In this in-depth discussion, Lindsay, Boghossian and O’Fallon begin by reviewing the Southern Baptist Convention’s Resolution 9 and then compare and contrast the strategic use of Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality in nearly every facet of our society.

In this first of three interviews conducted in New York City, Sovereign Nations Founder Michael O’Fallon and the co-founders of New Discourses, Dr. Peter Boghossian and Dr. James Lindsay, discuss the current tools of societal and institutional deconstruction being introduced throughout civilization under the banner of “Social Justice.” These, they discuss, are presented in a manner not unlike the legendary Trojan Horse.

Dr. Peter Boghossian and Dr. James Lindsay are best known for their work in exposing the impact of “Grievance Studies” in the secular university system. The Grievance Studies affair, also referred to as the “Sokal Squared” scandal (in reference to a similar 1996 hoax by Alan Sokal), was the fourteen-month investigative whistleblowing project of a team composed of these two authors, together with Helen Pluckrose. Its mission was to create bogus academic papers and submit them to academic journals in the areas of cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies. The authors’ intent was to expose problems in “grievance studies,” a term they apply to a particular approach to studying these academic topics that proceed from a radical political agenda using means adapted from postmodern cultural analysis. Their conclusion is that under that approach “a culture has developed in which only certain conclusions are allowed,” one that “put social grievances ahead of objective truth.” ^[1]

The result of their inquiry has created a crisis of confidence around all academic disciplines that fall under the umbrella of cultural studies, particularly those within the “theoretical humanities.” This crisis arises because not only were the methods and ethics applied in their bogus papers intentionally insufficient, but also the methodology they used for them was consistent. It always began with a conclusion or approach that they believed would flatter the political biases of the reviewers and editors evaluating their submissions and then bent the existing literature to reach those conclusions. This is, in a word, sophistry, and it cannot be trusted.

Even worse, they were able to determine that the ultimate reason for their success was not a matter of luck or a failure of the peer review system, but instead of having learned to write consistently with what their reviewers consider exemplary scholarship in those fields. They have every reason to believe that the peer review system worked exactly as intended, and they credit their success to having gained legitimate expertise in the relevant fields of thought, mostly applied postmodern Critical Theory.

Read More