Click here for Part 1

Click here for Part 2

But here's the important point, and this is what I think people need to understand: This is not just a racial double standard intended to villainize white people. I mean, it IS that, but at a deeper level, the point is that white people are not allowed to advocate for themselves as a group. That's what this is. That's what people miss about the reaction to Scott Adams - it's assumed that he was canceled because he said something that paints black people in a negative light, but that's not really it, because the reaction would have been just as Intense, or nearly as intense, if he had said that white people need to, say, have pride and self-esteem, or white people need to make sure they get educated, white people need to work hard and succeed. Doesn't matter. If he had said anything to advocate for the well-being of white people as a group—even if it had nothing to do with segregation, nothing to do with anything like that—he would still be condemned. And if you don't believe me, then just go out in public sometime and say that white people should have larger families and reproduce more.

Now, you aren't calling for segregation. You aren't saying anything negative about any other race. Yet it is guaranteed to be treated just as harshly as the comments Scott Adams made, because this is what the race hustlers on the Left are trying to guard against. They want other racial groups to have a sense of community, a sense of identity and belonging within the group. They want those groups to advocate for themselves, they want those groups to be concerned with the flourishing of their groups, but they stridently oppose any similar move for whites to do that as well, because they do not want whites to see themselves as a group. Ad bodum, they don't want whites to have a racial identity, and they will tell you this directly if you ask them. If you ask, for example, why black pride and brown pride are okay—more than okay, they're actively GOOD—but white pride is horrendously racist, they will inform you that whites have no real racial identity, the category is too broad and vague, thus they argue white pride must REALLY be an expression of hatred towards non-whites. You CAN’T have white right, it doesn't make any sense they say because it doesn't mean anything. They will simply expect you not to notice that black and brown are categories just as broad, just as vague as white. Doesn't matter. Black and brown can and should have a sense of racial identity white must not. That's the rule, and it's why segregation can be promoted and instated as policy, but only to give NON-whites their special spaces, never to do the same for whites, because to do the same would be to acknowledge the existence of white people as a group, and to give that group permission to care about its own well-being.

Now this principle doesn't just apply to race, of course. I mean, they do the same thing with sex, the same thing with sexual orientation. LGBT people can have their own spaces, they can advocate for themselves as a group, heterosexuals cannot. Women can have their own spaces (well, they USED to, anyway), and they can advocate for themselves as a group, men cannot. Ultimately, the straight white male is left as the one category of person on Earth who HAS no category, no identity group that he's allowed to belong to or advocate for. He must be subsumed into one of these other groups by identifying as a woman or as gay, or else he'll be left with no group.

And that's the real goal. Of course, the goal can never be finally achieved—THAT goal can't, anyway—and in pursuing that goal, ALL of the nightmare scenarios you're allegedly trying to guard against are only now guaranteed to happen, because pendulums always swing back. And by singling out one group as the antagonist, and insisting that all other groups are allowed to do and say things that this group is not, you are ensuring that when that group DOES start to coalesce, it will do so largely around a shared feeling of resentment and exclusion - and a not baseless feeling of resentment and exclusion. And nothing good comes from that. Unless, of course, your goal is the destabilization of society as we know it, in which case this is a very efficient way to achieve it.

Click here for Part 1

Click here for Part 3

So, this is the country we live in now. Segregation has long since made a comeback, these policies can be put in place, they can be advocated for, and most of the time, without even the slightest pushback. That is, as long as you advocate for them from a socially acceptable angle. So take this recent clip of White Fragility author Robin DiAngelo claiming that black people need to “get away from white people”:

”And then, I’m a big believer in affinity space and affinity work, and I think people of color need to get away from white people, and have some community with each other, and I’ll let that go and maybe see if anyone else wants to pick it up.”

Yes, “get away,” she says. “Get away!” One racial group needs to “get away” from the other. Now, if this sentiment sounds familiar, it’s probably because Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, said exactly the same thing, almost verbatim, with one slight difference:

”…I would say, you know, based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from black people, just get the fuck away. Wherever you have to go, just get away, because there’s no fixing this. This can’t be fixed. Alright, this can’t be fixed. You just have to escape.”

So it is, as I said, exactly the same idea, using almost identical language. The difference is that Scott Adams lost everything—his career, his reputation, distribution of his comic strip—he had his LIFE destroyed for saying what you just read there. Meanwhile, Robin DiAngelo has suffered no repercussions at all. It's not that DiAngelo has experienced a less intense backlash, or less severe professional consequences, it’s that there has been NO backlash, NO consequence. And that's all because, though they both were advocating for the same thing. DiAngelo said that blacks need to get away from whites, while Adams said that whites need to get away from blacks. This is the crucial distinction that's supposed to change everything, according to the new rules. You can divide the races, you can segregate and separate, you can certainly call for one group to get away from another, and you can phrase it just like that - you can pretty much say whatever you want about race relations and advocate for any sort of solution that you want, provided that you keep white people situated in their assigned place as the bad guys, the antagonists.

