December 19, 2024 • 43 mins
This episode challenges the one-sided narratives perpetuated by mainstream media and the woke agenda, highlighting the impact of these ideologies on children and parental rights. Listeners will uncover the complex motivations behind these initiatives and consider the importance of alternative perspectives within societal discourse.
• The bias of mainstream media and its alignment with specific political agendas
• Suppression of information by search engines and its implications
• Learning about the indoctrination tactics used against children
• The controversy surrounding drag queen performances in children's programming
• Personal anecdotes demonstrating institutional pressure on parents
• The significant funding directing support to woke initiatives
• Exploring dissenting voices within LGBTQ communities against the woke agenda
• Advocating for informed, constructive resistance against the woke narrative
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hi everybody.
This is Lydia Lopinto and I runGreenleaf Publishers, which
publishes the InvestigativeVoices reports of this report.
(00:31):
Some of them are doing quitewell and they look at um
research from the other side ofthe spectrum of the media.
As we know, the media that iscalled mainstream these are the
ones that people considermainstream, although they're no
longer mainstream all seem tohave the same narrative and the
narrative always follows many ofthe things that the Democrats
(00:55):
want to push.
So obviously these mainstreammedia are more arms of
democratic, of Democrat agendasthan they are actual news
programs.
They will always favor thedemocrat agenda and you know
that.
(01:15):
I mean, if you've triedsearching for something, you
know that not only are themainstream media always pushing
the Democrat agenda, no matterhow ridiculous it might be, they
also partner up with Google andMicrosoft, bing and some other
(01:40):
search engines to actuallysuppress articles, genuine
articles that question theseagendas and go against the
agenda.
So it's not free press anymore.
Free press is not where youGoogle something and all they
(02:00):
say is that anybody that doesn'tagree with this agenda and you
will see it when you do a Googlesearch anybody that does not
agree with the agenda is eithera far-right activist, or they're
(02:21):
basically conspiracy theories,or they are making up
information because they're theonly ones that are right.
There is no other truth otherthan the truth that they want to
(02:42):
add to the search engine, andyou know this.
You can look up, for example,whale deaths in the eastern
United States, and you will findthat what they'll say is that
everybody that has seen a deadwhale on the shore is a
(03:05):
conspiracy theorist and thatthese whales died because ships
ran into them or they got caughtin nets, even though the
pictures do not show anyevidence of this.
Look for deaths outside ofGoogle.
(03:31):
You go to DuckDuckGo.
You will find that three timesas many articles exist citing
these whale deaths and I'mgetting off topic here than
Google actually shows you.
They actually have deleted anywhale deaths so that they can
continue to push the greenagenda, and the green agenda, as
(03:51):
we know, has a lot of brown,disgusting spots on it and it's
rotting away because there isnothing really green about a
windmill.
We've already found out thatthey're not green, that they
have lubricating oil and thatthey're not as green as we
(04:14):
thought.
Okay, and so to suppressinformation?
That will give you this data,but it'll show you to make up
your mind at meetings and justtell you that it's not what
people think, and anybody thatthinks that it's a conspiracy
theorist.
That's fascism.
(04:35):
I'm sorry.
What else can you callsomething like that when they
manipulate that, when theymanipulate the information that
is fed to you?
Okay, so what we need to do istake a look at and I apologize,
(04:56):
I have a problem with my eye, Iknow it looks strange, but you
know Then the reports actuallyuncover this.
And how do I uncover it?
Well, I have to search data onalternative search engines.
I have to use foreign searchengines.
Some of the foreign searchengines do not suppress this
(05:20):
information, but they capture it, but they're in other languages
.
This information, but theycapture it, but they're in other
languages.
So, basically, I end up havingto translate that information.
Ai helps me with this enormoustask of searching other engines
and listing information, andeven with AI help, it is a work.
(05:43):
So how can we expect normalpeople to go and find
information when they activelysuppress it in the search engine
, whether it's Microsoft orGoogle, so that you only get one
point of view, and it issometimes so obvious when you
look at it that it makes youangry that they have algorithms
(06:08):
that actually suppress data in afascist way.
Okay, and everybody knows it,but apparently we can't do
anything about it.
So we go to alternative searchengines.
I use AI because it can searcha search engine and go through
25 or 30 pages quickly and giveme the results.
(06:31):
It will also identify whichsearch engine was actually
suppressing data by comparingthe lists, which it has done,
and in the case of this onereport on woke, that was done
quite a bit.
(06:52):
In fact, it got to the pointwhere I actually had to
reprogram my workspace so thatit wouldn't run into the booby
traps that the search enginesput in to prevent AI or anybody
(07:14):
to get the truth about thisinformation.
And all of us that are fightingright now woke, as parents or
grandparents, we know that it'sa very fascistic type of agenda
that they're basically pushingdown our throats, disregarding
(07:41):
our, disregarding our traditions, our religion and our own ways
that we want to raise ourchildren.
And it is so bad that I wrote areport on it and I had to fight
with AI, because they programit into the AI that there are
(08:02):
certain subjects that theycannot go through and I had to
work at that.
I had to do manual searchesbecause it won't do it.
It's protecting the woke agendaall the way down to the
different AI programs, all theway into the search engines.
We are basically prisonersinside this woke agenda that
(08:29):
doesn't allow any type ofdifferent opinion.
I posted this on an author'sgroup and already I had the
LBGTQ people tell me I wasposting hate because I posted an
actual photo of an actual dragqueen in an actual reading for
(08:59):
children and this man had abeard and was dressed as a woman
.
It's a performer.
Okay, that was hate, I said,but it's not hate because this
is an actual photo.
How is that hate if I'm postingan actual photo?
This is what goes on at thesedrag queen shows, which so many
(09:20):
parents are against.
Okay, but this is not all that.
Anti-woke, no more wokeamassing the assault on children
in tradition.
This is not all that it covers.
It covers the entire wokeagenda.
It will give you importantinformation.
(09:42):
For example, it will show youwho's funding the woke agenda.
No, it's not a grassrootsmovement that started when
people felt they were beingdiscriminated.
No, no, no.
This was fabricated andactually funded by different
(10:07):
organizations, of which I'm notgoing to mention on this podcast
, but you will see them on thebook, who's funded it In the
numberings, the numbering youwill not believe the billions
that go into woke.
If we took those billions thatare going into supporting the
(10:32):
woke agenda at so many levelsgrants, all kinds of things to
push the woke agenda, grants,all kinds of things to push the
woke agenda we could cure.
We could definitely curechildhood cancers, because we
are talking about billions intothe woke agenda.
