By Jo Nova
Government funded science is not so much a search for truth as new chapter in the Communist Manifesto
It’s a form of cultural warfare. These funds are not just diluting science, but actively sabotaging it. They enable experts who “decolonize geoscience” and offer a million dollars to the kind of people who say “white supremacy permeates … STEM education”. It is the antithesis of the dispassionate observer, instead the observer is all that matters. If you can’t see your oppression, it’s because they didn’t give you enough money…
Two billion dollars buys a lot of loud shouty voices, amplifying their messages through impressionable teenagers. These pseudo experts don’t just waste offices, they get invited to sit on committees, they raise PhD students, and their words can be used in legal cases and “fact checking” situations. Not to mention, their output trains AI engines too.
Under the Biden-Harris government The US National Science Foundation is gradually being converted to a Neo-Marxist PR machine. A US Senate Committee Report shows that in the first quarter of 2024 more than a quarter of all new NSF grants were written in far left class-war regalia.
“Committee analysis found 3,483 grants, more than ten percent of all NSF grants and totaling over $2.05 billion in federal dollars, went to questionable projects that promoted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) tenets or pushed onto science neo-Marxist perspectives about enduring class struggle.
Redirecting funding to these subjective, ideologically based projects was deliberate. Beginning in 2021, the White House and NSF created scientific integrity policies to require that agencies “[i]ncorporate [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility] considerations into all aspects of science planning, execution, and communication.”4″
The NSF was already captured by Big Government years ago, this reformation takes it to a new level of cultural warfare:
Americans are losing confidence in science, but perhaps that’s the point?
American confidence in the scientific community has declined significantly since the COVID-19 pandemic. Over a quarter of the American public now reports that they have “no confidence” or “not too much confidence” in scientists; just 12% held those views when the pandemic began. Far fewer Americans believe that science produces a “positive effect on our society,” too. In 2019, almost three out of four Americans felt science had a positive effect. As of fall 2023, that number stands at 57%.
Geoscience got “decolonized” which probably didn’t help find the lithium
The Biden-Harris NSF has responded by sending over $2 billion to projects geared towards advancing divisive social ideologies rather than investigating hard science. In 2022, NSF gave Columbia University $4.4 million for its Implementing Novel Solutions for Promoting Cultural Change in Geoscience Research & Education (INSPIRE) program to “decolonize geoscience.” The following year, NSF awarded $5 million to Arizona State University and two other schools to build “an intersectional learning ecosystem toward gendered racial equity in artificial intelligence education.”
It’s straight out of the Communist Manifesto:
American university campuses have become saturated with DEI initiatives and courses that use neo-Marxist theories to code individuals as members of an “oppressed” or “oppressor” class based on the color of their skin, heritage, or political perspectives. In Marxist theory, the “oppressor” is typically the class or group that holds economic, political, and social power over others, while the “oppressed” are defined as those who must support the oppressors—through their labor or service—to survive. In his Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx called for the dismantling of the current capitalist order through a revolutionary process. He later wrote “revolutionary terror” was needed to bring about a “new society” that would allow the oppressed class to rule.
The Committee found instances where principle investigators who were DEI funded ended up leading protests on campus in support of terrorist groups like Hamas.
One, Shirin Vossough, was known to say ““the ideology of white supremacy permeates all of the nation’s institutions, including our existing system of STEM education”. After that, she got a million dollars:
Shirin Vossoughi is an associate professor of learning sciences at Northwestern University and the co-principal investigator for a $1,034,751 NSF grant awarded in 2023 for a project titled, “Reimagining Educator Learning Pathways Through Storywork for Racial Equity in STEM.” Vossoughi credits Marxist traditions for her decision to teach children “the meaning of ‘genocide’ and ‘apartheid’” after Hamas’s attack against Israel.
If you wanted to stir up trouble on campuses, just fund the right professors eh?
It’s not that girls (whatever they are) need help with science, it’s that science is designed to exclude women:
Thus and verily “science” must be changed to be more girly creative, and less mathematical and unemotional…
Many of the 1,058 grants that fell into the Gender category funded research that investigated the supposed harms of “mislabeling” individuals or using the wrong pronoun to refer to a person. Projects also went beyond programming that might provide more opportunities for girls and women in science; they presumed that scientific disciplines are purposely constructed to exclude them.
And if the science that made our civilization possible is too white, then we must devolve that thinking, we wouldn’t want to be racist, would we?
As described above, grants in the Status category—3,160 awards—received funds for research related to race, ethnicity, or social groups in ways that presumed the sciences were inherently biased against certain communities.
• Social Justice grants—2,585 awards—tended to approach the admirable goal of providing more and better Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education opportunities to students of selected backgrounds by presuming that oppressor (always, white) communities were acting as a deterrent and purposely suppressing participation of other groups.
If an enemy wanted to destroy the things that made the West great, the plan to wreck science would probably look something like this.
0 out of 10 based on 0 rating
