Progressive Totalitarianism: Prescription For A Slow Death For America

In his book The Snapping of the American Mind, David Kupelian asks the painful question that millions of Americans like myself have pondered for years and will ponder for some time to come as America slowly rips itself apart.

Kupelian writes, “How could it be that hundreds of thousands of Americans fought and bled – and many died – on foreign shores to contain an evil and metas tasizing ideology variously called communism, Marxism, socialism, collectivism, or statism, and yet now, just a few years later, we would gaze up at the pinnacle of power in our own country and behold leaders in thrall to essentially the same core ideology we fought and died to protect strangers from?”

The answer can be found within the culture itself and more specifically within America’s youth who have seemingly embraced the concept of socialism with little to no understanding of what it even is. Yet, like frogs slowly boiling to death in the cesspools that have become our college campuses, our nation’s youth collectively embrace the ideology that will destroy them while demanding they be “protected” from opinions that run contrary to their beliefs.

For instance, after outspoken conservative and feminist critic Milo Yiannopoulos gave a speech at Rutgers University, the college responded in a way that has become typical in the cesspools that are our academia. Writing in the Rutgers campus newspaper The Daily TargumNoa Halff notes:

Students and faculty gathered in the Paul Robeson Cultural Center on Busch campus to generate dialogue about Yiannopoulos’s visit and the protest that occurred during his lecture. A variety of different organizations and departments were present to listen, answer questions and show support.

Representatives from the Rutgers University Police Department, the Office of Violence Prevention and Victim Assistance, Counseling, Alcohol and other Drug Assistance Program and Psychiatric Services and the Bias Prevention and Education Committee were present. Members from the Black Student Union, the Asian American Cultural Center, Center for Latino Arts and Culture, College Student Affairs and many more were also in attendance.

In short, this official response to a conservative speaker from what was once one of America’s most prestigious universities is a damning indictment of a generation that has been primed for totalitarianism. The fact this isn’t an isolated example is bad. What’s worse is these very same college students have become champions of government-regulated speech so long as the speech being regulated emanates from the right.

This is happening while, at the same time, students are actively discouraged from thinking for themselves. It’s a testament to how successful the left has been in capturing our nation,s schools that analytical thinking, once the basis of our education system, is now virtually gone.

It’s a symptom of progressivism to see the supposed “college educated” of today have become fierce proponents for government-regulated speech. But progressivism itself is not the underlying root cause. The cause itself can be found in the ideology known as liberalism, which has been carried to its logical and practical extreme — totalitarianism.

As James Burnham explained in his 1964 classic Suicide of the West, “Liberalism has always operated most naturally as a tendency of opposition to the prevailing order, to the status quo, the ancien régime, the Establishment in general or in its several parts.” Liberalism, continues Burnham, “has always stressed change, reform, the break with encrusted habit whether in the form of old ideas, old customs or old institutions. Thus liberalism has been and continues to be primarily negative in its impact on society.”

What is different today is that liberalism now controls all the powerful institutions of culture — from the media to education and everything in between — while at the same time it faces literally no opposition. The left controls the culture and given that political issues are often decided at the cultural level before they even reach the political realm, the opposition is almost always rendered defenseless.

Or in the case of college campuses, the opposition isn’t even permitted to make its case.

It is outright totalitarianism that is taking place today within American society, from the silencing of conservatives on college campuses to forcing Christian business owners to pay excessive fines and face prison sentences for holding true to their beliefs in traditional marriage. The nation has fractured into two separate Americas that continue to drift further and further apart, with half the nation seemingly convinced their rights stem from the government while the other from God.

The former seeks not only to control the latter, but to see to it that the latter is utterly destroyed. To accomplish this, liberalism functions as all totalitarian movements have functioned in the past by subjecting individuals to unbearable stress, conflict and crisis until each is broken.

Whether the means to do so are accomplished financially, spiritually, culturally, or psychologically matters little, as it always justifies the end. The end, of course, being the destruction of the will of each and every American so that liberalism can remake the individual from the ashes in which it has destroyed them.

Liberalism wants you to snap. It wants to challenge your sanity and destroy your belief system so that it can remold you in its image of dependency. First and foremost though, it must extinguish those institutions in which we hold dear. It is why, since his first day in office, Barack Obama has relentlessly attacked the cultural, moral and religious institutions that those of us on the right hold dear.