(10:56):
You'll also find out themotivations for the woke agenda.
Why do we have it, what is it,what are the different types of
platforms that they have, thedifferent types of agendas that
they have and why do they targetchildren?
And you will find out thatthere is a parallel to this
(11:20):
method of spreading an agendathat was practiced by fascists,
including Hitler.
The first thing you do is youindoctrinate the children
because you have to bypass theparents, the parental morality,
(11:44):
religions.
Everything has to be bypassed,has to be eliminated.
The first thing is, of course,they eliminate religion, they
turn the whole agenda into acult-like system that the only
thing in those kids' minds isgoing to be that agenda.
(12:06):
It's going to be completeindoctrination.
At that point the kids willrebel against the parents and
call them old-fashioned, whichis typical.
Anyway, when you talk toparents and grandparents, you
know children know everything.
They're born knowing Otherwise.
You know they don't actuallyneed an education.
(12:27):
They're born knowing just abouteverything.
So it's just if you convincethem that they know everything
and that only they have thetruth, the kids will believe it
because they want to rebelagainst the parents.
So that's a good way toindoctrinate children, the way
(12:49):
that anybody that wants to takeover your children and convince
them to do certain things, theyutilize those methods.
So it's a cult-like method.
It's an indoctrination method.
They use the media.
They use things like YouTube.
They use cartoons.
(13:10):
They will use very fewmagazines because the kids are
hardly reading anymore.
They don't read.
Video games is very, very mucha way to spread woke agendas,
and one of the agendas Idiscussed all the way down in
(13:31):
the appendix is this drag queenstory hour.
Drag queen story hour.
I, as a grandmother, I justcan't imagine such a thing.
But I've looked at it.
I have to say some of themsound good.
(13:52):
I mean, the performers arepeople and they have a flair for
making children interested inthings.
They read books to them, theyact things out.
I mean, they're not allpervertsverts, I mean, just
because they're drag queens, Idon't say that there's.
You know that I won't holdanything against the performers.
(14:13):
Those performers are people whodecided they want to get paid
to perform in front of childrenbecause they needed a job.
You know so they do good joband but let me explain to you
how this started, this dragqueen, and why so many parents
are against it.
Number one of course, numerousreligions do not accept, uh,
(14:37):
drag queens.
Uh, there is bigotry, of course, but is the way to solve the
bigotry issue with adults to goand act in front of the children
?
I don't understand how you'regoing to get inclusivity by
performing in front of childrenwho know nothing about sexuality
(15:00):
or anything else.
As far as they're concerned,you're one of the characters in
the book.
They don't understand thatyou're a queen.
You could be anybody, so it'sstupid to think that that's
going to make you inclusive.
I would say the program startedin 2015, and the reason they
(15:21):
started it in San Francisco isbecause they wanted inclusivity
and they thought by reading tochildren, people might realize
that these are human beings,that there's nothing wrong with
them, and maybe get to theparents this way, which sounds
(15:46):
good, but it didn't work out.
They became very big becausethey got money from a couple of
big foundations, including theFord Foundation and some state
money or city money foundationand some state money or city
(16:06):
money, and the whole program waspushed into libraries, camps
and um museums in any publicvenue where the performers would
be dressed up as characters ina book and read the book and act
it out and make it fun for thechildren.
Is that bad?
Not really.
That's not bad.
Okay, that's fun.
They're performers.
But what is bad is that lots ofperformers in New York City
(16:30):
would have liked that job.
Lots of out-of-work actorswould have liked that job.
But they did exactly what theyaimed to fix Lack of inclusivity
.
They only hired drag queens.
Why not hire a ballet dancer ora singer or an actress that's
(16:54):
out of work or somebody else?
Are any number of people toperform these acts and not just
discriminate that only dragqueens can make a performance
interesting to children.
So they started off saying that, oh, we want inclusivity for
(17:16):
drag queens and people of theLGBTQ community and they
excluded everybody else from theprogram.
So they did exactly theopposite of what they set out to
do okay.
So in the end, all they did isisolate themselves.
Parents were outraged.
(17:36):
Parents in all of they were in15 countries.
So they they were quitesuccessful in creating these
programs and pushing theseprograms around.
Of course, they would get moneyfrom foundations.
They didn't have to make moneyout of tickets Each time they
performed.
(17:56):
They got $600 to $2,000 fromthe library or the museum or
whatever it was, and that waspart of the revenue plus the
grants.
Now this money only went todrag queens.
That's not fair.
Why not dance teachers?
(18:18):
Why not music teachers?
Why not authors of the verybooks that they were promoting?
Authors could do this,actresses, anybody that other
than just drag queens seems tome that they were not inclusive.
They were the last thing, butinclusive because only the drag
(18:42):
queens got those jobs and gotaccess to that grant money and
it was significant amount ofmoney that they got to push
these performances all over theworld.
As a result, since people don'tknow what drag queens are or
anything else, there was abacklash.
(19:03):
There were all kinds ofdemonstrations in Australia and
the UK and in differentcountries.
The Muslims are mad.
The Jews, orthodox Jews, weremad.
The Christians were mad.
Everybody was mad.
Yeah, some people went to theshow and said, well, it wasn't
(19:33):
so bad.
The guy got dressed up and thekids liked it.
It was colors.
It wasn't so bad, okay, but thefact that it was a drag queen
they decided to publish that.
Why not call it something else?
Why do you just call it?
They had to go ahead and beinclusive by pushing the fact
(19:54):
that they were drag queens, andthat's exactly what created the
backlash.
In what planet is this a programthat makes any sense?
Okay, it doesn't make sense,and it is an example of many,
many like programs that haveexisted, created by well-meaning
(20:16):
people that think that theyneed to push their agenda on
everyone else, and if you're notin agreement with their agenda,
of course, you're either afar-right person or you're a
proud voice.
This is how they portrayed theparents that were protesting
(20:38):
these things.
They portrayed them asfar-right, proud boys, when
there were actually housewivesprotesting against the show, and
that's how ridiculous it all is.
It's ridiculous that they wouldportray parents that way, but
(21:02):
the media wants to push anagenda and that's why people
don't like it, because when youpush something down the throats
of parents, especially whenthey're trying to protect their
children, it's not going to work.
Okay, the children come first.
We do not care.
As a grandparent, I am sorry.
If you're a drag queen, Ireally don't care.
(21:24):
If you want to be included in myfamily, you know and you want
to have a show and you want tobe inclusive, that's your job.
You've got to convince adultsthat you merit inclusivity.
