This story was spotted by many readers who passed it along, so a big thank you to all of you who did.
And it's easy to see why it caught to many people's attention and why my inbox was full of different versions of the story, because just when you think that the depravity and lunacy of Nuttyfornia couldn't possibly become more depraved and loonier, it does so:
Get this (and I'm citing extensively from the article):
R. Tolteka Cuauhtin, the original co-chair of the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, developed much of the material regarding early American history. In his book Rethinking Ethnic Studies, which is cited throughout the curriculum, Cuauhtin argues that the United States was founded on a “Eurocentric, white supremacist (racist, anti-Black, anti-Indigenous), capitalist (classist), patriarchal (sexist and misogynistic), heteropatriarchal (homophobic), and anthropocentric paradigm brought from Europe.” The document claims that whites began “grabbing the land,” “hatching hierarchies,” and “developing for Europe/whiteness,” which created “excess wealth” that “became the basis for the capitalist economy.” Whites established a “hegemony” that continues to the present day, in which minorities are subjected to “socialization, domestication, and ‘zombification.’”
The religious narrative is even more disturbing. Cuauhtin developed a related “mandala” claiming that white Christians committed “theocide” against indigenous tribes, killing their gods and replacing them with Christianity. White settlers thus established a regime of “coloniality, dehumanization, and genocide,” characterized by the “explicit erasure and replacement of holistic Indigeneity and humanity.” The solution, according to Cuauhtin and the ethnic studies curriculum, is to “name, speak to, resist, and transform the hegemonic Eurocentric neocolonial condition” in a posture of “transformational resistance.” The ultimate goal is to “decolonize” American society and establish a new regime of “countergenocide” and “counterhegemony,” which will displace white Christian culture and lead to the “regeneration of indigenous epistemic and cultural futurity.”
This religious concept is fleshed out in the model curriculum’s official “ethnic studies community chant.” The curriculum recommends that teachers lead their students in a series of indigenous songs, chants, and affirmations, including the “In Lak Ech Affirmation,” which appeals directly to the Aztec gods. Students first clap and chant to the god Tezkatlipoka—whom the Aztecs traditionally worshipped with human sacrifice and cannibalism—asking him for the power to be “warriors” for “social justice.” Next, the students chant to the gods Quetzalcoatl, Huitzilopochtli, and Xipe Totek, seeking “healing epistemologies” and “a revolutionary spirit.” Huitzilopochtli, in particular, is the Aztec deity of war and inspired hundreds of thousands of human sacrifices during Aztec rule. Finally, the chant comes to a climax with a request for “liberation, transformation, [and] decolonization,” after which students shout “Panche beh! Panche beh!” in pursuit of ultimate “critical consciousness.”
The chants have a clear implication: the displacement of the Christian god, which is said to be an extension of white supremacist oppression, and the restoration of the indigenous gods to their rightful place in the social justice cosmology. It is, in a philosophical sense, a revenge of the gods. (Boldface emphases added)
Sometimes the mind boggles: "White settlers thus established a regime of...genocide" while Texkatlipoka - worshipped "with human sacrifice and cannibalism" - is to be invoked in schools to ask him (hmmm... isn't that being "patriarchal"?) for "power to be 'warriors' for 'social justice'."
There's also a tiny, thorny, little constitutional issue, as Christopher Rufo, the author of the article, points out:
The religious element of the ethnic studies curriculum, with direct appeals to Aztec gods, is almost certainly a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Public schools are prohibited from leading state-sanctioned Christian prayers; they would presumably be similarly prohibited from leading state-sanctioned chants to the Aztec god of human sacrifice.
The state board of education will vote on this curriculum next week. Any sane governing body would reject it wholesale. Given the nature of California politics, though, the board is likely to pass it. The best hope for opponents is to strike out some of the most galling material, such as the chants to the Aztec gods, and then devise a long-term strategy to push back against the public education establishment. For now, the activists appear to be driving the narrative—and they will not stop until they have solidified their “counterhegemony.”
I suspect there's an agenda here, and I'm going to crawl right to the end of the twig and off of it, and state clearly what I think it is: I think these leftist Marxist nuts fully intend to reintroduce human sacrifice, and that their goal is to tie it to "social activism" in order to cloak it. They fully intend to sacrifice people - like they have everywhere else they've obtained power - to the great "god" of Marxist dialectic, and that sacrifice is no longer to be tied simply to babies in the womb. Everyone is on the cannibalistic menu. And somehow, in their twisted "logic", the implication is that putting an end to the thousands and thousands of Aztec human sacrifices was "dehumanizing." The Spanish committed atrocities in the New World. So did the French, the Portuguese, the British, and later, the Americans (think of Wounded Knee, for example). But the record of some of those "indigenous peoples" is not spotless and no less - if not more - dehumanizing.
In my book The Grid of the Gods, I noted the following:
We now come to confront the issue of human sacrifice in Aztec culture, as it is recounted in the Codex Chimalpopoca, directly. In one place, the account states that in the year 1487, or the year 8 Reed as the Aztecs called it, some 80,400 prisoners were sacrificed on the step of the pyramid at Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital. Indeed, the numbers are so staggering that one begins to wonder if the whole vast program of Aztec conquest was really driven by a perceived "need" to a constant supply of sacrificial victims.
However, that same Codex makes it very clear that the god who was considered by the Aztecs themselves to have founded their civilization, Quetzlcoatl, forbade it. (Joseph P. Farrell, Grid of the Gods, pp. 207-208, boldface emphases added)
The mind, and the heart, boggles, not the least because, in its rush to invoke an Aztec god of sacrifice, that this significant point of Aztec culture and belief was completely ignored, perhaps because in Aztec tradition, Quetzlcoatl was himself a red-haired, blue-eyed, "white" god, and perhaps also because those same Aztec sources indicate that human sacrifice was instituted by "devils":
The Toltecs were engaged (in battle) at a place called Netlapan. And when they had taken captives, human sacrifice also got started, as Toltecs sacrificed their prisoners. Among them and in their midst the devil Yaotl folllowed along. Right on the spot he kept inciting them to make human sacrifices....
Indeed, every kind of human sacrifice that there used to be got started then.... it was the devils who started them. (Grid of the Gods, p. 208, citing History and Mythology of the Aztecs: the Codex Chimalpopoca, trans. from the Nahuatl by John Bierhorst, p. 118)
I call this a material omission, one step up from bad scholarship from a so-called "curriculum designer". And it's not at all surprising that it's being done in Nuttyfornia, because those omissions betoken that what is really being pressed is an agenda.
And as the Codex Chimalpopoca itself indicates, that agenda is a diabolical one.
See you on the flip side...