to American nationalism. Though a thorough treatment of the subject would require elaboration far beyond the scope of the present course, it is relevant to matters that the course has presented. Thus it is necessary at least to touch upon the subject, and for this purpose, a brief synopsis is sufficient.

First we should note that international trade is conducted under treaties, and that treaties carry the import of law. Second we should note that law carries ethical import. A law that prohibits certain behavior, for example, expresses the conviction that the prohibited behavior is wrong, and a law that compels certain behavior expresses the conviction that failure to perform the compelled behavior is wrong. The import expressed by a particular law may be an ethical falsehood, but the import is ethical in nature nevertheless.

American Constitutional law has traditionally been founded on the Bill of Rights, which centers, really, on three fundamental rights: the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to own property. The right to liberty is bounded by the right to life on one side and by the right to property on the other. Additional rights can be enumerated, of course, but they are all essentially variations on these fundamental three. Now, fundamental rights are principles that it is inherently ethically wrong to infringe. Thus these rights constitute the proper ethical foundation for American law. The Founders were absolutely right in recognizing these truths.

Economic activity conducted within the jurisdiction of a system of law is subject to that system of law. Economic activity conducted outside that jurisdiction is not. In other words, economic activity within the jurisdiction can be conformed to the principles on which the law is founded, but economic activity outside the jurisdiction cannot. A system of law that protects fundamental rights protects the right to liberty of citizens as they engage in economic activity. In an economic system in which the right to liberty is protected by law, parity according to the principle of commutative justice is permitted to find its own natural equilibrium. Conversely, in an economic system in which the right to liberty is not protected by law, it is not. When the economy of one nation in which the right to liberty is protected by law is coupled with the economy of another nation in which it is not, the point of equilibrium in the former will gravitate toward that in the latter. The protection of law is rendered ineffectual. Such an arrangement is objectively evil.

A central feature of globalism is so-called “free trade.” With free trade, our domestic economy has been coupled with the economies of nations the legal systems of which do not even nominally recognize the fundamental rights of their own citizens. As a result, many of our fellow countrymen have been forced to price-compete against foreign labor that enjoys its extraordinary comparative advantage precisely because the fundamental rights of the workers performing the labor are systematically infringed. Consequently, the fundamental right to liberty of our own countrymen is likewise infringed. In short, free trade undermines the integrity of our own domestic law.

It is hardly a secret that free trade has devastated our domestic economy. Countless Americans have had their livelihoods torn out from under them. At the apex of our nation’s economic history, manufacturing was our leading industry. Our factories were once an enviable powerhouse for generating tangible value. Today as we approach the nadir, we have lowered our economic aspirations to gambling casinos and body- piercing parlors. It is all too tawdry.

Yet globalist indoctrination demands that we welcome these appalling changes happily. We are instructed to be optimistic and positive, to smile and develop a sense of humor. The list goes on. These platitudes are reminiscent of the advice our mothers used to give us for getting along with others. In the context of globalist indoctrination, however, they come off as a prohibition against making waves, so as not to cause a disturbance in the predator’s digestive tract. The principal imperative of this protocol of open-mindlessness is to regard any change indiscriminately as a positive good. Our mothers would never have told us that.

There are changes, and then there are changes. Growing from childhood to adulthood, for example, involves many changes in the way of physical, intellectual, moral and social development. Striking at a victim’s throat, coiling around his body and squeezing the life out of him involves changes too, but the victim can hardly be expected to greet them with equanimity. The former is gradual, organic development, while the latter is brutal and violent termination. Free-trade globalism clearly resembles the latter far more than the former. As Plato said, “some things are rightly to be feared.”

The militant globalist is inflexibly intolerant of criticism. In a world in which all things are proclaimed to be good, the only evil consists in calling anything evil. But of course those who perpetrate evil invariably detest having the light of truth shone upon their nefarious enterprises. Tragically, by habituating ourselves to seeing all things as good, we blind ourselves to genuine good when it is there to be seen.

In globalism, transnational interests exploit slave labor in regions of the world where people’s fundamental rights are formally and systematically infringed. At the same time, they exploit markets in regions of the world where people’s fundamental rights are increasingly only nominally protected. In this way, these interests extract the residual wealth that was accrued by commerce conducted under legitimate law and conform it to building an elusive empire that operates outside the jurisdiction of any law whatsoever, ensuring the corruption of the governments of all nations in the process. With globalism, the dominant theme is dominance itself.

Christianity does not operate this way. The first concern being the salvation of souls, Christianity seeks a social, civil and commercial order in which charity may flourish. The high points in Christian history saw leaders who submitted their wills to both sound reason and divine law. As a result, Christian nations enjoyed a stable order conducive to peace and prosperity. Christianity does not demand that people pretend that things are wonderful when they are not. It does not require that we welcome indiscriminate change warmly. Christianity does not demand that we stoically deny our suffering, but instead offers us consolation.

While the Church may view events with a critical eye, her primary purpose is not to punish or condemn. Instead she calls us all, the high and the mighty as well as the lowly, to confess our sins, to do penance, and to receive forgiveness. And she stands always ready to sustain us spiritually and unite us with the Body and Blood of Christ. Christianity is not pessimistic, but rather its optimism consists in sharing in the glory of the Resurrection, the ultimate triumph over sin and death.

The negation of indiscriminate positivity is not indiscriminate negativity, but a frame of mind that recognizes things that are good in addition to those that are not, whether those things are major social or political phenomena, changes that we encounter in working life, or specific teachings presented in a college course. In the present course, for example, though I have obviously been critical of certain aspects, I also recognize the value of other aspects that are useful, such as the guidelines on networking. Most of all, however, I am grateful to have such a concise compendium of tactics used in cultural predation. This compilation will serve as a ready reference to help me recognize such tactics as I encounter them in everyday life.

In closing, I return to the topic of responses to a human-relations problem. When I engage the services of someone to provide instruction on human relations, but find that the content presented turns out instead to consist of globalist propaganda, I am obviously confronted with a human-relations problem. Under the circumstances, I can hardly change the person, and I cannot change the situation – at least not without detrimental consequences to me. Yet neither is it necessary, nor would it be conscientious, for me to change myself.