You don't use the kids to dothat, because the kids know
(21:44):
nothing about what yoursexuality is.
They don't know anything.
You could be a cartooncharacter for all they care.
They just see a person with anoutfit or with a costume.
They don't see you as a dragqueen.
They don't know who you are,and that's not inclusivity.
You're just fooling the kids.
(22:05):
You're not telling them thetruth about yourself.
So that's my opinion.
Would I go to one of these showswith the kids?
I don't think so.
There's plenty of other showsaround that I would choose to
take.
I also write books.
(22:25):
I would read the books myself.
I don't think I I would take mychild to see a drag queen
perform.
I don't think that's appropriatein my opinion as a grandma.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, butit's not that I hate drag queens
, it's just that I don't thinkthey belong next to young
(22:47):
children.
I don't think the children haveany idea what it is, and I
don't think that if they have aprogram that is getting hundreds
of thousands of dollars in justgrants, plus millions of
dollars from the libraries, theschools and the camps, who pay
(23:12):
about anywhere from $600 to$2,000 per performance, I think
that money needs to go to everytype of performer and not just
exclusively drag queens, becausethen you're the bigot, you are
the discrimination person.
(23:32):
You're discriminating againstpeople saying that only drag
queens can make a fun show forthe children.
That is my opinion.
You wanted inclusivity.
Well, inclusive means everybody.
It doesn't mean just dragqueens, and just because someone
sees a drag queen, they're notgoing to immediately think
(23:56):
anything better of drag queens,or in their minds it has nothing
to do with LBGTQ+.
They don't know what it is.
So it serves no purpose, in myopinion, to have this and to
have the backlash of taking achild to a show in the city, in
(24:17):
a public library, a bunch ofparents with signs outside
complaining that this is not agood show.
That's going to make thechildren upset.
You know why are you doing this?
On purpose to draw the backlash.
It's almost like you're askingfor it, then the kids are going
(24:40):
to be upset.
So I really don't think it's agood program.
But let me continue thispodcast with the fact that these
asinine programs by the lefthave been around since I was a
parent many years ago.
(25:00):
Okay, so in the 1980s there wasanother similar type program,
ill-conceived program, moneylaundering program.
Okay, my daughter was attendinga public school in the city.
I was told that she would nowbe sent every day, or I think it
(25:31):
was every day or three times aweek, to go to a senior
citizen's nursing home toentertain the nursing home
people okay, the patients there.
And there was a nursing home upon Riverdale Avenue and there
(25:55):
was a nursing home up onRiverdale Avenue and the people
could be anywhere from, I don'tknow, 80 to 90 to 100 years old,
and not all of them were wellin the head.
A lot of them had Alzheimer'sand all kinds of things.
And I thought this was anotherone of these ill-conceived
programs that Democrats theycome up with and it's only for
(26:18):
money for themselves.
So I was told my daughter waspicked to go three times a week
to this nursing home to sit onthe lap of people that I did not
know who they were and spendthe whole day there and then
come back to the school.
And because my daughter wasbright, I was told in the letter
(26:42):
she would have no problemcatching up with the curriculum
and this was going to last acertain about a whole semester,
I mean the first half of theyear she would go to this.
I looked at the form and I saidI disagree, I don't want her, my
(27:02):
daughter, attending thisprogram.
Okay, and I thought that wouldbe the end of it.
Oh no, that was not the end ofit.
I was called in by theprincipal who said that my
daughter would have no problem.
She's smart.
I should consider it.
I said no, I don't want to.
He threatened me.
He made my daughter cry.
(27:25):
He threatened me.
He told me he would get me outof the school if I didn't agree.
My daughter was crying.
It was a horrible situation andI couldn't do anything about it
.
So I asked my husband, I askedgrandma one and grandma two and
(27:48):
grandpa, what do you think Ishould do?
Should I allow her to go?
And they said no, no, we don't.
And I asked my oldermother-in-law.
I said what do you think goeson in these nursing homes.
Should I send my daughter there?
She says oh no, these peoplecould be very ill and your
daughter will get sick.
(28:09):
Well, who knows, some of thesemen could be pedophiles.
You don't know.
If you're not there, youshouldn't let go.
So I was a young mother then, soI needed advice from older
people.
Fortunately, I had people Icould ask and I said what am I
going to do?
So I started looking, since Irealized that the school wasn't
(28:30):
going to.
Let me get away with it,because the principal said that
there was a lot of moneyinvolved, that for every child
he sent, money would come fromthe city to fund this and if he
didn't have my daughter in it,he would lose I don't know how
much money.
So he was threatening me.
(28:51):
So it's unbelievable, but ithappened.
So finally I found a school, aprivate school.
It was $8,000.
In those days that was a lot ofmoney and I borrowed it and I
put my daughter, I think thenext day, into the private
(29:14):
school and life was privateschool from now on.
Okay, I got a second job, myhusband worked harder, we paid
the money and we said goodbye tothese problems.
On top of that, they had anafter-school program which was
very good.
(29:34):
On top of that, they had anafter-school program, which was
very good, and I had a lot ofreferences from friends who were
sending their kids there.
I went to the school, I checkedeverything out, I told them what
happened with this publicschool and they told me that
this is not unusual and thatthey don't do anything like that
.
You know, the kids are thereall the time.
(29:55):
They're not sent off to nursinghomes or anything else, and I
was happy.
It was a beautiful location.
Anyway, my daughter went intothat school.
I get a call like two weekslater that they were going to
send me to court because Ididn't send my daughter back to
(30:16):
school.
And I told them well, she's inprivate school, you can call the
private school, she's enrolledthere, so she is attending
school.
And they said, okay, that's theend of it.
So they were still trying tothreaten me even after I took
the kid out of the school.
Okay, this, I know, isunbelievable.
(30:36):
This happened to me, all right.
This is why I'm so completelyupset by these woke programs,
because it's the same thing.
They always make money, thesethings, and this principal was
actually making cash out ofevery kid that he sent to the
(30:57):
program and he wanted mydaughter to be one, because he
needed one more kid and that'swhy he wasn't going to give up
the money.
Well, nobody believed me.
This happened only three monthslater after this event.
I look at the news.
Karma had come to thisprincipal, real karma.
(31:21):
He was arrested not because ofthis program with the nursing
home, but because he had takenthe money that he was granted to
fix the roof of the school andused it for a junket in one of
(31:44):
the mountain resorts where theywent.
They had food, they had dancing, anything, the teachers went
there, they all had a good timeand they spent the money that
was supposed to fix the roof ofthis public school and it was
leaking on the children.
