Hello, everyone. This is James Lindsay. You're listening to new discourses bullets where I give a bullet point type summary of a small number or single topic within kind of the woke Marxist movement. So you can understand it. Today, I just want to hit on something. This is a very relevant for policymakers, whether that's an institutions or whether that's

lawmakers, to understand that there's a slight linguistic manipulation that you have to be aware of. And that is the linguistic manipulation of the so-called historically marginalized people or the traditionally marginalized groups. You have to understand that that phrasing has a purpose and you should not fall into the trap laid by that phrasing. It's a most important that you understand very one very simple thing. People who are historically marginalized will always be able to understand what's going on.

The marginalized will always be historically marginalized because it's something that happened in history. It doesn't change. You could redirect 100% of your institution's resources to helping out, to lifting up, to advancing, to promoting, to affirming or whatever happens to be a, quote, historically marginalized group. And it doesn't change the fact even if they are the most completely privileged group that possibly could exist does not change the fact that they were still historically marginalized.

That means you didn't solve the problem that's creating the grift. All you've done is enable the grift to continue by caving into it in the first place.

So traditionally marginalized and historically marginalized groups are permanently historically marginalized or traditionally marginalized groups. You must understand that that language is being implemented into policy on purpose.

Because it enables the grift to continue. So you have to be on the lookout constantly vigilant and on the lookout for the phrasing, historically marginalized people, especially if it involves giving them power or resources or especially just directly money because when you are empowering historically marginalized people, you are actually trying to empower a fiction.

You are enabling a grift that is empowering a fiction, something that no longer exists in the world, the historically marginalized or marginalized historically.

Not in the present day. You could say maybe they still are marginalized in the present day, but if that's the case, you don't need the modifier historically.

You can just say that you want to uplift whatever groups of people happen to be marginalized according to whatever metric or tests that you use to determine who's marginalized on that day.

Historically marginalized is, in fact, a form of sneaking under the rug reparations so that they can then say that you haven't actually done reparations yet.

This other grift works. So this is a very short, simple episode. I understand that I've only taken about three minutes of your time, but it's not a complicated topic. It's not a complicated idea.

It is a very well-oiled slick machine that you have to watch out for. These activists, woke activists, woke Marxists use language as their primary tool to primary weapon.

They slip seemingly innocuous phrases like historically marginalized that you think you know what they mean into policy. And then once it's in policy, maybe it's in policy for years or forever and it becomes very difficult to change or to amend or to change course.

And it justifies all kinds of things like court decisions, etc. that enable them to continue pushing a grift. So this one, very simple, historically marginalized, do not trust that wording. There is no reason for that wording to be put into place.

You are passing a disguised reparations bill if you are doing that at the level of law. And there's no justification for helping out people in the past who, in fact, because you don't have a time machine, you cannot go back and help.

You should be helping people in the present if that's your prerogative, but not historically marginalized people because they are not currently marginalized.