Here's the crucial mistake that Scott Adams made: He implied that there may be some troubling trends within the black community that would give white people reason to be wary. But this interferes with the hero vs. villain storyline that the Left has invented. It can only ever be blacks escaping the hatred and violence of whites, never the other way around. The idea that there may be hatred and violence against whites that THEY might want to escape is anathema, which is not to say that it's inaccurate.

Click here for Part 2

Click here for Part 3

An email had recently gone out to students at Grand Valley State University in Michigan. The email was meant to inform them about the five upcoming graduation celebrations which would be held as a compliment to the commencement ceremony. Now, five celebrations might seem a little bit excessive. If you've ever been to a graduation, then you know that one is already a little bit too much as it is, but there's a reason why this school has decided to have five, as they explained in their email:

Dear Laker Graduates,

Grand Valley hosts five unique graduation celebrations annually designed to honor our diverse graduates. These programs complement the university commencement ceremonies and are an opportunity to come together and acknowledge Laker accomplishments in the spirit and traditions of our diverse identities and cultures:

• Asian Graduation Celebration - April 19, 6-8 p.m., Kirkhof Center, room 2204 (Pere Marquette room)

• Black Graduation Celebration - April 28, 1-3 p.m., Fountain Street Church

• Latino/a/x Graduation Celebration - April 28, 11 a.m.-1 p.m., Louis Armstrong Theater

Side Note: No Hispanic person actually wants to be called “Latinx”, but rather than simply abandon that silliness entirely, this is apparently what they've settled on. Now Latino people are “Latino/a/x”. So they've improved on “Latinx”—which sounded clunky and ridiculous—by coming up with an alternative that is even clunkier and more ridiculous.

• Lavender Gradation (celebrating LGBTQIA+ graduates) - April 20, 5:30-7:30 p.m., Kirkhof Center, room 2204 (Pere Marquette)

• Native Graduation Celebration - April 27, 4-6 p.m., Eberhard Center

Side note again: There is a typo here actually, because it actually says “Lavender Gradation”. “Gradation”, as in a series of successive changes made by degrees, or in phases over time, much like you would find on, say, a slippery slope. So this typo is the most insightful thing this university has produced in its entire existence probably, even if it was by accident.

So these are the graduation celebrations, or “gradation celebrations”, however you want to put it, broken up by identity group. Now, needless to say, there will be no special event for straight white people. They will have to make do with the commencement ceremony that everybody else gets, they're not going to get their own special event.

But Grand Valley is far from alone with their segregation policies when it comes to graduations, this has become an increasingly common practice - just a couple of weeks ago, there was controversy over a segregated black graduation ceremony at the University of Chicago. The Daily Mail had that reported:

A leaked email obtained by University of Chicago Law School student Benjamin Ogilvie unmasked the previously under-wraps event, with Ogilvie penning a piece for The College Fix to share the email's contents.

'Black Action in Public Policy Studies…is hosting a graduation ceremony for all University of Chicago Black graduate students' on June 1, the email stated, according to Ogilvie.

Leaked on Tuesday, the email reportedly touted the event as the culmination of the 'black student experience' at the Illinois school, and is already sparking heated discourse as to whether or not the event serves as segregation.

Now, a spokesperson for the school was quoted later in the article, and they did respond to a request for comment, arguing that the black graduation, though it is a ceremony being held for black people and is advertised as such, is not explicitly black only, and so that's how they get around any legal challenges. Anyone can come if they want to, technically, and the fact that whites won't be chased away at gunpoint (not as an official policy, anyway) is supposed to make this all okay, and yet I have a sneaking suspicion that the University of Chicago would not allow a white graduation ceremony, even if blacks were technically allowed to attend. The logic, as always, only goes one way.

The same applies at Harvard, where Harvard's Office Of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, And Belonging helps to organize graduation ceremonies for “first generation BGLTQ black and Latinx students”, they've also added a special ceremony this year for Asian American Pacific Islander and Desi American graduates. Columbia University, meanwhile, adds another category. That school has special Ceremonies for black, native, Latinx and Asian graduates just like we saw with Grand Valley, but they've also added a sixth category for low-income individuals. Because it is, of course, important to have proper representation for all of those impoverished people who are graduating from an Ivy League school. The low income celebration will be very interesting because there won't be anyone there except the catering staff, I guess.

