(1) North Korean defector slams 'woke' US schools - "even North Korea isn't this nuts"(2) Anti-Woke Revolt(3) Royal Academy pulls artist’s work over "transphobic"comments(4) Supreme Court rules Foster Agencies can deny Certification to Same-Sex Couples on Religious Grounds(5) Maya Forstater wins appeal after losing her job for saying people can't change sex(6) The Culture War derives from the neo-Marxist New Left 1960s revolution - Hanne Nabintu Herland(1) North Korean defector slams 'woke' US schools - "even North Korea isn't this nuts"https://nypost.com/2021/06/14/north-korean-defector-slams-woke-us-schools/  North Korean defector slams 'woke' US schoolsBy Mark Moore and Mark LungarielloJune 14, 2021 | 3:36pm | Updated June 15, 2021 | 7:45amA North Korean defector said she viewed the US as country of free thought and free speech – until she went to college here.Yeonmi Park attended Columbia University and was immediately struck by what she viewed anti-Western sentiment in the classroom and a focus on political correctness that had her thinking "even North Korea isn't this nuts.""I expected that I was paying this fortune, all this time and energy, to learn how to think. But they are forcing you to think the way they want you to think," Park told Fox News. "I realized, wow, this is insane. I thought America was different but I saw so many similarities to what I saw in North Korea that I started worrying."The 27-year-old told The Post that she could't believe she would be asked to do "this much censoring of myself" at a university in the United States. "I literally crossed the Gobi Desert to be free and I realized I'm not free, America's not free," she said.Yeonmi Park fled North Korea at age 13 in 2007, a voyage that took her and her family to China and South Korea before she went to school in New York in 2016.Her professors gave students "trigger warnings," sharing the wording from readings in advance so people could opt out of reading or even sitting in class during discussions, Park told The Post."Going to Columbia, the first thing I learned was 'safe space,'" she said."Every problem, they explained us, is because of white men." Some of the discussions of white privilege reminded her of the caste system in her native country, where people were categorized based on their ancestors, she said.In one class, a teacher discussing Western Civilization asked students if they had a problem with the name of the topic – most students raised their hands, according to Park. Some, she said, mentioned issues with the "colonial" slant of the discussion.And classes often began with professors asking students for their preferred pronouns, with the use of "they" becoming scary as she feared being socially penalized for not being inclusive enough in her vocabulary."English is my third language," she said. "It's very hard for me to say he and she sometimes, I misuse them."She told Fox that she also was chided for saying she enjoyed the writings of Jane Austen."I said 'I love those books.' I thought it was a good thing," Park told the network. "Then she said, 'Did you know those writers had a colonial mindset? They were racists and bigots and are subconsciously brainwashing you.'"Park said North Korea students were constantly informed about the "American Bastard.""I thought North Koreans were the only people who hated Americans, but turns out there are a lot of people hating this country in this country," she told The Post.Cancel culture and shouting down opposing voices is becoming an issue of self-censorship.Park, who chronicled her escape from North Korea and life in the repressive regime in the 2015 memoir "In Order to Live," said Americans seem willing to give their rights away not realizing they may never come back."Voluntarily, these people are censoring each other, silencing each other, no force behind it," she said."Other times (in history) there's a military coup d'etat, like a force comes in taking your rights away and silencing you. But this country is choosing to be silenced, choosing to give their rights away."Park said she knows what a country could become with rights and discourse stripped away."North Korea was pretty insane," she said. "Like the first thing my mom taught me was don't even whisper, the birds and mice could hear me.""She told me the most dangerous thing that I had in my body was my tongue," Park said. "So I knew how dangerous it was to say wrong things in a country."Park, who grew up in the last Stalinist dictatorship and witnessed people dying from starvation, said Americans are obsessed with oppression even though there is not much oppression they've witnessed firsthand."This a completely nuts, this is unbelievable," she said. "I don't know why people are collectively going crazy like this or together at the same time."She said the situation in North Korea is one thing because the people don't have access to the internet and have limited exposure to the globe, but students here have much more access to information.Park said as a child she had thought dictator Kim Jong Un was "starving" and overworked until she was in South Korea and was shown pictures that showed how large he was in pictures compared to other people who looked thin and hungry."That's what it does when you're brainwashed," she said."In some ways they (in the US) are brainwashed. Even though there's evidence so clearly in front of their eyes they can't see it."Columbia University did not immediately respond to The Post's request for comment.