Yet Obama himself is not solely to blame, for he represents the logical extreme of liberalism. He is a symptom of the progressive creation and his rise to the pinnacle of power in this nation represented a turning point for the worse as the government has been infused with an ideology of totalitarianism. Take a look at any government agency functioning today and you’d be hard pressed to find just one that isn’t completely politicized into attacking the ideological opponents of progressivism.

In turn, you can do the same exact thing with our culture itself and you’ll find the same results. Wherever the progressives are in power, from the government to the culture to the academia and the media, the hatred of Western values dominates.

Popular discourse today sees the West in general as being “guilty of genocidal crimes against civilization,” for Western values seen through the lens of liberalism represents the “greatest repository of racism, sexism, xenophobia, antisemitism, fascism, and narcissism.” As the “Father of the New Left” Herbert Marcuse so eloquently put it, “American society is oppressive, evil and undeserving of loyalty.”

With this notion in mind, liberalism places a new emphasis on liberating all men and women from the “evil repression” and “tyrannical values” Western civilization was built upon. To bring this about, progressives have designed numerous strategies to discredit and smear the values that had forged and sustained the West for the past 2,000 years.

“Critical Theory,” writes Nelson Hultberg in Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America, “was the first and most important of these strategies” as it was not only critical to discrediting capitalism but also social conditions of contemporary society and existing social institutions. Hultberg explains, “Under its auspices, every tradition of Western life was to be redefined as ‘prejudiced’ and ‘perverse.’ And these redefinitions were to be instilled into the social stream via devastating scholarly criticisms of all values such as family, marriage, property, individualism, patriotism, faith in God etc.”

Critical Theory precisely defines the tactics used by progressives today as they attack Christianity, capitalism, family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, loyalty and patriotism. It is this routine and consistent attack on any and all foundations of our society in which liberalism has destroyed our culture and advanced its totalitarian agenda.

The left, no matter what they call themself today, breeds the ideology the totalitarianism as every single proposed and forced through “reform” serves to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and extinguish the highest, most complex and “God-like” aspects of human individuality. Even equality itself, while serving as a powerful appeal to the masses with its great promises of “each according to his need,” turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality of complete uniformity in thought and condition.

The total implementation of the principles espoused by liberalism deprives human life of individuality and simultaneously deprives life of its meaning and attraction. America isn’t at this point yet, but it is coming as reflected in a generation that is at best negligent, and at worst complicit in the march towards totalitarianism.

How do I know for certain this is where we are headed? Because what I’ve been calling progressive totalitarianism is what was once called socialism. And following the basic tendency of socialism, liberalism is hostile toward human personality not only as a category, but ultimately to its very existence. In the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “Socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death.”

Socialism masquerading as progressivism is really totalitarianism that will inevitably lead to the total destruction of the American spirit and to a leveling of America into death.


Chick-fil-A Customers Are FURIOUS After Hearing This Unexpected Announcement…

Students at a university in Nebraska are not happy after the student government voted last week to ban Chick-fil-A from coming on campus, due to the company CEO’s support of traditional marriage.

The University of Nebraska-Kearney (UNK) student government’s decision came despite the large number of students choosing the popular restaurant chain as their first choice for a new concession on campus.

“When we learned more about Chick-fil-A and its corporate values and discriminatory policies, and after hearing these concerns raised by a section of our student body, we concluded that these corporate values are not aligned with our values as a student body, and it is not in the best interested of our UNK community to pursue Chick-fil-A right now,” UNK student government president Evan Calhoun wrote.

As reported by Western JournalismChick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy received a lot of criticism a few years ago, when he stated his support for traditional marriage. Various organizations called for a boycott of the fast-food chain, but others rallied in support of Cathy’s First Amendment right to express his views and live out his faith.

In 2013, following some Supreme Court decisions which laid the foundation for June’s ruling striking down all marriage statutes defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman as unconstitutional, Cathy tweeted: “Sad day for our nation; founding fathers would be ashamed of our gen. to abandon wisdom of the ages re: cornerstone of strong societies.”

After hearing that the student government chose to override the results, UNK student Trevor Wiegert wrote a letter to the governing body, The Daily Wire reported:

I think it is ridiculous and appalling that this is a situation we are faced with as a campus and student body, due to the preconceived notions of a very small minority.