Click here for Part 1

Second point: Leftists, the woke crowd, whatever you want to call them, they are certainly not in a position to make fun of anyone else for struggling to define a word. If there's another defining feature of wokeness, is that it creates a world governed from top to bottom by double standards, and here we find yet another one. These people can't objectively define ANY of the terms they use, and yet they point and laugh at someone else for fumbling over a definition? Most infamously of course, they can't define the word “woman”, but the difference between “woman” and “woke”is that the latter is an ideology, which means that it actually IS a human construct, it actually IS somewhat fluid and and changing, it really DOES exist on a spectrum of sorts. Ideologies really do exist on a spectrum. There are bits of it, many bits in fact, that are murky and vague. This means that it's not terribly shocking or hilarious when a person fails to come up with a pithy definition on the spot.

I can guarantee that none of these leftists making fun of Bethany Mandel would perform any better if we ask them to define “fascism” on the spot, and although they throw the term “fascism” around all over the place, I wouldn't necessarily blame them for not having a one sentence definition ready to go because ideologies are a bit more complicated than that, and a bit more abstract, and sometimes ambiguous. “Woman”, on the other hand is not an ideology, “woman” is an objective biological reality. Human beings didn't invent womanhood the way that we invent ideologies, it's not an idea, it's not a political concept. “Woman” HAS a basic one sentence definition, adult human female, that every rational person SHOULD know, and SHOULD be able to cite whenever asked. And yet the left, the woke mob, cannot provide this definition.

Mandel briefly struggled to define an idea. How do you define this idea? Well, these people struggle to define ideas, but they ALSO struggle to find literally everything else, including the fundamental biological realities of nature. It's one thing to put an ideological label on someone else, and then briefly struggle to definethat label. It's another thing entirely to label yourself something, like saying “I identify as a woman”, and then being completely unable to define what you labeled yourself. Because that’s the gotcha moment here, the Left says, “Well you call all these people woke, and then we ask you what you mean by woke, and you can't tell us!” Well, no, we CAN tell you, it just might take more than one sentence but we can tell you. Meanwhile, you're calling YOURSELF something that you can't then explain. How much more ridiculous is that? It's not just a minor gaffe or a gotcha moment, rather, it reveals the fundamental incoherence of your entire worldview.

But that again is another feature of wokeness, perhaps it's defining feature before anything else. It is an ideology that contradicts and negates itself at every turn. An ideology that asserts things as true, and yet denies the truth exists. It is an ideology of confusion, most of all. Maybe that's how we would define it: Wokeness is confusion made into an ideology. I think that works too.

Click here for Part 2

On March 7th, The Daily Wire published the book Stolen Youth by Carol Markowitz and Bethany Mandel, and the book exposes the Left's assault on childhood, which is waged largely through indoctrination campaigns by the media, the education system, the entertainment business, and of course, the medical industry. It's an important Book on a crucial topic, I recommend that you pick up a copy and give it a read. Of course, the problem with writing a book is that once it comes out, you have to promote it, and promoting it means you have to do an ungodly number of interviews where you answer the same sorts of questions over and over and over and over again. And you would hope that the repetition would make you sharper—you have better honed answers each time—but it doesn't always work out that way. The excessive exposure to cameras and microphones can instead lead to minor flubs and gaffes, “brain farts” to use the medical term. And this wouldn't be a huge deal, except for the fact that we live in the era of social media, where the peanut gallery is looking for any opportunity to turn a brief mental lapse into an entire news cycle.

That's what happened last week to one of the authors of the book Bethany Mandel, when she appeared on a show called Rising to promote her book, and she was asked in the interview to define the word “woke”. And through being asked that question, Mandel momentarily fumbled over the answer, and that was all the left-wing mob needed. Her name was soon trending nationwide, thousands of people jumping on the dog pile, there were articles published in mainstream media outlets like the Washington Post and the Independent, the Left ruthlessly mocked her for not having a pithy definition of “woke” ready to go, claiming that this lapse somehow proves that the conservative critique of wokeness is illegitimate. The Washington Post headline summarizes this line of thinking, it said, “A viral moment reinforces the hollowness of “woke” as an attack”. Meanwhile, leftists on social media claimed that the viral moment is evidence, somehow, that the term “woke” is a bigoted term. A guy named Touré posted:

At this point woke is a slur. The way the right uses it is an undercover way of saying "those people," or "non-white people." It's a polite way of saying the n-word but in this case the n-word includes Blacks, LGBTQ folks, and other marginalized groups.