(2) Anti-Woke Revolthttps://artfuldilettante.com/2021/06/18/the-tide-is-turning-against-the-woke-liberal-blob-that-misrules-us/The Tide is Turning Against the Woke-liberal Blob that Misrules UsPosted on June 18, 2021For the past year, liberals unleashed on the nation an avalanche of ideological nonsense, coupled with brutal pressure to conform. Those who bucked the party line found themselves canceled and unpersoned and had their opinions subjected to mockery and claims of delusion and "anti-science" prejudices.Until now. Because the tide is turning. And sometimes the break from the party line comes from surprising places.Late-night comics are usually reliable parroters of the message of the day. So it says something that last week, Bill Maher launched an impassioned critique of "woke" culture, while this week, Jon Stewart went on Stephen Colbert’s show to say in no uncertain terms that it looks like the Wuhan coronavirus came from . . . the Wuhan lab.Using a term from Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, Maher accused liberals of "progressophobia" — "a brain disorder that strikes liberals and makes them incapable of recognizing progress."That is, they’re unwilling to admit that things have gotten better. To hear them talk about race, you’d think we were still in the era of Selma and Bull Connor. (My dad marched with Freedom Riders and at Selma; trust me, things have changed.) To hear them talk about women’s rights, you’d think it was still 1958. And gay activists, despite "Pride Month" being celebrated by pretty much every corporation, are still somehow stuck in the pre-Stonewall era.Maher’s right.The HBO satirist also slammed President Joe Biden’s free-college plan, characterizing higher education as "a racket," which it is. "I know free college is a left-wing thing, but is it really liberal for someone who doesn’t go to college and makes less money to pay for people who do go and make more? Especially since colleges have turned into giant luxury daycare centers with overpaid babysitters anxious to indulge every student whim?"Stewart went further. To Colbert’s horror, he targeted the Wuhan virus’ likely origins in the Wuhan virology lab. Observed Stewart: "I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to science. Science has, in many ways, helped ease the suffering of this pandemic . . . which was more than likely caused by science."He noted the coincidence: "‘Oh my God, there’s a novel respiratory coronavirus overtaking Wuhan, China! What do we do?’ ‘Oh, you know who we could ask? The Wuhan Novel Respiratory Coronavirus Lab.’"And he mocked the Chinese response: "And then they ask those scientists, ‘So wait a minute, you work at the Wuhan Respiratory Coronavirus Lab. How did this happen?’ And they’re like, ‘Hmmm, a pangolin kissed a turtle? . . . Maybe a bat flew into the cloaca of a turkey, and then it sneezed into my chili, and now we all have coronavirus!’"All of this makes sense, and there have been people trying to point it out for more than a year. But until a few weeks ago, those people were mostly called kooks and silenced by Big Tech oligarchs. But now the truth is leaking out on Colbert’s show, one of the cathedrals of the woke.It isn’t just late-night comics who are pushing back. It’s also local politicians and ordinary people. After a year of bullying, they’ve had enough.The death of George Floyd has been used to push a vast array of unrelated racial policies, including the defunding of police and the teaching of left-wing critical race theory that blames every ill in society — even violence by blacks against other minorities — on "white supremacy."In Baltimore, defunding police has led to an outright tax revolt among businesses, which see no reason to pay good money to a city that doesn’t consider them worthy of protection. Businesses in the historic Fells Point district have written the city, demanding the return of basic services like law enforcement and trash pickup before they pay any more taxes.Meanwhile, at famed Thomas Jefferson High in Fairfax County, Va., a slate of parents opposed to critical race theory won election to the board. One of those candidates, Harry Jackson, the first black man elected to the board, denounced how CRT is "teaching that white people are inherently racist." Yes.Fight the power. It’s easier than you think.Glenn H. Reynolds(3) Royal Academy pulls artist’s work over "transphobic"commentshttps://reclaimthenet.org/royal-academy-pulls-artists-work-over-transphobic-blog-post/June 18, 2021Royal Academy pulls artist’s work over "transphobic" blog postAnother institution bowing to the mob.By Cindy HarperPosted 2:00 pmThe Royal Academy (RA) in Britain has removed pieces by textile artist Jess de Wahls following complaints about allegedly "transphobic" comments she made about two years ago. Her cancellation resulted in the RA being accused of "belief discrimination" and going against the values of "a forum of artistic