This is a country that was built and has thrived on the notion of free speech. Taking a man’s opinion on his belief in the traditional family and construing it to supposedly encompass his entire company’s corporate values and discriminatory policies in order to feel “safe” or like you’re not being “persecuted” is simply asinine.

Aaron Ohri echoed Wiegert’s views, writing to the campus community and adding that the student body is in fact picking favorites:

Your e-mail on why Chick-Fil-A does not “Align with our student body values,” and that this is why it cannot be a restaurant on this campus, is a complete and total slap in the face to many of us on this campus who believe that Chick-Fil-A is not wrong in what they believe.

I understand that a Christian lifestlye [sic.] in this day and society is completely “Disrespectful” but please do not ever again send me an e-mail speaking for the “whole student body” when you do not have a clue what most of us actually think.

Wiegert told The Daily Wire that the student government was responding to the concerns raised by a small group of students. Due to pressure from Wiegert and other students on campus, the student government decided to hold an open forum this week, with a final decision to come this Thursday concerning allowing the restaurant on campus.

“Several other schools have voted on resolutions calling for the removal of Chick-fil-A from campus, including Elon University, Davidson College, the University of New Mexico, New York University, and Wichita State University,” Campus Reform reported. A professor at Eastern Illinois University called an on-campus Chick-fil-A a symbol of “hate.”

Last fall, similar complaints were raised against allowing a Chick-fil-A to open in the Denver International Airport, prompting the restaurant chain to release a statement which read in part, “Chick-fil-A, Inc. and its franchised restaurant owners are equal opportunity employers, employing more than 75,000 individuals who represent many diverse viewpoints, opinions, backgrounds and beliefs.”

The Denver City Council ultimately voted to allow the restaurant to open.

Last fall, Chick-fil-A was named the most Christian-friendly business in the United States.

h/t: BizPac Review

Lib Asks Actor James Woods Why He’s No Longer A ‘Good Guy,’ His 2 Word Response Says It ALL

Actor James Woods has been among Hollywood’s most outspoken conservatives in recent years, largely espousing his right-wing views via Twitter to a robust, like-minded audience. In a 2013 interview, the Ghosts of Mississippi star admitted that he was prepared for his political beliefs to result in him being blacklisted within the predominantly left-leaning entertainment industry.

“I don’t expect to work again,” he said at the time. “I think Barack Obama is a threat to the integrity and future of the Republic.”

It was not that long ago, however, that Woods was hardly known for his boldly partisan proclamations. In 2003, for example, he railed against the stubbornness of too many Americans on either side of the political aisle.

“I’ve never talked to an extreme liberal or conservative who could be disabused of his or her notions about their positions,” he said, going on to describe such ideologues as “intractable in their thinking, … unreasoning and unreasonable.”

It is “just a waste of breath” to engage in a conversation with these people, Woods added.

Along with his increased focus on policy and politics, the actor has gained many new followers while flummoxing some of his former fans. One Twitter critic recently questioned Woods on his perceived shift to the dark side.

Woods had a two-word answer, which received widespread approval from his anti-Obama fans.

His supporters showed up in force to endorse the dig against the current administration, including at least one Twitter fan who admittedly had no clue about Woods’ long cinematic career.

Donald Trump, National Review, And The Battle For The Conservative Mind

The editors and writers of National Review recently did something extraordinary. They came out en masse against a Republican candidate during the primary. Their “Against Trump” symposium and accompanying “Editors introduction” offer up a barrage of attacks on Donald Trump’s surprising presidential candidacy.

For the symposium, National Review assembled an enormously diverse group of conservative thinkers, from “movement conservatives” to more “establishment” types, to “conservatarians.” Clearly, this is no monolithic bloc. Yet there they are—an eclectic bunch of odd bedfellows making the same core argument: Donald Trump is not a conservative based on any meaningful definition of the term.

The National Review’s writers make this case fearlessly, meticulously, and thoroughly. In past and current statements or actions, Trump has violated virtually every pillar of conservatism. Some of his positions defy constitutionally limited, liberty-motivated government (e.g. his support of eminent domain); contradict traditional values (e.g., his sometimes support for Planned Parenthood); and call into serious question whether he really is a foreign-affairs conservative by any measure (e.g. his protectionist proposals on trade or his willingness to contemplate Russian hegemony in the Middle East). On whether Donald Trump is a consistent, true conservative … the case is arguably closed.