Well of course. Obviously, “woke” is a racial slur - it's a term conservatives used, after all, which means that it's racist automatically. Whatever else we could say about it, we must begin by calling it racist. and also end by calling it racist, because of course, everything is racist. As for the clip that has provoked all of this reaction, let's just watch that, and then we'll discuss.

BRIAHNA JOY GRAY: “Would you mind defining ‘woke’, ‘cause it’s come up a couple of times, and I just wanna make sure we’re all on the same page.”

BETHANY MANDEL: “So… I mean… woke is… sort of the idea that… ahmm… I… this gonna be one of those moments that goes viral, I mean, woke is something that’s very hard to define, and we’ve spent an entire chapter defining it. It is sort of the understanding that we need to re- to- totally reimagine and reim- re- redo society in order create hierarchies of oppression, ahmm… sor- I… it’s hard to explain in a 15-second soundbite.”

Okay, so, two points here: First, if I was asked to define woke, I would say that it's a cult, or a secular religion, which teaches that society is systemically oppressive towards certain supposedly marginalized groups. The cult believes that our institutions were built expressly with the purpose of oppressing these groups, and the only way to combat the oppression is to tear down the institutions and restructure them according to the doctrines of the cult. Nothing can exist for its own sake when it comes to wokeness, no institution can have any purpose above or beyond the enforcement of those doctrines. The ultimate goal according to the cult is equity, and equity simply means that the imagined oppression of their favored groups has been counteracted by policies that artificially elevate those same groups. And of course, in the woke religion the Satan figure is the heterosexual white male, and each member of this group inherits the collective guilt of the oppressor. In fact you could probably define the term woke this way too: A woke person is anyone who thinks that heterosexual white males are the villains of history. If they hold that belief, then it's almost always certain that the rest of it will come with it.

Now, if some conservatives struggle, maybe, to define the term woke, it's only because they're being too generous. There are some on the Right who want to see the woke Left as distinct from the Left generally. They seek to define wokeness in a way that lets what they consider to be the average leftist off the hook. But there's no way to do that. Wokeness is just another term for leftism. You can also define it that way. What's a woke person? A leftist. That's what we're talking about. There is no daylight between the stereotypical blue-haired woke TikTok they/them and the most mainstream Democrat political figure. There's no daylight ideologically between these two, they are identical, ideological. The term “woke” only becomes complicated and hard to define when you're trying to find some way to differentiate mainstream leftism from wokeness. But they can't be differentiated. “Woke” is another word for leftist, which is why I personally don't use the term “woke” very often because “leftist” suffices just fine.

Click here for Part 1

But there’s another point too, and this is something I want to say specifically to the trans activists who are now crying and panicking and hysterically ranting about imaginary genocide (I say they’re doing that now, but actually, they’ve been doing all along, this is all they ever do). Please always remember this: you started it. I see you on social media and on the news and out marching the street, crying your crocodile tears and claiming that you’re being set upon by fascist right-wingers who let you just live your lives in peace. “What did we ever do to you,” you cry, “why are you so angry at us?” Well, let me answer that question.

You see, the rest of us were living OUR lives. We were minding OUR own business, when YOU came along, and demanded that we abandon everything we know about fundamental physical reality for your sake. That’s what YOU did. You claimed the right to walk into whatever bathroom you want, whatever locker room, whatever sports team, nobody else has ever had that right. NOBODY ELSE has ever had that right to just do whatever they want, go anywhere they want! But YOU wanted it! You tried to restructure human society to make it affirming to you personally! You wanted to force the whole world to bend to your narcissism! You tried to put words in our mouths, you tried to control how we speak, even when your not in the room! Your ego is so out of control, that you even tried to take possession of parts of the English language, like you can own them as a pet! You waved that hideous, ridiculous flag in our face, and wouldn’t stop waving it! You demanded not just tolerance, but celebration! YOU did all of that! That was YOU! And now you cry victim because some of us have simply answered “no”? You made demands, many people surrendered to those demands immediately, but some of us, a FEW of us, are refusing. And that makes you a victim? You bullied most people into submission right away, but now you wanna compare yourselves to Jews in the holocaust because a few of us can’t be controlled so easily? Well, that is just a testament to your boundless narcissism.