So he was fired.
(32:07):
I think he was arrested, and sowill a lot of people that were
participating in this scam ofthis criminal activities using
money for themselves were thrownout, and I think they got a new
principal and they got newpeople.
(32:28):
So karma came to that guy, butin the meantime it took months
and my daughter could have beenin real trouble.
She could have been reallyharmed okay by who knows what in
the nursing home.
Whether it's a disease orwhatever you know, I didn't want
her there.
Why should I have to acceptsomething that I didn't want as
(32:51):
a parent?
The parents that are fightingtoday against the woke agenda
how are they being pushed to?
In a lot of cases, these dragqueen performers show up at
(33:13):
schools and camps and thelibrary is paying taxpayer
dollars to fund them.
The school or the camp ispaying your money to fund them,
and why should the parents notbe contacted and not opt out of
these things, both financiallyand participating in these
(33:38):
things?
This should be totally optional.
This should be something wherethey charge tickets and if you
want to pay $10 to bring yourkid to this performance and you
feel he needs to be exposed to adrag queen, then of course
that's your choice, but don'tforce it on anybody that later
(33:58):
is his only solution is to gooutside and parade around with a
sign and then call that persona far right, a far right
activist or a proud boy.
When it's some, some housewifefrom New Jersey that is
complaining about this, it'sridiculous.
(34:18):
Ok, this is how ridiculous theyare.
So the anti-work result researchreport is very comprehensive.
You're going to find wherethese people get the money, what
the agendas are, what they'redoing, how do they manipulate
the media, how do theymanipulate the search engines,
(34:40):
why are they trying to do thisand what their objectives are,
and lots and lots of casehistories and stories in every
chapter.
There's 180 pages here has aset of references.
You can go back to the originalreferences.
It also has a lot of glossarymaterial, because a lot of the
(35:04):
wordings that they use we studytoo much.
I don't define LBGTQ or go intothose things.
This is not about that.
I don't have any qualms ifyou're gay, lesbian or anything
else.
In fact, there's a wholechapter about lesbians and gays
(35:25):
who are against woke.
So if you're confused and thinkthat this is something, that if
you're against woke, you'redefinitely a bigot against
different types of sexualitiesthat is not even close to the
truth of sexualities.
That is not even close to thetruth.
The same people the lesbians,the gays, the people of
(35:49):
different genders are againstthe woke because they feel used.
They feel that this is not whatthey want, because woke
encompasses a whole set ofideologies, and I'll give you a
(36:10):
clue that the ideology that wokecame from originally is marxism
.
It is a marxist, uh ideal.
Okay, it is, uh, a marxist umideology.
It is a Marxist ideology andthat's also documented in the
War of Good.
It shows you where it came from, how they developed it and why
they developed it and whatthey're trying to do with woke.
(36:38):
So if you think that woke isabout protecting LBGTQ people
and making things inclusive, nah, nobody spends that kind of
money billions and billions ofdollars to be nice and inclusive
.
No, no, it's not about that.
It's always about somebodymaking money off of it, just
(36:59):
like it happened to me with thisso-called nice program with the
old people.
You want to send the kids andbe with the old people and it
was all going to be so nice andsome guy who later got arrested
was making money off of it and Iended up having to spend $8,000
a year in those days to sendher to a private school.
Okay, and I went private schoolafter that.
I just school, okay, and I wentprivate school after that.
(37:22):
I just worked hard and we wentprivate school because the the
public school system was full ofthis stuff.
I came from a public schoolsystem and never faced these
things, but, um, yeah, it was,it was full of it.
So, uh, yeah, it was full of it, so yeah.
So no More Woke.
It is not a hateful book.
(37:44):
It doesn't have anything to dowith LBGTQ.
It has to do with agendas beingpushed by big corporations for
their own personal ends and topush Marxism into this country.
(38:05):
And yeah, that's what it reallyis.
And you'll get all the research.
And it's a tool for parents,because if they truly understand
what these ideologies they'repushing in the schools are for
and what the real reason forthem are, they'll realize what
(38:26):
they have to say to get listenedto, instead of trying to come
off as bigots against LBGTQ,against gays and lesbians.
They might pull some of thisinformation out of the book and
say you know this is a Marxistprogram and give them the data
(38:50):
and show what you're reallytrying to do, and then they'll
shut up because they can'taccuse you of being a bigot or
being hateful.
That's what I say is the bestway to fight the woke agenda.
All the parents know what's bad.
They don't understand why it'sso bad.
(39:11):
This will explain to you whyit's so bad and that you're
right.
It'll support you.
It won't call you a bigot.
It'll show you that people whoare LGBTQ, who are lesbians and
gays are against for a reason,and obviously there are many
people against this that don'tget listened to because the
(39:34):
search engines push theirinformation down.
Nobody finds out about it.
People who are very smart inuniversities are criticizing
woke, and we have a list ofthose.
There are two sides to everystory and this is the other side
.
You can't listen to thepropaganda and think that's the
(39:56):
only side.
Propaganda is when they do whatyou heard they're doing.
They're taking the informationand actually pushing it down the
search engine, so you don'tfind it calling you a far right
activist if you speak outagainst this, if you oppose this
.
The same thing that happened tome in the 1980s when I didn't
(40:20):
want my daughter going to thisprogram with older people
because I didn't know who shewas going to be with.
I was called names and I wasthreatened and it was all money.
The guy eventually got arrestedbut nobody was checking on him,
and this is the same thing.
(40:41):
So good luck to you.
And the report is availableonline.
It is $25.
It is 180 pages of goodresearch.
It took me a long time toresearch this.
Lots of it had to be done byhand.
The AI search engines refusedto give me, you know, certain
(41:02):
information because they're alsoprogrammed to protect woke, and
I had to work very hard atgetting this information.
That's why my eye is not sogood lately, so I would urge you
to read it.
It has uncovered a lot ofthings that I didn't even know,
(41:26):
and I was shocked at what Ifound about woke, and I think
you should read this book andfind out.
It's called Anti-Woke, anti-woke, anti-woke and Unmasking the
Assault on Children andTradition by Investigative
(41:49):
Voices.
That's the group that I use thepen name I use for all my
reports so that they all show upon the same page, and then I
use for all my reports so thatthey all show up on the same
page.
You can look up investigativevoices online.
You can look for Anti-Walk onAmazon.
(42:11):
You can also go tocloverleafpub and they're there
amongst my other publications,and I really hope that you take
a look at this book.