But if National Review editors’ intent was to cause Trump supporters to question their loyalties, such efforts are doomed to fail for one simple reason: Many Trump enthusiasts are not the reliable conservatives that National Review wishes them to be. Consider:

One widely touted source, YouGov, reports that only 13 percent of Trump voters describe themselves as “very conservative” versus 20 percent that describe themselves as liberal or moderate. Only 30 percent of them say that they identify with the Tea Party movement, according to a Newsweek summary of the YouGov data on Trump. In short, the “Trump is not especially conservative” refrain doesn’t work with his supporters because neither are they.

How can it be so? How can it be that the Republican currently garnering a large plurality of support in a crowded but highly qualified field of candidates (many of them unquestionably conservative) is the one with the feeblest conservative credentials and some of the most heretical statements and positions?

One plausible and compelling answer to this question is embodied in Tim Groseclose’s path breaking book, Left Turn. The book covers an awful lot of ground, beginning with a detailed demonstration of how to define, quantify, and trend liberal media bias; and an amazingly rich and systematic account of how liberal media bias actually happens in practice. These are, in themselves, hugely important contributions.

But the most relevant finding of the book is reflected in its subtitle: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. Simply put, liberal media bias is exerting an independent effect on the “political quotient” of the average American and is moving it steadily and substantially leftward. By Groseclose’s math, media bias has shifted the average American political quotient approximately 20 percent further left, to the point where it is worth about 8 points in presidential elections in favor of Democrat candidates. That is significant.

Other widely accepted data sources validate the trend, if not the causes. According to recent data from Gallup, the percentage of Americans who identify as “conservative” outnumbers “liberals” by 37 percent to 24 percent (with 35 percent identifying as moderates). But in 1992, that same percentage for conservatives was 43 percent versus 17 percent for liberals. A 26 point gap between conservatives and liberals has shriveled to 12 points in just over 20 years.

Is America still the “center-right nation” it is so often assumed to be? Perhaps. But it is far less so than it was, not even a generation ago. True, the fight isn’t fair. Undoubtedly, liberal media bias forms colossal, perhaps even insurmountable headwinds for conservative ideas.

Regardless, it seems abundantly clear that the conservative punditry is overestimating the conservatism of the Republican and national electorates. Just to offer a couple of examples, the current Republican front runner frequently argues against entitlement reform. Worse still, the Republican candidates (as a group) are talking less about the debt and deficits than at any other point in recent memory.

Put differently, conservatives must confront the simple reality that they are losing the argument. This being the case, at least one truth is manifest: effectively making the case for conservative ideas is more important today than ever before. Conservatives can either take up this fight, or accept being mere enablers in the self-reinforcing “triumph” of American liberalism.

Certainly, conservatives can (and should) also debate the wisdom of their flagship journal taking such a definitive stance regarding one particular candidate this early in the cycle. But the effort to clearly define and passionately argue for true conservative ideas is really the best hope they have. In this battle for the conservative mind, National Review’s contribution has always been and continues to be, invaluable.

– See more at:

7 Of The Worst Liberal Places To Work At

Liberal groups are always claiming they’re for the little guy. Labor unions claim to support employee rights and their best interests. Liberal candidates rail against “unfair” pay and high CEO salaries. They pledge workplace “fairness.”

But do they walk the walk? A surprising number don’t.

The website Glassdoor, which allows current and former employees to rate their companies, offers a peek behind the curtain at whether liberal groups are so high and mighty. The truth, according to former and current employees, is revealing.  

Image credit: JStone /

Image credit: JStone /

Clinton Health Access Initiative

An arm of the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Health Access Initiative recently came under scrutiny after a performance review found that its CEO had shown “disdain” for the board of directors and shown “duplicitousness with management.” A number of employee reviews show that the name “Clinton” shouldn’t be confused with “golden.”  

What Employees Say:

“In most cases, individuals are promoted on the basis of nepotism. As a result, the organization has really horrible managers as high up as even the Director-level. In any case, one learns more from bad managers than good ones.”

“CHAI staff used to pride itself on being frugal and money was being channeled to programs. Recently directors have started purchasing brand new Land Cruisers and drive around town in these fancy cars. Wait, what? We used to drive some of the most basic cars and now we have these shiny fancy SUVs.”