It didn’t have to be this way. If you were really interested in privacy—if you really simply wanted the ability to live your life as you wished—then you could’ve had that. If you had just said, “Well, I’m gonna live as though I’m the opposite sex, I’m gonna tell everyone that I’m the opposite sex, and I’m gonna change my name and how I dress , and I’m gonna do all of this because it’s what I want to do, and it’s how I want to live,” well, if would’ve just said that, you could’ve done that. I personally still would not have agreed with your lifestyle, and I personally would not have gone along with the charade, and I would not have affirmed the lie—I would not have—but society generally would have left you alone as you claim you want. And I KNOW that because that was already the experience of the very small minority of trans identified people in this country up until the last decade or so. Prior to this past decade, this tiny group of people basically lived the lifestyle they wanted to live, and there wasn’t attempt to stop them from doing so. We didn’t really talk about it, it wasn’t discussed. It was very much on the fringes. But that wasn’t good enough for you. In your vanity, you couldn’t be satisfied merely with the ability to live how you want. You demanded the celebration - you needed not just the ability to practice your lifestyle, but you needed a parade following behind you and cheering you on the whole time. And you needed affirmation. My God, your obsessive unquenchable need for affirmation!

Have you noticed that NOBODY ELSE walks around everyday demanding that the entire world affirm them every second? No one EVER did that! No one has lived their life that way, walking around for affirmation! None of the rest of us even THINK about that! You walk out your door and you need to be affirmed by people!? AFFIRMED!? How is that anyone’s job to affirm you!? YOU decided to do that. You couldn’t just believe whatever you believed about yourself, nobody can stop you from having a belief about yourself. You wanted the rest of us to believe it too. You wanted to force us to believe it. You wanted society to be restructured around your self perceptions, and you wanted our children. You wanted to induct countless children into your confusion, baptize them into it, so that the confusion you foster in them might affirm the confusion might harbor in your own minds. You pretended that you wanted freedom, but you HAD that. You wanted more. There were no laws saying that if you’re a man, and you want to put on a dress and walk around, you might be put in jail.

No, you HAD the freedom, but you wanted a lot more than that, you wanted to reshape our entire culture in your image. You didn’t just want your own lifestyle, you wanted us to participate in it with you. That’s what this comes down to. You are demanding our participation, and what we are saying to you, some of us, is “no!” Can you get that through your heads? We are allowed to say “no!” We are NOT going to participate! You are the mouse who wanted a cookie, and you were given a cookie, and you ate it, but then you wanted to eat everything else in the house too. Some people object—finally object—and you break down in tears like a child who has to leave the playground. You pushed too far, WAY too far, and now this is the push back. In summary, you wanted this fight. You ASKED for it. You DEMANDED it, and now you have it. Now you have it, whether you like it or not.

Click here for Part 2

Well, I take comfort in the fact that, though I am not personally being accused of launching a genocidal campaign against marginalized people, someone else certainly is. So, on Saturday, it was, of course, Daily Wire podcast host Micheal Knowles, who stepped up to the plate, delivering a speech at CPAC that landed him in hot water with the media. But as far as the media’s concerned of course, he didn’t give a speech at all - he only uttered one single phrase, and all the rest of the context, everything else he said, was irrelevant noise. As they breathlessly and hysterically reported, Knowles called for the eradication of transgenderism.

Actually, that’s not what they reported. They reported that he called for the eradication of transgender people. According to the headlines in various outlets and the panicked social media posts of countless trans activists and other leftists, he had explicitly advocated for the mass execution of the transgender community itself - it was a mask off moment, they declared. The Right was finally revealing its true intentions. They’re setting up camps as we speak. The extermination is about to begin. And they got all of that from this statement:

*”There can be no ‘middle way’ in dealing with transgenderism. It is all or nothing. If transgenderism is true—if men really can become women—then it’s true for everybody of all ages. If transgenderism is false, as it is—if men really can’t become women, as they cannot—then it’s false for everybody too. And if it’s false, then we should not indulge it, especially since that indulgence requires taking away the rights and customs of so many people. If it is false, then for the good of society and especially for the good of the poor people who have fallen prey to this confusion, ‘transgenderism’ must

be eradicated from public life entirely. The whole preposterous ideology, at every level.”*

Ah, so they lied. It’s no surprise that they lied - the media quite often lies, and as I’ve I warned you many times, trans activists in particular lie about literally everything all the time. They lie to themselves and about themselves, and about everything else. So they will certainly lie and say that Michael Knowles pushed for a Holocaust of trans people, when in fact, he called for the defeat of an ideology, an idea. If he was saying that he wanted to work for the eradication of malaria, that would not mean that he was murdering people with malaria. In fact, the only reason that you would WANT to eradicate malaria is because you feel compassion towards the people WITH malaria. If you didn’t care about those people, then you’ll say, “well just let them die of malaria”. In the same way, a person who truly loves those who’ve fallen into transgenderism should want to eradicate the -ism for their sake, and for the sake of society at large.