expression."In a 2019 blog post, de Wahls criticized the LGBT charity Stonewall and expressed her opposition to the "gender identity ideology." The Royal Academy said that the views she expressed contradicted its values.According to a statement the institution released on Thursday, via Instagram, it received complaints that it was selling pieces "by an artist expressing transphobic views." The institution thanked those who complained and said de Wahls pieces "will not be stocked in future.""The RA is committed to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and does not knowingly support artists who act in conflict with these values," the statement added. "We would like to reiterate that we stand with the LGBTQ+ community."In the blog post, de Wahls defined a woman as "an adult human female," arguing that being a woman is "not an identity or feeling." She added: "I can not accept people’s unsubstantiated assertions that they are in fact the opposite sex to when they were born."According to the artist, gender identity politics is harmful to women’s and girls’ rights, with the added disadvantage of censorship of content that contradicts the "woke" transgenderism ideology.Despite her strong stand against the gender identity ideology, she said she supports the rights of trans individuals as a marginalized group.Ms. de Wahls, born in Germany, is a textile artist, who makes embroidered portraits. Mostly, her works express feminism. She has established herself in the industry to the extent her pieces were displayed in the RA gift shop.Speaking to The Telegraph, de Wahls said the RA’s reaction was a result of a "concerted effort" by online LGBTQ+ activists.Feminist group Sex Matters wrote a letter to the RA criticizing the decision to remove de Wahls works."The Royal Academy is carrying out an egregious and blatant belief discrimination against textile artist Jess de Wahls," the letter read. It added that the decision, influenced by a "handful of coordinated complaints," contradicted the institution’s "values as a forum for artistic expression."The group called on the RA to reinstate the artist’s works and apologize to her.Maya Forstater, who lost her job as a result of tweets, noted the disregard for equality in the RA’s decision."Organizations have got used to overreacting to complaints of transphobia," Forstater told The Telegraph. "They need to take a deep breath, look at the Equality Act and consider that everybody has rights." She won a wrongful termination case against her employer.Forstater added: "These coordinated complaints ruin people’s lives and their reputations and make organizations fearful. It is McCarthyism and many people are afraid."(4) Supreme Court rules Foster Agencies can deny Certification to Same-Sex Couples on Religious Groundshttps://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/supreme-court-rules-foster-agencies-can-deny-certification-to-same-sex-couples-on-religious-grounds_3862989.htmlBY TOM OZIMEK June 17, 2021 Updated: June 17, 2021The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday that a Catholic foster agency in Philadelphia was free to turn away same-sex couples as foster parents on grounds of religious freedom.The decision (pdf) comes in the case of Fulton v City of Philadelphia, in which Catholic Social Services (CSS) sued the city after being ordered not to exclude same-sex couples from certification.In a 9–0 ruling, the high court found that the city of Philadelphia violated the First Amendment when it refused to continue contracting with CSS, which does not certify unmarried couples or same-sex couples as foster parents on religious grounds."The City’s actions burdened CSS’s religious exercise by forcing it either to curtail its mission or to certify same-sex couples as foster parents in violation of its religious beliefs," Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion."The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless the agency agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny and violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment," the opinion noted.CSS takes the view that "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman" and believes that certification of prospective foster families is an endorsement of their relationship. It refuses to certify unmarried couples, regardless of their sexual orientation, or same-sex married couples, although it does not object to certifying gay or lesbian individuals as single foster parents.The Supreme Court noted in the opinion that no same-sex couple has ever sought certification from CSS and if one did, then it would be directed to one of more than 20 other foster agencies in Philadelphia that do certify same-sex couples."For over 50 years, CSS successfully contracted with the City to provide foster care services while holding to these beliefs," Roberts wrote, adding that things changed in 2018 when Philadelphia city authorities took the position that they would no longer refer children to CSS on grounds that its refusal to certify same-sex couples violated a non-discrimination provision in its contract with the city."The contractual non-discrimination requirement burdens CSS’s religious exercise and is not