Determining Objective Information versus Indoctrination

Critical thinking is paramount in determining the validity of documents.  But how does one identify indoctrination when it is couched in alleged compassion for people?  What is the veracity test?  What questions need to be posed?  What research is required?

Recently, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, an independent non-profit organization, created a document titled "Confronting and Preventing Hate in Canadian Schools."  On the surface, this sounds laudable.

In the introduction, a reader is introduced to the Western States Center.

Western States Center [WSC] is one of the United States' leading organizations working to combat white nationalism, strengthen inclusive democracy, and assist civil society to effectively respond to social movements that exploit bigotry and intolerance. Based in the Pacific Northwest and Mountain states, WSC serves as a national hub for building movements, developing leaders, shifting culture, and defending democracy to help build a world where everyone can live, love, worship and work free from bigotry and fear.

My antennae start to wiggle when I read the words "white nationalism," so I research further and discover that another group called the Social Justice Fund considers the Western States Center its "sister organization established to help strengthen and further develop the progressive movement in the West."  So my instincts were correct.  But still I am intrigued by the messaging.

Reading further in the toolkit, I learn:

Hate is not a dislike of a person or a thing. It is the dehumanization or discrimination against specific groups on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and disability. People often think of white nationalism and white supremacy when they think of hate movements. According to Canadian academics who specialize in studying these movements, white supremacists 'believe in the superiority of whites over non-whites, and advocate that white people should be politically and socially dominant over non-white people.'

Certainly, this is true, as exemplified by the ideas of neo-Nazis and the KKK.  But if one is talking about the dehumanization of a specific group, how is it that the Black Lives Matter does not figure in the equation?  After all,

  • in November 2015, a group of approximately 150 BLM protesters shouting "Black Lives Matter" stormed Dartmouth University's library, screaming, 'F--- you, you filthy white f----!," "F--- you and your comfort!," and "F--- you, you racist s---!"
  • In July 2016, a BLM activist speaking to a CNN reporter shouted: "The less white babies on this planet, the less of you [white adults] we got!  I hope they kill all the white babies!  Kill 'em all right now!  Kill 'em!  Kill your grandkids!  Kill yourself!  Coffin, b----!  Go lay in a coffin!  Kill yourself!"

The Canadian toolkit continues:

Hate promoting individuals may use anti-immigrant, anti-Black, and Islamophobic rhetoric focused on crime or terrorism to appeal to base prejudices and reach a broader audience that might initially find their true ideology too extreme.

Is uncovering the illegal immigration and the concomitant destruction now overwhelming the southern U.S. border evidence of hate?  Is discussing the inherent bigotry of Islam as stated in its foundational documents hate-promoting?  Is publicizing the ulterior motives of groups that wish to damage a country proof of bigotry?

The toolkit asserts that "there is far-right messaging in other cultural spaces.  Islamophobic Hindu nationalism has been more of a topic with the Indian farmer protests in 2021."

Thus, the loaded word Islamophobic ignores the fact that Muslims are, indeed, regularly murdering Hindus.  In fact, how is it anti-Muslim or Islamophobic "to write about the effects of jihad or the ... Muslim treatment of unbelievers?  The facts are well established within international bodies, NGOs, national commissions, and verifiable journalistic reports.  Reformist Muslims themselves are highly critical of the discriminatory laws and behaviours in countries from which they or their forebearers originated."

Moreover, if the Canadian document were being genuine about its alleged concerns, it would acknowledge that "[b]ased on news reports of Muslims murdering other Muslims and killing Christians, there is, ironically, probably more Islamophobia among Muslims for each other than there is from Westerners toward Muslims.  There is also probably more 'Infidelophobia' by Muslims toward non-Muslims than by non-Muslims toward Muslims."

The next step in determining the true intent of this document is to see who supports its work.  They are considered "partners," and the toolkit states that the "programs engaged, supported, and relied on partnerships with nearly 200 tribal, state, and local governments, and racial, gender, and economic justice organizations." 

Note the left-wing code words of "economic justice" and "gender."

Some of these partners include the Ford Foundation, the Open Society Foundations, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Education Association.

Over the years, the Ford Foundation's tilt to the left has blossomed into full-fledged support of left-wing ideology.  In truth, "[a]t the center of the 'open borders' movement has been the Ford Foundation — the largest tax-exempt foundation in the world, and one increasingly guided by the political Left."  In fact, the "concept of 'open borders' has long been a leading agenda item for the political and ideological Left.  Since the 1960s, a vast network — including hundreds of organizations and tens of thousands of grassroots activists, backed by hundreds of millions of dollars from foundations — has waged a sustained campaign to open America's borders to a mass migration from the Third World.  Though the groups talk in terms of 'human rights,' the rights they demand are not the restrictions on government enshrined in the American Bill of Rights, but the claims on society for 'equity' and 'welfare' and special treatment for designated groups that are the familiar menu of the Left and would, if enacted, amount to a revolution in America's existing social order."

The Open Society Foundations (OSF) was founded as the Open Society Institute in 1993 by the multibillionaire hedge fund manager George Soros.  It took its current name in 2010.  The organizations under this umbrella include organizations "that specifically portray the American criminal-justice system as racist and inequitable; that call for massive social change, and for the recruitment and training of activist leaders to help foment that change; that disparage capitalism while promoting a dramatic expansion of social-welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes; that support socialized medicine in the United States; that seek to inject the American judicial system with leftist values; and that strive to move American politics to the left by promoting the election of progressive political candidates, i.e., Project Vote which is the voter-mobilization arm of the notoriously corrupt ACORN, whose voter-registration drives and get-out-the-vote initiatives have been marred by massive levels of fraud and corruption."

Then there is the Southern Poverty Law Center.  In fact, "[t]he Southern Poverty Law Center began with an admirable purpose but long ago transformed into a machine for raising money and launching left-wing political attacks.  Lately it's become more of a threat to free speech and civil debate than a defender of the weak or a foe of violent extremists."

Finally, there is the National Education Association (NEA).  Would that be the same NEA that asserts that it "engages and mobilizes educators, allies, and activists in the fight for racial, social and economic justice in public education"?  It supports Black Lives Matter because "[w]hat we're seeing right now is another boiling point in America: the effects of systemic and institutionalized racism coming to a head.  Black Americans and their allies are coming together to stand up to injustices."  Moreover, the NEA just announced it is calling for a "national policy of mandatory masking, mandatory vaccinations, and rejecting the words 'mother' and 'father.'"  The left has always advocated for the dissolution of the nuclear family.  And so much for the notion of  "my body, my choice" when it does not serve the left's interests.

Are some of the nearly 200 partners involved with the Canadian Anti-Hate Network toolkit truly concerned about justice and equality, or have they been lured by the often vague terminology?  Have they not done their due diligence on the group's true intentions, or are they comfortable with these Marxist, Progressive, and leftist ideas?  Are they complicit or merely naïve? 

It is not an easy task to identify the groups.  It takes time and patience.  But it is vital that we all "trust but verify" before supporting what may appear to be decent groups but whose ulterior motives are truly inimical to liberty and justice for all.

Eileen can be reached at

Image via Pxhere.

If you experience technical problems, please write to