But is a term like eradicate over the top? Does it have a needlessly militant tone? No, definitely not. The tone may be militant, but not needlessly so. We are, after all, in a war, and lives are at stake. We are in a war against the most deranged ideology ever invented by the human race, plain and simple. We are fighting to eradicate the ideological equivalent of a parasitic infestation, and the parasite, gender ideology, seeks to not only brainwash a generation of children, not only to degrade and appropriate womanhood (and manhood, by the way), but also, and most fundamentally, it seeks to eat away at truth itself, or if it cannot devour the truth, then at least it will destroy our ability to recognize the truth for what it is. Eradication of gender ideology—total defeat—is the only option because there’s no compromise with it, there’s no living side by side with it, there’s no finding common ground. The gender ideologue wants to destroy your culture and your children. You will either rise up against it, or lose everything to it.

I mean, how do you compromise with someone who wants to sterilize and castrate children? Do you agree to only sexually mutilate HALF of the kids, is that the compromise? Or how do you compromise with someone who wants to rewrite biology textbooks to teach students that men can get pregnant? What is the compromise position between “men can get pregnant” and “men cannot get pregnant”? When it comes to what we’re going to tell people—what we are going to teach kids in school, what idea is going to be promoted by society—between those two options, what’s the middle ground? There ISN’T one. That’s why this is a zero sum contest. Either we destroy gender ideology, eradicate it from public life, utterly defeat it, burn it to the ground and dance around its ashes; or it does the same to us, and to our children. That’s the point.

Click here for Part 1

Now, all of this is arbitrary and it’s completely dehumanizing. You’re taking away people’s humanity, reducing them to statistics. A white person is not a white person according to the White House. He’s a faceless representative for his race, which is apparently running some sort of surplus - the supply exceeds the demand as far as they’re concerned anyway, and so we’ve got to clear out the stock and restock with more valuable demographics, is essentially the approach. So this is essentially how our social engineers to view the problem, which is only a problem in the first place because they've decided to CALL it a problem. And notice also that the allotted percentages are not based on representation in the population. See, the diversity proponents always say they should “reflect the communities they serve”, we just heard that from CNN about the medical profession, we need more black doctors because there are a lot of black patients and we have to reflect the diversity of the population.

Now, even that would be ridiculous and arbitrary. There’s no reason why every institution should reflect the racial makeup of the larger community or nation, again it should reflect whatever is the result of merit-based recruitment. But this is especially the case when this demand for representation is only applied to industries and organizations that the elites in our culture consider admirable, or desirable, or useful. So for example: only 10% of car mechanics are black, which is actually an UNDER-representation compared to the overall population, but you RARELY hear them raise that as a problem, because the people raising these kinds of problems don’t happen to respect car mechanics or consider it to be a desirable profession - in spite of the fact that car mechanics belong to one of the most important professions in existence right now because without them, modern society ceases to function, basically - but when it comes to the desirable professions (the professions that the elites consider desirable, anyway), percentage-based representation, as ridiculous as that would be on its own, is not actually what they’re after, of course. They SAY they want these institutions to reflect the diversity of the American people, but if it did, that would mean they would shoot for 13% black and 60% white. If the White House really reflected the American people, it would not be as Gene Pair says a majority people of color because the population isn’t. That’s not representation, that is a considerable OVER-representation.

Yet of course, over-representation is the actual goal because diversity is NOT the actual goal, diversity is a smoke screen. There’s a reason why these days leftists have taken to, I’m sure you’ve noticed, referring to “diverse people”, or rather a “diverse person”. So it’s not just that the ethnic makeup of a GROUP of people can be considered diverse, an individual human being can be diverse. You could have a diverse person and a non-diverse person. This makes no sense from a definitional perspective because diversity means variety and difference, one individual cannot be variety. Collections of people can have variety, individuals in a vacuum cannot. So what does it mean to describe a person as diverse? Well, it obviously means the person isn’t white, that’s all it means, and especially that the person isn’t a white straight male. Diversity is code for non-white, and so anytime they talk about making something more diverse, what they’re saying is they want fewer white people, fewer males, and fewer straight people.

Now, I know we’ve grown accustomed to this kind of bigotry, but we shouldn’t fail to appreciate how twisted and ultimately terrifying it is that the White House is openly boasting about discriminating whites. This is racial bigotry brought to the highest levels and paraded around in the open. That’s a very concerning development. That’s why our reaction to this sort of thing should no longer be as it has been for so long to just scoff at it like it’s a silly thing. The goal to make institutions—especially governmental institutions—more diverse is not merely a bunch of politically correct nonsense (though it also is that), but it is mainly actively racist - it is an actively racist campaign against whites and an actively sexist campaign against males, it is a direct effort to marginalize a group of people that the powers that be despise. That’s how we should see it, because that’s what it is, and we should react accordingly. Any effort to make any institution less white and less male is not only pointless and silly, but also disgusting and morally repugnant, as it would be to everyone if an institution openly endeavored to make its members less black, or less brown, or less female.

