Topic: Racism
[“Woke” people believe that] “America is – and always has been – systemically racist, and not worth celebrating, and must be fundamentally transformed, largely through a centralized administrative state.”
To suggest that wanting to remedy systemic inequality in the United States equates to a belief that the United States is “not worth celebrating” is utterly ludicrous. Almost as ludicrous as suggesting that “real” Americans (i.e., the non-“woke”), must thereby be celebrating systemic racism (although they’re implicitly arguing that this is true if A follows B.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“(Whether it be) mask and vaccine mandates, school and business closures, efforts to keep Americans from driving gas cars or using gas stoves, or efforts to defund the police, indoctrinate schoolchildren, alter beloved books, abridge free speech, undermine the colorblind ideal, or deny the biological reality that there are only two sexes, the Left’s steady stream of insanity appears to be never-ending.”
That’s a lot to unpack.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“Finally, the next Administration will face a significant challenge in unwinding policies and procedures that are used to advance radical gender, racial, and equity initiatives under the banner of science. Similarly, the Biden Administration’s climate fanaticism will need a whole-of-government unwinding. As with other federal departments and agencies, the Biden Administration’s leveraging of the federal government’s resources to further the woke agenda should be reversed and scrubbed from all policy manuals, guidance documents, and agendas, and scientific excellence and innovation should be restored as the OSTP’s top priority.”
Again, Vought’s racism, bigotry, and science denial is on full display here. It’s utterly laughable that he cites “scientific excellence” as something he’s interested in advancing, but the scientific community OVERWHELMINGLY agrees that climate change is an issue – 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change and global warming.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“As the Carter presidency was winding down, the U.S. Department of Justice and top lawyers at the OPM contrived with plaintiffs to end civil service IQ examinations because of concern about their possible impact on minorities.”
This is deliberately misleading. Civil Servants were subjected to a civil service exam, not an IQ test. And the exams were brought back starting in 2012. It is true that the Carter administration agreed to abolish it in 1981 after several discrimination cases. Under the Obama Administration, the OPM began to introduce an improved merit exam called USAHire (this is the one that was in test beginning in 2012.)
It’s interesting and telling that the authors would deliberately call it an IQ test when it isn’t, then point out that minorities were failing it. This is thinly veiled racism. They made a false statement about what kind of test it was, so that they could make an argument that minorities (must) have lower IQs, for no other reason but to be racist.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: The Bureaucracy here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“It is human nature that no one appreciates being told that he or she is less than outstanding in every way. Informing subordinates in a closely knit bureaucracy that they are not performing well is difficult. Rating compatriots is even considered rude and unprofessional. Moreover, managers can be and often are accused of racial or sexual discrimination for a poor rating, and this discourages honesty.”
Since when is “rating compatriots” – i.e., doing performance reviews in a professional setting – considered to be “rude and unprofessional”? Fact Check: “In a large number of these cases, it is common for an original discrimination allegation (on a basis other than retaliation) fail to establish a violation of the law, but the subsequent retaliation allegation results in a discrimination finding.” Source: EEOC.gov.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: The Bureaucracy here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“Divisive symbols such as the rainbow flag or the Black Lives Matter flag have no place next to the Stars and Stripes at our embassies.”
This is a dig at Antony Blinken’s okaying these types of flags to be flown at our embassies around the world, if they so chose. From the linked article: “The cable contained a hedge, though, saying the authorization is not a requirement and chiefs of mission who run each embassy or consulate can choose whether to fly the Pride flag or showcase other symbols connoting support for LGBTQ rights based on what is “appropriate in light of local conditions.” The Trump Administration had previously forbidden this.
In March 2024, Biden encouraged a bipartisan passing of the spending bill, despite the fact that it supported reversing this authorization. Embassies in Brazil and Curacao were two which chose to fly the Black Lives Matter flag at their embassies in honor of Black History Month. [Source] [Source].
In any case, it’s telling that the writer explicitly states their belief that thinking that “black lives matter” or supporting LGBTQ people’s right to exist peacefully is “divisive.” It’s only divisive if you’re a racist or a homophobe/transphobe.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2: The Common Defense here.
“Finally, future IC leadership must address the widely promoted “woke” culture that has spread throughout the federal government with identity politics and “social justice” advocacy replacing such traditional American values as patriotism, colorblindness, and even workplace competence.”