If you're a parent and you'refighting these things and you're
finding that you don't have anycontrol over what they teach
your children, this is the bookfor you.
(42:33):
Okay, you're going to findinformation that you can bring
up and they cannot fight you onit because you have the
references.
Okay, so good luck to you, andI hope that you don't have to
send your kids to private schoollike I did.
That's terrible Homeschooling,maybe.
(42:54):
Okay, bye-bye now.
Hi everybody.
This is Lydia Lopinto and I runGreenleaf Publishers, which
publishes the InvestigativeVoices reports of this report.
(00:31):
Some of them are doing quitewell and they look at um
research from the other side ofthe spectrum of the media.
As we know, the media that iscalled mainstream these are the
ones that people considermainstream, although they're no
longer mainstream all seem tohave the same narrative and the
narrative always follows many ofthe things that the Democrats
(00:55):
want to push.
So obviously these mainstreammedia are more arms of
democratic, of Democrat agendasthan they are actual news
programs.
They will always favor thedemocrat agenda and you know
that.
(01:15):
I mean, if you've triedsearching for something, you
know that not only are themainstream media always pushing
the Democrat agenda, no matterhow ridiculous it might be, they
also partner up with Google andMicrosoft, bing and some other
(01:40):
search engines to actuallysuppress articles, genuine
articles that question theseagendas and go against the
agenda.
So it's not free press anymore.
Free press is not where youGoogle something and all they
(02:00):
say is that anybody that doesn'tagree with this agenda and you
will see it when you do a Googlesearch anybody that does not
agree with the agenda is eithera far-right activist, or they're
(02:21):
basically conspiracy theories,or they are making up
information because they're theonly ones that are right.
There is no other truth otherthan the truth that they want to
(02:42):
add to the search engine, andyou know this.
You can look up, for example,whale deaths in the eastern
United States, and you will findthat what they'll say is that
everybody that has seen a deadwhale on the shore is a
(03:05):
conspiracy theorist and thatthese whales died because ships
ran into them or they got caughtin nets, even though the
pictures do not show anyevidence of this.
Look for deaths outside ofGoogle.
(03:31):
You go to DuckDuckGo.
You will find that three timesas many articles exist citing
these whale deaths and I'mgetting off topic here than
Google actually shows you.
They actually have deleted anywhale deaths so that they can
continue to push the greenagenda, and the green agenda, as
(03:51):
we know, has a lot of brown,disgusting spots on it and it's
rotting away because there isnothing really green about a
windmill.
We've already found out thatthey're not green, that they
have lubricating oil and thatthey're not as green as we
(04:14):
thought.
Okay, and so to suppressinformation?
That will give you this data,but it'll show you to make up
your mind at meetings and justtell you that it's not what
people think, and anybody thatthinks that it's a conspiracy
theorist.
That's fascism.
(04:35):
I'm sorry.
What else can you callsomething like that when they
manipulate that, when theymanipulate the information that
is fed to you?
Okay, so what we need to do istake a look at and I apologize,
(04:56):
I have a problem with my eye, Iknow it looks strange, but you
know Then the reports actuallyuncover this.
And how do I uncover it?
Well, I have to search data onalternative search engines.
I have to use foreign searchengines.
Some of the foreign searchengines do not suppress this
(05:20):
information, but they capture it, but they're in other languages
.
This information, but theycapture it, but they're in other
languages.
So, basically, I end up havingto translate that information.
Ai helps me with this enormoustask of searching other engines
and listing information, andeven with AI help, it is a work.
(05:43):
So how can we expect normalpeople to go and find
information when they activelysuppress it in the search engine
, whether it's Microsoft orGoogle, so that you only get one
point of view, and it issometimes so obvious when you
look at it that it makes youangry that they have algorithms
(06:08):
that actually suppress data in afascist way.
Okay, and everybody knows it,but apparently we can't do
anything about it.
So we go to alternative searchengines.
I use AI because it can searcha search engine and go through
25 or 30 pages quickly and giveme the results.
(06:31):
It will also identify whichsearch engine was actually
suppressing data by comparingthe lists, which it has done,
and in the case of this onereport on woke, that was done
quite a bit.
(06:52):
In fact, it got to the pointwhere I actually had to
reprogram my workspace so thatit wouldn't run into the booby
traps that the search enginesput in to prevent AI or anybody
(07:14):
to get the truth about thisinformation.
And all of us that are fightingright now woke, as parents or
grandparents, we know that it'sa very fascistic type of agenda
that they're basically pushingdown our throats, disregarding
(07:41):
our, disregarding our traditions, our religion and our own ways
that we want to raise ourchildren.
And it is so bad that I wrote areport on it and I had to fight
with AI, because they programit into the AI that there are
(08:02):
certain subjects that theycannot go through and I had to
work at that.
I had to do manual searchesbecause it won't do it.
It's protecting the woke agendaall the way down to the
different AI programs, all theway into the search engines.
We are basically prisonersinside this woke agenda that
(08:29):
doesn't allow any type ofdifferent opinion.
I posted this on an author'sgroup and already I had the
LBGTQ people tell me I wasposting hate because I posted an
actual photo of an actual dragqueen in an actual reading for
(08:59):
children and this man had abeard and was dressed as a woman
.
It's a performer.
Okay, that was hate, I said,but it's not hate because this
is an actual photo.
How is that hate if I'm postingan actual photo?
This is what goes on at thesedrag queen shows, which so many
(09:20):
parents are against.
Okay, but this is not all that.
Anti-woke, no more wokeamassing the assault on children
in tradition.
This is not all that it covers.
It covers the entire wokeagenda.
It will give you importantinformation.
(09:42):
For example, it will show youwho's funding the woke agenda.
No, it's not a grassrootsmovement that started when
people felt they were beingdiscriminated.
No, no, no.
This was fabricated andactually funded by different
(10:07):
organizations, of which I'm notgoing to mention on this podcast
, but you will see them on thebook, who's funded it In the
numberings, the numbering youwill not believe the billions
that go into woke.
If we took those billions thatare going into supporting the
(10:32):
woke agenda at so many levelsgrants, all kinds of things to
push the woke agenda, grants,all kinds of things to push the
woke agenda we could cure.
We could definitely curechildhood cancers, because we
are talking about billions intothe woke agenda.
(10:56):
You'll also find out themotivations for the woke agenda.
Why do we have it, what is it,what are the different types of
platforms that they have, thedifferent types of agendas that
they have and why do they targetchildren?
And you will find out thatthere is a parallel to this
(11:20):
method of spreading an agendathat was practiced by fascists,
including Hitler.