generally applicable, so it is subject to ‘the most rigorous of scrutiny,'" Roberts wrote in the opinion. A government policy can only meet the "most rigorous of scrutiny" condition if it is narrowly tailored to achieve "compelling interests," which the Supreme Court determined it did not.With the decision, the Supreme Court is carving out legal protections for people with religious objections to same-sex marriage.The case drew the attention of the Trump administration, which backed CSS in its lawsuit as a so-called friend of the court. The Trump-era Justice Department filed an amicus brief (pdf), in which it argued that Philadelphia’s actions had "impermissibly discriminated against religious exercise" and shown "unconstitutional hostility toward Catholic Social Services’ religious beliefs."Currently, laws in 11 states allow state-licensed foster and adoption agencies to reject prospective parents who are in same-sex relationships on religious grounds, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a progressive think tank.Follow Tom on Twitter: @OZImekTOM(5) Maya Forstater wins appeal after losing her job for saying people can't change sexhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57426579June 10, 2021Maya Forstater: Woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweetsBy Doug FaulknerBBC NewsA woman who lost her job after saying that people cannot change their biological sex has won an appeal against an employment tribunal.Maya Forstater, 47, did not have her contract renewed after posting tweets on gender recognition.She lost her original case at a tribunal in 2019, but a High Court judge ruled her "gender-critical" beliefs fell under the Equalities Act.The appeal said the tribunal had erred in law and another should take place.Changes to gender recognition laws ruled outWhat does transgender mean and what does the law say?Cost of changing legal gender reduced to £5Ms Forstater, from St Albans in Hertfordshire, did not have her contract renewed at the think tank Center for Global Development (CGD) in March 2019, after posting a series of tweets questioning government plans - which were later scrapped - to let people declare their own gender.She claimed she was discriminated against because of her beliefs, which include "that sex is immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity".In the initial tribunal employment judge James Tayler said that her approach was "not worthy of respect in a democratic society".He concluded that Ms Forstater was "absolutist" in her view and said she was not entitled to ignore the rights of a transgender person and the "enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering".But the Honourable Mr Justice Choudhury said her "gender-critical beliefs" did fall under the Equalities Act as they "did not seek to destroy the rights of trans persons".Ms Forstater said she was "delighted to have been vindicated" but CGD said the decision was a "step backwards for inclusivity and equality for all".In a video statement, Ms Forstater said: "I'm proud of the role I've played in clarifying the law and encouraging more people to speak up".Amanda Glassman, executive vice president of CGD, said: "The decision is disappointing and surprising because we believe Judge Tayler got it right when he found this type of offensive speech causes harm to trans people, and therefore could not be protected under the Equality Act."Today's decision is a step backwards for inclusivity and equality for all."Maya Forstater won her case because the Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that her belief that biological sex is real, important and immutable met the legal test of a genuine and important philosophical position that is protected under the UK's equality laws.The test for such a protection was that her belief touched on an important part of human life, would be accepted by others and - this is the important bit - could not be shown to be a direct attempt to harm others.The appeal panel found that while her words were offensive to some, they fell far short of the violent and oppressive views of "Nazism or totalitarian". There was not even any evidence that she had harassed anyone at work.Where does this leave employers? Equality and employment law require them to recognise and uphold the rights of all in the workplace.Ms Forstater's speech and beliefs are protected - but so are the rights of trans people. And if speech crosses the line from an honestly held belief to bullying, attacks and intimidation, then the scales very obviously tip in favour of protecting the victim.Mr Justice Choudhury acknowledged that some transgender people would be disappointed by this judgement, but said it had not "expressed any view on the merits of either side of the transgender debate".The judgement does not mean "that those with gender-critical beliefs can 'misgender' trans persons with impunity", he added.And he said it does not mean "that employers and service providers will not be able to provide a safe environment for trans persons".CGD said it was considering various paths forward with its lawyers and said it disputed Ms Forstater's version of events.The sole issue considered by the appeal tribunal was whether