“Pay is poor, benefits are the bare minimum. … [L]ow overheads which is good since most benefit to client/patient but results in worker burnout due to poor work-life balance coupled first point above on poor pay. The personality cult of [CEO] Ira Magaziner overshadows implementation in some cases.”

“Turnover at CHAI is due to two main factors: burnout due to high stress with lack of coaching and poaching from other teams for projects suddenly deemed more important that month/quarter/semester… CHAI’s reputation in country is definitely in jeopardy because of the lack of an effective structure to engage with partner countries and no experienced (real) managers.”

Image credit: a katz /

Image credit: a katz /

Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

One of the major labor unions in the country and a group that spent $28 million supporting Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, SEIU claims to represent and support service workers such as nurses and security guards. Now behind the supposedly employee-oriented “Fight for $15” movement, the SEIU’s own employees say this place is far from a workers’ paradise.

What Employees Say:

“12-18 hour workdays…fighting for things that you as an organizer will never have.”

“Catty, viscous atmosphere. Everyone seemed to think everyone else was an idiot behind their back which meant they were likely saying the same thing about you. Very little ever got done.”

“No promotion. Racist. Sexist. Ablest. All the people of color get fired or look for other places. Office politics. Horrible people in management. The toxicity is promoted and encouraged from above. You have to brown nose.”

“Insane hours, vicious manipulative and petty lead organizers, rampant nepotism that makes it impossible to get ahead unless you’re somebodies sister or sleeping with the boss, no acknowledgement of good work only criticism.”

“The leadership is racist & negligent under the pretense of ‘fighting for the cause’. They help each other advance in ranks by stepping on the work of others. There’s SUPER HIGH turnover.”

“Staff routinely work 60 – 80 hours a week. We were expected to regularly work evenings, weekends and holidays, in addition to the ‘regular’ work week, for no additional pay. Forget about having any personal plans or a personal life if you work there.”

Image credit: Patrick Kwan/Flickr

Image credit: Patrick Kwan/Flickr

Humane Society of the United States

Despite its name, the Humane Society of the United States isn’t actually affiliated with the numerous humane societies in cities and counties across the country. Instead, it’s a liberal lobbying group with an extreme animal rights agenda intended to shut down hunting and meat-eating. But this group doesn’t seem to get what the word “humane” means, according to some reviewers. Reviewers have complained about sexism and cronyism, as well as an extreme pay gap between execs and younger employees.

What Employees Say:

“Low pay and everyone appears to be overworked and stretched. Infighting and executive staff pay (compared to mid tier, hands on workers) is excessive.”

“Toxic work environment at times. If you think you left the world of bullying and mean-girl cliques behind in high school, think again.”

There are very valid concerns of female staff that a male leadership volunteer with a history of sexual harassment and rape charges had extensive contact with our staff and no one has ever been notified or warned to stay away from him. This, and many other internal concerns, makes me fear that the organization is one scandal away from oblivion.”

“Work harder, for less money than you deserve. And if you don’t like it, leave. How’s that for progressive? Years of awful internal bureaucracy, including and especially from an often surly, insensitive, unresponsive and indifferent HR department, nepotism, red tape, low morale, and lack of investment in staff is dismantling this organization from the inside out.”

“There’s cronyism, nepotism, and ‘mean girl’ cliques. … The execs are out of touch and the board is out of reach.”

Image credit: Tory/Flickr

Image credit: Tory/Flickr

Media Matters for America

Calling itself a “media watchdog,” Media Matters was founded by Clinton hack David Brock. This progressive outfit has been outed before for not practicing what it preaches—such as when a Media Matters staffer illegally carried a handgun to protect Brock and the organization. Additionally, it has kept many of its donors quiet despite criticizing right-leaning groups for doing the same thing—and its employees have shed some additional light on what goes on behind the curtains.

What Employees Say:

“High-turnover due to: lack of diversity, low ceiling, no built-in development. Senior-level management is too single-tracked minded, rarely consider and implement critical input from researchers to keep employees happy…does not pay nearly enough (starting salary: $35k) …folks of color rarely last here.”

“Media Matters doesn’t care about providing decent benefits or opportunities for advancement because there will ALWAYS be another round of kids to replace you. That’s pretty smart, but it makes it a bad place to work. Unsurprisingly, turnover was incredibly high while I was there.”