The first thing you do is youindoctrinate the children
because you have to bypass theparents, the parental morality,
(11:44):
religions.
Everything has to be bypassed,has to be eliminated.
The first thing is, of course,they eliminate religion, they
turn the whole agenda into acult-like system that the only
thing in those kids' minds isgoing to be that agenda.
(12:06):
It's going to be completeindoctrination.
At that point the kids willrebel against the parents and
call them old-fashioned, whichis typical.
Anyway, when you talk toparents and grandparents, you
know children know everything.
They're born knowing Otherwise.
You know they don't actuallyneed an education.
(12:27):
They're born knowing just abouteverything.
So it's just if you convincethem that they know everything
and that only they have thetruth, the kids will believe it
because they want to rebelagainst the parents.
So that's a good way toindoctrinate children, the way
(12:49):
that anybody that wants to takeover your children and convince
them to do certain things, theyutilize those methods.
So it's a cult-like method.
It's an indoctrination method.
They use the media.
They use things like YouTube.
They use cartoons.
(13:10):
They will use very fewmagazines because the kids are
hardly reading anymore.
They don't read.
Video games is very, very mucha way to spread woke agendas,
and one of the agendas Idiscussed all the way down in
(13:31):
the appendix is this drag queenstory hour.
Drag queen story hour.
I, as a grandmother, I justcan't imagine such a thing.
But I've looked at it.
I have to say some of themsound good.
(13:52):
I mean, the performers arepeople and they have a flair for
making children interested inthings.
They read books to them, theyact things out.
I mean, they're not allpervertsverts, I mean, just
because they're drag queens, Idon't say that there's.
You know that I won't holdanything against the performers.
(14:13):
Those performers are people whodecided they want to get paid
to perform in front of childrenbecause they needed a job.
You know so they do good joband but let me explain to you
how this started, this dragqueen, and why so many parents
are against it.
Number one of course, numerousreligions do not accept, uh,
(14:37):
drag queens.
Uh, there is bigotry, of course, but is the way to solve the
bigotry issue with adults to goand act in front of the children
?
I don't understand how you'regoing to get inclusivity by
performing in front of childrenwho know nothing about sexuality
(15:00):
or anything else.
As far as they're concerned,you're one of the characters in
the book.
They don't understand thatyou're a queen.
You could be anybody, so it'sstupid to think that that's
going to make you inclusive.
I would say the program startedin 2015, and the reason they
(15:21):
started it in San Francisco isbecause they wanted inclusivity
and they thought by reading tochildren, people might realize
that these are human beings,that there's nothing wrong with
them, and maybe get to theparents this way, which sounds
(15:46):
good, but it didn't work out.
They became very big becausethey got money from a couple of
big foundations, including theFord Foundation and some state
money or city money foundationand some state money or city
(16:06):
money, and the whole program waspushed into libraries, camps
and um museums in any publicvenue where the performers would
be dressed up as characters ina book and read the book and act
it out and make it fun for thechildren.
Is that bad?
Not really.
That's not bad.
Okay, that's fun.
They're performers.
But what is bad is that lots ofperformers in New York City
(16:30):
would have liked that job.
Lots of out-of-work actorswould have liked that job.
But they did exactly what theyaimed to fix Lack of inclusivity
.
They only hired drag queens.
Why not hire a ballet dancer ora singer or an actress that's
(16:54):
out of work or somebody else?
Are any number of people toperform these acts and not just
discriminate that only dragqueens can make a performance
interesting to children.
So they started off saying that, oh, we want inclusivity for
(17:16):
drag queens and people of theLGBTQ community and they
excluded everybody else from theprogram.
So they did exactly theopposite of what they set out to
do okay.
So in the end, all they did isisolate themselves.
Parents were outraged.
(17:36):
Parents in all of they were in15 countries.
So they they were quitesuccessful in creating these
programs and pushing theseprograms around.
Of course, they would get moneyfrom foundations.
They didn't have to make moneyout of tickets Each time they
performed.
(17:56):
They got $600 to $2,000 fromthe library or the museum or
whatever it was, and that waspart of the revenue plus the
grants.
Now this money only went todrag queens.
That's not fair.
Why not dance teachers?
(18:18):
Why not music teachers?
Why not authors of the verybooks that they were promoting?
Authors could do this,actresses, anybody that other
than just drag queens seems tome that they were not inclusive.
They were the last thing, butinclusive because only the drag
(18:42):
queens got those jobs and gotaccess to that grant money and
it was significant amount ofmoney that they got to push
these performances all over theworld.
As a result, since people don'tknow what drag queens are or
anything else, there was abacklash.
(19:03):
There were all kinds ofdemonstrations in Australia and
the UK and in differentcountries.
The Muslims are mad.
The Jews, orthodox Jews, weremad.
The Christians were mad.
Everybody was mad.
Yeah, some people went to theshow and said, well, it wasn't
(19:33):
so bad.
The guy got dressed up and thekids liked it.
It was colors.
It wasn't so bad, okay, but thefact that it was a drag queen
they decided to publish that.
Why not call it something else?
Why do you just call it?
They had to go ahead and beinclusive by pushing the fact
(19:54):
that they were drag queens, andthat's exactly what created the
backlash.
In what planet is this a programthat makes any sense?
Okay, it doesn't make sense,and it is an example of many,
many like programs that haveexisted, created by well-meaning
(20:16):
people that think that theyneed to push their agenda on
everyone else, and if you're notin agreement with their agenda,
of course, you're either afar-right person or you're a
proud voice.
This is how they portrayed theparents that were protesting
(20:38):
these things.
They portrayed them asfar-right, proud boys, when
there were actually housewivesprotesting against the show, and
that's how ridiculous it all is.
It's ridiculous that they wouldportray parents that way, but
(21:02):
the media wants to push anagenda and that's why people
don't like it, because when youpush something down the throats
of parents, especially whenthey're trying to protect their
children, it's not going to work.
Okay, the children come first.
We do not care.
As a grandparent, I am sorry.
If you're a drag queen, Ireally don't care.
(21:24):
If you want to be included in myfamily, you know and you want
to have a show and you want tobe inclusive, that's your job.
You've got to convince adultsthat you merit inclusivity.
You don't use the kids to dothat, because the kids know
(21:44):
nothing about what yoursexuality is.
They don't know anything.
You could be a cartooncharacter for all they care.
They just see a person with anoutfit or with a costume.
They don't see you as a dragqueen.
They don't know who you are,and that's not inclusivity.
You're just fooling the kids.
(22:05):
You're not telling them thetruth about yourself.