the original tribunal had been wrong not to consider Ms Forstater's views as a philosophical belief protected by the Equality Act.Other matters of the case, such as her employment status or whether she was discriminated against, would have to be decided at a fresh tribunal.Baroness Falkner, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said there was a difference between holding a belief and how it was expressed.She said: "Some may see the beliefs of others as questionable or controversial, but people must be free to hold them."This is why this case is so important."Monica Kurnatowska, employment partner at law firm Baker McKenzie, said the ruling meant that "individuals are entitled not to be discriminated against because of gender critical beliefs... and gives those beliefs the same legal protection as religious beliefs, environmental beliefs and ethical veganism"."Employers will be watching closely for any guidance on how to handle employee conflict fairly and lawfully, while respecting the rights of all involved," she added.Lui Asquith, director of legal and policy at Mermaids, a charity that supports transgender, non-binary and gender-diverse children and young people, said: "This is not the win anti-trans campaigners will suggest in the coming days."We, as trans people, are protected by equality law and this decision in the Maya Forstater case does not give anyone the right to unlawfully harass, intimidate, abuse or discriminate against us because we are trans."Ms Forstater's case gained public attention, including some high-profile supporters such as Harry Potter author JK Rowling and presenter Jonathan Ross.(6) The Culture War derives from the neo-Marxist New Left 1960s revolution - Hanne Nabintu Herlandhttps://hannenabintuherland.com/europa/the-neo-marxist-culture-war-takeover-of-western-philosophy/The neo-Marxist New Left 1960s revolution: Total CatastrophyThe Herland Report Hanne Nabintu HerlandJune 7, 2021These days universities are the main halls of the neo-Marxist, progressive propaganda that engulfs society and tears down Western stability.It has become a worldwide tendency for neo-Marxist socialists to team up with the 1 % richest capitalists in the world.This is where students learn not to think freely, not to respect the historical traditions that built the West as a strong civilization.Universities are rather where the young are taught how to become obedient to the elites who seem to aim at destroying diversity, plurality and the respect for religious freedom, writes historian Hanne Herland at The Christian Post, USA.For the New Left, neo-Marxist to win the culture war, it was vital to discriminate against the majority views, push for minority take over. [...]The neo-Marxist New Left 1960s revolution: It is precisely what culminated in the implementation of the 1960s New Left social revolution, in which traditional values were abolished and a new set of atheist ideals implemented.The Christian-Jewish commandments were scrapped, the very values that once made the West great.These ideals emphasized trustworthiness, honesty, fidelity, personal responsibility, humility, moderation and "to love one another".Selfishness was regarded as a vice, hedonism as a flaw, the very ideals hailed as the road to atheist freedom today.Marriage as a vital institution in society was dropped. Hedonism and the pursuit of pleasure implemented as well as the surge for legalizing drugs.Which fitted, by the way, the capitalists who could pursue the billion dollar drug industry with the help of the neo-Marxists.Personal responsibility was swapped in the 1960s with a strict belief in the state: It was now the state’s responsibility to make sure everyone were doing fine.Which also suited capitalist owners, who through socialism could control politicians, state funds, taxpayers money and state employment – thereby controlling the subdued public even more.Thinkers like Herbert Marcuse, the father of the student revolution in the 1960’s, speaks openly in A critique of pure tolerance about the need to oppress the views of the majority population in order to succeed in revolutionizing the culture.Marcuse’s illiberal words reveal the authoritarian New Left pursuit, stating that repressing the worldview of the majority is necessary in order to achieve the desired goal: To change the value system and revolutionize the West according to the neo-Marxist ideology.It is here they learn to despise the traditional values that once made us great. The traditional family is despised, religion is despised, values and morality is despised – and virtues with it.Who says you should not steal? Not lie? Not covet that which is not yours? Desire your neighbor’s wife and pursue her?What is loyalty, fidelity, prudence, patience, humility, reverence of God nowadays, but despised values regarded as old-fashioned relics from a pre-hedonist era we do not want to be associated with.It is engrained in the socialist world view, as defined by the neo-Marxist founding father of the student revolutions in the 1960’s, Herbert Marcuse:For the New Left neo-Marxist to win the culture war, it was vital to discriminate against the majority views, push for minority take over. Divide and Conquer.