And this is not just complaining about a double standard here, I know we do that. I’m saying that we need to start calling things what they are, which means that we must say that our government is run not by champions of diversity, but by anti-white bigots, plain and simple.

Click here for Part 2

You may believe that the Biden Administration has been nothing but a parade of incompetence and catastrophe. You may look around and see financial devastation, inflation, crumbling infrastructure, a non-existent border, rampant crime, an epidemic of drug overdoses, a failing education system, our unnecessary entanglements and conflicts overseas which may lead to a global nuclear war potentially, and all of this while Chinese spy balloons float casually over our heads - and may, after surveying this rather discouraging scene, come to the conclusion that the people leading our country have performed in a manner that may be described as less than adequate. You may think all of that, and you may even be right—in fact, you ARE right—but the White House is here to tell you that none of that matters, because what really matters is diversity, and when it comes to the diversity contest, they will stem second place to no one.

Indeed, White House Press Secretary Karen Gene Pair, herself a woman who checks multiple diversity boxes, took another opportunity to tout the administration’s diversity record, and this was a response to a question from the ever vigilant press, and the press that is always focused on what the American people care about, and it was a question about the appointment of the next Federal Reserve Vice Chairman (or chairwoman, or chairperson, or chairthem). The reporter wanted to know whether they would be looking for diverse applicants, because obviously it’s very important that the Federal Reserve Vice Chairperson represents a marginalized group. This will be a source of inspiration for all the people in that group who had always dreamed since childhood of becoming the Federal Reserve Vice Chairperson. And if you’re in such a group and had such a dream as so many have, than this response from Karen Gene Pair should be very encouraging:

”But I wanna take the opportunity to lay out how diverse the President’s cabinet has been, how diverse the President’s administration has been. The cabinet is a majority people of color for the first time in history, the cabinet is a majority female for the first time in history, a majority of White House senior staff identify as female, 40% of White House senior staff identify as part of the racially diverse communities, and a record seven assistants to the President are openly LGBTQ+. So, again, this is something that the President prides himself on, that he has actually taken action to show the diversity of this administration…”

You know, just an impromptu question from the press that she happened to have a written speech ready for, with all the statistics and the exact number of racial minorities that are in the Biden Administration, she just happened to have that on hand for this question from the press. And by the way, maybe she actually does have that information on it, maybe she just goes to every press conference and has all that information, “we got 40%, you know, gay people”, because from the Biden Administration’s perspective, that could be an answer to any question at all. I mean, the question could be, “What are we gonna do about the price of eggs?” “Well, you know, here at the Biden Administration, here’s the number of polysexuals we have.” They see that as somehow the solution to every problem.

So in other words, the most incompetent administration in American history is also the most diverse. Make of that what you will. In fact, it’s impossible to think of an example of an organization, institution, profession, that has become more effective as it has become more diverse. There’s lots of institutions we can think of that have become more “diverse”, but how many of them have been improved by that in ANY measurable way whatsoever? We hear that diversity is our strength, but there isn’t any evidence anywhere of diversity producing anything that would qualify as strength - in fact, what we see nearly across the board is institutional decline coinciding with the diversifying of those same institutions. Make of THAT what you will too. But here’s what you should make of it, and it’s this: that diversity, as an end in itself, will always produce decline. No institution, no community, no country will prosper by focusing on diversity for diversity’s sake. Diversity, the sort that the Biden Administration touts, anyway, should be a byproduct, not an aim.

In other words, if you recruit people because they’re the most qualified, the most skilled, the most effective—which is the ONLY reason you should be recruiting anyone for anything, really—and as a byproduct of that approach you end up with a more “diverse” organization, then fine. Though it would ALSO be fine if the approach resulted in an organization that was predominantly white or predominantly male, as long as by the end of it, the organization is best able to accomplish whatever it’s designed to accomplish, because that’s what matters, because if you have that, the demographic makeup, whatever that happens to be, is good because it was the result of a merit based recruitment strategy. But the problem is that diversity is rarely a byproduct in our society, it is not organic, it’s not something that happens. It’s almost always engineered, and engineered diversity is never good. Engineered diversity is the work of bureaucrats who stand above the mass of common people and declare from on high that certain races have exceeded their allotted percentages. So other races have to be shipped in and installed to fix the problem, they have decided.

Click here for Part 1

So the sensitivity readers are a bit confused on that point, but one thing they know for sure is that any reference to biological sex is, of course, terribly offensive now.