So that's my opinion.
Would I go to one of these showswith the kids?
I don't think so.
There's plenty of other showsaround that I would choose to
take.
I also write books.
(22:25):
I would read the books myself.
I don't think I I would take mychild to see a drag queen
perform.
I don't think that's appropriatein my opinion as a grandma.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, butit's not that I hate drag queens
, it's just that I don't thinkthey belong next to young
(22:47):
children.
I don't think the children haveany idea what it is, and I
don't think that if they have aprogram that is getting hundreds
of thousands of dollars in justgrants, plus millions of
dollars from the libraries, theschools and the camps, who pay
(23:12):
about anywhere from $600 to$2,000 per performance, I think
that money needs to go to everytype of performer and not just
exclusively drag queens, becausethen you're the bigot, you are
the discrimination person.
(23:32):
You're discriminating againstpeople saying that only drag
queens can make a fun show forthe children.
That is my opinion.
You wanted inclusivity.
Well, inclusive means everybody.
It doesn't mean just dragqueens, and just because someone
sees a drag queen, they're notgoing to immediately think
(23:56):
anything better of drag queens,or in their minds it has nothing
to do with LBGTQ+.
They don't know what it is.
So it serves no purpose, in myopinion, to have this and to
have the backlash of taking achild to a show in the city, in
(24:17):
a public library, a bunch ofparents with signs outside
complaining that this is not agood show.
That's going to make thechildren upset.
You know why are you doing this?
On purpose to draw the backlash.
It's almost like you're askingfor it, then the kids are going
(24:40):
to be upset.
So I really don't think it's agood program.
But let me continue thispodcast with the fact that these
asinine programs by the lefthave been around since I was a
parent many years ago.
(25:00):
Okay, so in the 1980s there wasanother similar type program,
ill-conceived program, moneylaundering program.
Okay, my daughter was attendinga public school in the city.
I was told that she would nowbe sent every day, or I think it
(25:31):
was every day or three times aweek, to go to a senior
citizen's nursing home toentertain the nursing home
people okay, the patients there.
And there was a nursing home upon Riverdale Avenue and there
(25:55):
was a nursing home up onRiverdale Avenue and the people
could be anywhere from, I don'tknow, 80 to 90 to 100 years old,
and not all of them were wellin the head.
A lot of them had Alzheimer'sand all kinds of things.
And I thought this was anotherone of these ill-conceived
programs that Democrats theycome up with and it's only for
(26:18):
money for themselves.
So I was told my daughter waspicked to go three times a week
to this nursing home to sit onthe lap of people that I did not
know who they were and spendthe whole day there and then
come back to the school.
And because my daughter wasbright, I was told in the letter
(26:42):
she would have no problemcatching up with the curriculum
and this was going to last acertain about a whole semester,
I mean the first half of theyear she would go to this.
I looked at the form and I saidI disagree, I don't want her, my
(27:02):
daughter, attending thisprogram.
Okay, and I thought that wouldbe the end of it.
Oh no, that was not the end ofit.
I was called in by theprincipal who said that my
daughter would have no problem.
She's smart.
I should consider it.
I said no, I don't want to.
He threatened me.
He made my daughter cry.
(27:25):
He threatened me.
He told me he would get me outof the school if I didn't agree.
My daughter was crying.
It was a horrible situation andI couldn't do anything about it
.
So I asked my husband, I askedgrandma one and grandma two and
(27:48):
grandpa, what do you think Ishould do?
Should I allow her to go?
And they said no, no, we don't.
And I asked my oldermother-in-law.
I said what do you think goeson in these nursing homes.
Should I send my daughter there?
She says oh no, these peoplecould be very ill and your
daughter will get sick.
(28:09):
Well, who knows, some of thesemen could be pedophiles.
You don't know.
If you're not there, youshouldn't let go.
So I was a young mother then, soI needed advice from older
people.
Fortunately, I had people Icould ask and I said what am I
going to do?
So I started looking, since Irealized that the school wasn't
(28:30):
going to.
Let me get away with it,because the principal said that
there was a lot of moneyinvolved, that for every child
he sent, money would come fromthe city to fund this and if he
didn't have my daughter in it,he would lose I don't know how
much money.
So he was threatening me.
(28:51):
So it's unbelievable, but ithappened.
So finally I found a school, aprivate school.
It was $8,000.
In those days that was a lot ofmoney and I borrowed it and I
put my daughter, I think thenext day, into the private
(29:14):
school and life was privateschool from now on.
Okay, I got a second job, myhusband worked harder, we paid
the money and we said goodbye tothese problems.
On top of that, they had anafter-school program which was
very good.
(29:34):
On top of that, they had anafter-school program, which was
very good, and I had a lot ofreferences from friends who were
sending their kids there.
I went to the school, I checkedeverything out, I told them what
happened with this publicschool and they told me that
this is not unusual and thatthey don't do anything like that
.
You know, the kids are thereall the time.
(29:55):
They're not sent off to nursinghomes or anything else, and I
was happy.
It was a beautiful location.
Anyway, my daughter went intothat school.
I get a call like two weekslater that they were going to
send me to court because Ididn't send my daughter back to
(30:16):
school.
And I told them well, she's inprivate school, you can call the
private school, she's enrolledthere, so she is attending
school.
And they said, okay, that's theend of it.
So they were still trying tothreaten me even after I took
the kid out of the school.
Okay, this, I know, isunbelievable.
(30:36):
This happened to me, all right.
This is why I'm so completelyupset by these woke programs,
because it's the same thing.
They always make money, thesethings, and this principal was
actually making cash out ofevery kid that he sent to the
(30:57):
program and he wanted mydaughter to be one, because he
needed one more kid and that'swhy he wasn't going to give up
the money.
Well, nobody believed me.
This happened only three monthslater after this event.
I look at the news.
Karma had come to thisprincipal, real karma.
(31:21):
He was arrested not because ofthis program with the nursing
home, but because he had takenthe money that he was granted to
fix the roof of the school andused it for a junket in one of
(31:44):
the mountain resorts where theywent.
They had food, they had dancing, anything, the teachers went
there, they all had a good timeand they spent the money that
was supposed to fix the roof ofthis public school and it was
leaking on the children.
So he was fired.
(32:07):
I think he was arrested, and sowill a lot of people that were
participating in this scam ofthis criminal activities using
money for themselves were thrownout, and I think they got a new
principal and they got newpeople.
(32:28):
So karma came to that guy, butin the meantime it took months
and my daughter could have beenin real trouble.