There’s the “woke” boogeyman again. I touched on the “colorblindness” myth in Section 1. Carmack does not make any suggestions as to how the Intelligence Community should fight “woke”ness, nor does he elaborate on what the actual problem is, other than he appears to take issue with racial sensitivity practices. I dislike the implication that those who work towards social justice are not patriots; particularly when this entire manifesto promotes party over country, and loyalty to the President rather than to the United States, which is an insult to the Constitution and the values we were founded upon. Project 2025 is not a plan written by patriots, it is a plan written by fascists masquerading as nationalists.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.4: Intelligence Community here.
“The Biden Administration has deformed the agency by treating it as a global platform to pursue overseas a divisive political and cultural agenda that promotes abortion, climate extremism, gender radicalism, and interventions against perceived systemic racism.”
This is a grotesquely exaggerated and partisan interpretation of reality. Yes, the Biden administration rescinded the disastrous Mexico City Policy. (And it should be noted here that USAID still follows U.S. federal law, which prohibits using federal funds directly for abortions in most cases and has since 1973 – see the Helms Amendment.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“…and restart the Trump Administration’s “China Initiative” (to address Chinese espionage and theft of trade secrets), which the Biden Administration “terminated…largely out of a concern for poor ‘optics.’”
The China initiative wasn’t terminated by Biden, it was refocused because Trump’s version of it resulted in disproportionately targeting Americans of Chinese descent for their race, and for leading to a number of cases dropped due to lack of evidence. In 2022, the DOJ refocused it on threats from nations, not individuals. So I guess this is a partially true statement, if you’re calling blatant racism merely “poor optics.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 3: The General Welfare here.
“Short of this, the Secretary of Education should insist that the department serve parents and American ideals, not advocates whose message is that children can choose their own sex, that America is “systemically racist,” that math itself is racist, and that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ideal of a colorblind society should be rejected in favor of reinstating a color-conscious society.”
There are so many mischaracterizations, oversimplifications, and inflammatory language inherent to this statement that it’s difficult to know where to begin.
First, schools don’t “push the idea that children can choose their own sex.” The statement conflates sex (biological attributes) with gender (social and personal identity.) Schools support the idea that gender identity can sometimes differ from biological sex, and that children should be supported in expressing that if they so choose. It’s not “pushed.” One wonders how they intend to enforce such ideas. Teachers firmly saying “nuh-uh!” to non-gender-conforming children? What would the alternative be? Going back to hitting children’s knuckles with a cane[Source]24, as we used to do with left-handed children, when we thought there was something “wrong” with that? Where’s the line? Are we going to corporally punish tomboys, or boys who grow their hair long? Who determines what a boy is supposed to look like, and what a girl is supposed to look like? How far can one deviate before the way they look is an issue for the government? This is a ridiculous amount of government control over what amounts to nothing more than transphobia.
I touched on systemic racism and the “colorblind” ideal in previous sections. Absolutely nobody sane is claiming that “math itself is racist”, this is an insane statement. Efforts to reform math education focus on ensuring equitable access to high-quality math instruction for all students, which includes recognizing that students from underprivileged backgrounds may face barriers that are unrelated to their mathematical abilities.
As for Dr. King, they’re completely mischaracterizing his vision of a society where people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin as a “colorblind ideal.” Dr. King strongly advocated for the dismantling of racist systems, addressing racial injustices, and acknowledged that color-conscious approaches were necessary to address inequality – basically the exact opposite of everything Project 2025 stands for. They’re bastardizing his legacy. King was 100% a radical in his time, as much as white people would like to believe that his “I have a dream” speech was the extent of his politics. Things MLK also said?
“However difficult it is to hear, however shocking it is to hear, we’ve got to face the fact that America is a racist country.”
“Large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility & the status quo than about justice and humanity.”
“America is going to hell if we don’t use her vast resources to end poverty and make it possible for all God’s children to have the basic necessities of life.”
“We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.”
“The trouble is that we live in a failed system. Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we’re going to have to change the system.”
I believe that proper respect for Dr. King does not exist in the absence of a commitment to change these things; to right these injustices. And that means supporting lawmakers who have made a commitment to right injustice, not perpetrate it.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3: The General Welfare here.