“Promotions are largely based on personal relationships rather than professional, which leads to underqualified people filling high positions while talent languishes in smaller capacity roles. Extremely high turnover due to low morale in research staff. At one point in my tenure there, almost every single researcher was searching for employment opportunities elsewhere.”

“All staff is often overworked as you’re basically fighting the ocean with a teaspoon and, as a ‘journalist,’ (or are you a non-profiter?), you’re supposed to like working all the time. Sometimes they clean house. Sometimes they hire more people than they can manage. It’s not clear who’s managing what. If you’re not a pseudo-journalist you will be shunned.”

Image credit: Juan Camilo Bernal /

Image credit: Juan Camilo Bernal /

Human Rights Campaign

The Human Rights Campaign lobbies for equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and for protection from things like workplace discrimination. But it seems the organization has a “do as I say, not as I do” problem.

What Employees Say:

“A very hostile work environment.”

They will haze you the first year and make life or any idea of work/life balance impossible. Proceed with caution.”

HRC lives up to its image as an upper class ‘gay men’s’ organization. If you’re not ‘in’ with the gay men who run this organization, don’t expect any upward mobility. Expect sexism and cliquiness among employees. There is extremely high support staff turnover here because people continually quit after they are burnt out from being overworked, not taken seriously, and lousy pay.”

Not a great place to grow and they pay very low. Finance Department is all over the place and the people who are running the department obviously do not know what they’re doing. If you know someone in the company, you’ll definitely get in even if you’re not qualified. For a company that is supposed to support equality, many employees are not treated that way.”

Image credit: Richard Thornton /

Image credit: Richard Thornton /


The union notorious for its ties to the mafia is also a major funder of left-wing causes—more than 90 percent of the Teamsters’ political donations go to Democrats. But the union that pushes for worker equality could use some lessons in self-analysis.

What Employees Say:

“There are no really career opportunities. employees and managers never eat lunch together. you will find people who have been working on the same position for more than 20 years.”

“Expect to come here and waste away. Stuck in the 1950’s. Rampant sexual harassment. Member’s work hard to pay overpriced salaries and benefits and lots of luxury trips and dinners. There really should be investigations into this. Political backstabbing. People who aren’t qualified gets Cush jobs because of political favor or nepotism and they never ever leave. If only the members knew what really goes on. Shameful to do this on the backs of working people. No wonder unions are irrelevant.”

“Too many secrets from members, secretary treasurers don’t promote by seniority, and they fire older workers.”

“The old boy network is alive and well. Women are not valued and are segregated, not even invited to the Company Christmas luncheon. This is a labor union, but the current management treat their ‘office girls’ with contempt. They use the lessons they’ve learned from their worst employers against their own employees. The environment is full of suspicion and backstabbing.”

“Everything else – the backstabbing, the lack of helpful communication, the blatant cronyism and nepotism. If you want to learn something in your career and actually have management that doesn’t vacillate back and forth between non-existent and overly micro-managed, stay away.”

Image credit: Adrin Shamsudin /

Image credit: Adrin Shamsudin /

Open Society Foundations

Billionaire European George Soros has put loads of money into changing America’s culture and electing liberal politicians. His Open Society Foundations have pushed “progressive” causes from rolling back anti-drug laws to ‘gay rights.’ But it’s hardly a progressive workplace, per the reviews of its staff.

What Employees Say:

“Sometimes arbitrary management style, few managers are open to honest (critical) employee feedback, new foundation director has created far too much paperwork and bureaucracy for both staff and grantees.”

Top heavy and lack of responsibility at higher level, long working hours, no opportunities for promotions.”

You can work like a dog for very little money….Dealing with the toxic management wasn’t worth it, but maybe other parts of the organization are different. It’s a shame, it could be a nice place to work if it weren’t an abusive environment.”

Lack of integrity is very common. Dictatorial, infantile, self serving program directors. Systems make it possible for lots of mischief to happen. Amount spent on directors egos can run entire programs. Regions are closed societies and not open society.”

“Rampant racism and sexism remain a serious problem that management refuses to tackle. In short, while OSF espouses principles of human rights, this is only outward facing. Internally, human rights and employees rights are routinely set aside”