She could have been reallyharmed okay by who knows what in
the nursing home.
Whether it's a disease orwhatever you know, I didn't want
her there.
Why should I have to acceptsomething that I didn't want as
(32:51):
a parent?
The parents that are fightingtoday against the woke agenda
how are they being pushed to?
In a lot of cases, these dragqueen performers show up at
(33:13):
schools and camps and thelibrary is paying taxpayer
dollars to fund them.
The school or the camp ispaying your money to fund them,
and why should the parents notbe contacted and not opt out of
these things, both financiallyand participating in these
(33:38):
things?
This should be totally optional.
This should be something wherethey charge tickets and if you
want to pay $10 to bring yourkid to this performance and you
feel he needs to be exposed to adrag queen, then of course
that's your choice, but don'tforce it on anybody that later
(33:58):
is his only solution is to gooutside and parade around with a
sign and then call that persona far right, a far right
activist or a proud boy.
When it's some, some housewifefrom New Jersey that is
complaining about this, it'sridiculous.
(34:18):
Ok, this is how ridiculous theyare.
So the anti-work result researchreport is very comprehensive.
You're going to find wherethese people get the money, what
the agendas are, what they'redoing, how do they manipulate
the media, how do theymanipulate the search engines,
(34:40):
why are they trying to do thisand what their objectives are,
and lots and lots of casehistories and stories in every
chapter.
There's 180 pages here has aset of references.
You can go back to the originalreferences.
It also has a lot of glossarymaterial, because a lot of the
(35:04):
wordings that they use we studytoo much.
I don't define LBGTQ or go intothose things.
This is not about that.
I don't have any qualms ifyou're gay, lesbian or anything
else.
In fact, there's a wholechapter about lesbians and gays
(35:25):
who are against woke.
So if you're confused and thinkthat this is something, that if
you're against woke, you'redefinitely a bigot against
different types of sexualitiesthat is not even close to the
truth of sexualities.
That is not even close to thetruth.
The same people the lesbians,the gays, the people of
(35:49):
different genders are againstthe woke because they feel used.
They feel that this is not whatthey want, because woke
encompasses a whole set ofideologies, and I'll give you a
(36:10):
clue that the ideology that wokecame from originally is marxism
.
It is a marxist, uh ideal.
Okay, it is, uh, a marxist umideology.
It is a Marxist ideology andthat's also documented in the
War of Good.
It shows you where it came from, how they developed it and why
they developed it and whatthey're trying to do with woke.
(36:38):
So if you think that woke isabout protecting LBGTQ people
and making things inclusive, nah, nobody spends that kind of
money billions and billions ofdollars to be nice and inclusive
.
No, no, it's not about that.
It's always about somebodymaking money off of it, just
(36:59):
like it happened to me with thisso-called nice program with the
old people.
You want to send the kids andbe with the old people and it
was all going to be so nice andsome guy who later got arrested
was making money off of it and Iended up having to spend $8,000
a year in those days to sendher to a private school.
Okay, and I went private schoolafter that.
I just school, okay, and I wentprivate school after that.
(37:22):
I just worked hard and we wentprivate school because the the
public school system was full ofthis stuff.
I came from a public schoolsystem and never faced these
things, but, um, yeah, it was,it was full of it.
So, uh, yeah, it was full of it, so yeah.
So no More Woke.
It is not a hateful book.
(37:44):
It doesn't have anything to dowith LBGTQ.
It has to do with agendas beingpushed by big corporations for
their own personal ends and topush Marxism into this country.
(38:05):
And yeah, that's what it reallyis.
And you'll get all the research.
And it's a tool for parents,because if they truly understand
what these ideologies they'repushing in the schools are for
and what the real reason forthem are, they'll realize what
(38:26):
they have to say to get listenedto, instead of trying to come
off as bigots against LBGTQ,against gays and lesbians.
They might pull some of thisinformation out of the book and
say you know this is a Marxistprogram and give them the data
(38:50):
and show what you're reallytrying to do, and then they'll
shut up because they can'taccuse you of being a bigot or
being hateful.
That's what I say is the bestway to fight the woke agenda.
All the parents know what's bad.
They don't understand why it'sso bad.
(39:11):
This will explain to you whyit's so bad and that you're
right.
It'll support you.
It won't call you a bigot.
It'll show you that people whoare LGBTQ, who are lesbians and
gays are against for a reason,and obviously there are many
people against this that don'tget listened to because the
(39:34):
search engines push theirinformation down.
Nobody finds out about it.
People who are very smart inuniversities are criticizing
woke, and we have a list ofthose.
There are two sides to everystory and this is the other side
.
You can't listen to thepropaganda and think that's the
(39:56):
only side.
Propaganda is when they do whatyou heard they're doing.
They're taking the informationand actually pushing it down the
search engine, so you don'tfind it calling you a far right
activist if you speak outagainst this, if you oppose this
.
The same thing that happened tome in the 1980s when I didn't
(40:20):
want my daughter going to thisprogram with older people
because I didn't know who shewas going to be with.
I was called names and I wasthreatened and it was all money.
The guy eventually got arrestedbut nobody was checking on him,
and this is the same thing.
(40:41):
So good luck to you.
And the report is availableonline.
It is $25.
It is 180 pages of goodresearch.
It took me a long time toresearch this.
Lots of it had to be done byhand.
The AI search engines refusedto give me, you know, certain
(41:02):
information because they're alsoprogrammed to protect woke, and
I had to work very hard atgetting this information.
That's why my eye is not sogood lately, so I would urge you
to read it.
It has uncovered a lot ofthings that I didn't even know,
(41:26):
and I was shocked at what Ifound about woke, and I think
you should read this book andfind out.
It's called Anti-Woke, anti-woke, anti-woke and Unmasking the
Assault on Children andTradition by Investigative
(41:49):
Voices.
That's the group that I use thepen name I use for all my
reports so that they all show upon the same page, and then I
use for all my reports so thatthey all show up on the same
page.
You can look up investigativevoices online.
You can look for Anti-Walk onAmazon.
(42:11):
You can also go tocloverleafpub and they're there
amongst my other publications,and I really hope that you take
a look at this book.
If you're a parent and you'refighting these things and you're
finding that you don't have anycontrol over what they teach
your children, this is the bookfor you.
(42:33):
Okay, you're going to findinformation that you can bring
up and they cannot fight you onit because you have the
references.
Okay, so good luck to you, andI hope that you don't have to
send your kids to private schoollike I did.
That's terrible Homeschooling,maybe.
(42:54):
Okay, bye-bye now.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com