References to “female” characters have disappeared. Miss Trunchbull in Matilda, once a “most formidable female”, is now a “most formidable woman”.

Gender-neutral terms have been added in places – where Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s Oompa Loompas were “small men”, they are now “small people”. The Cloud-Men in James and the Giant Peach have become Cloud-People.

Puffin and the Roald Dahl Story Company made the changes in conjunction with Inclusive Minds, which its spokesperson describes as “a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion and accessibility in children’s literature”.

Alexandra Strick, a co-founder of Inclusive Minds, said they “aim to ensure authentic representation, by working closely with the book world and with those who have lived experience of any facet of diversity”.

A notice from the publisher sits at the bottom of the copyright page of the latest editions of Dahl’s books: “The wonderful words of Roald Dahl can transport you to different worlds and introduce you to the most marvellous characters. This book was written many years ago, and so we regularly review the language to ensure that it can continue to be enjoyed by all today.”

Now, as I said at the beginning, this is all significantly worse than simply banning books or taking them off the shelves. It represents a rather startling escalation by the woke brigade, because if they had REMOVED the “offensive” Dahl books from circulation, that would be a ridiculous and shameful move just like it was with Dr. Seuss, but it would at least be honest, I mean MORE honest by any rate, and it would keep the author’s work intact. But now they’ve taken the liberty to rewrite the books and change author’s words words without his consent to make it more acceptable by their standards. And you don’t need to strain very hard to see where this is going. It’s one thing to imagine a world where Shakespeare has been entirely removed from the classroom because he was a white male who authored works that contained problematic themes. That prospect is disturbing enough, if it isn’t already happening, which it probably is. But now imagine a world where kids are taught Shakespeare, except they’re reading things that Shakespeare never actually wrote. I would rather Shakespeare be cast aside as a toxic white male than retroactively edited to be turned into a woke transgender polysexual or whatever they would do to him. Yet, that’s where we’re headed.

Now, the problem with this approach is not simply that it’s politically correct - we have moved way past political correctness at this point. The problem that first of all, it’s a lie. So you may WISH that an author had written something a different way, and used different language, gone this direction instead of that, but those wishes are born from the fact that the work is not your work, it came from someone else’s mind. You WISH he had written it in a certain way, but he DIDN’T write it that way. He wrote what he wrote, no matter how you feel about it. This is not different from rewriting the history books to tell the story of what you think SHOULD have happened in history, rather than actually telling what did happen. And of course, that’s exactly what they’re going to do with the history books, if they aren’t already. The Left believes that it has the moral authority to alter anything it wants to alter, because it DOESN’T believe that anything that conflicts with their worldview has any right to exist in the first place.

And that’s really what this comes down to. From their perspective, Roald Dahl had no right to author those kinds of books in the first place, because it conflicts with them, and it makes them feel bad, and so he had no right to do that, and so that gives them the moral license to do whatever they want - if that means burning the books, banning them, they can do that; if that means rewriting it, it means that. This is not only unethical and arrogant in the extreme—editing a dead writer’s words so they sound better to you—but it also deprives children of the full enrichment and edification that can come from reading the vivid (and even maybe sometimes a little upsetting, if the child is an especially sensitive type) words of a great imaginative writer. See, we tend to worry that this kind of censorship will help indoctrinate children into wokeness, and we’re right to worry about that, we should be worried about it. But it’s perhaps an even greater concern that it will help to make our children into bland, boring people - which, of course, is an inevitable consequence of making them woke. And if you want you children to be bland and boring and bored, there is no better way to do it than to reimagine great children’s literature so that it sounds like something written by a diversity consultant. That is just about the worst and most disrespectful thing you can do to a piece of literature, and it’s also a very terrible thing to do to the child who is reading it.

Click Here for Part 2

You may recall a couple of years ago when the estate of Theodore Geisel, who’s better known as Dr. Seuss of course, made the decision to stop selling a number of Seuss’s books because the books featured culturally insensitive words and themes. One of the books for example contained a shocking reference to eskimos, and we’re not allowed to call eskimos eskimos for reasons that have never fully been explained, but it’s too late to explain these things to Dr. Seuss himself as he died 30 years ago. All they could do is posthumously label his work bigoted and shove a chunk of his catalog into the memory hole, which is exactly what they did.

Now, many people (the optimistic ones, anyway) thought that maybe the whole Seuss saga represented cancel culture at its most absurd, and at the very least, they figured, it’s the most ludicrous example of censoring a dead children’s author that we’ll ever see, can’t get worse than that. But they forget, in spite of many reminders, that progressivism is progressive like cancer - it grows and spreads and doesn’t stop, can’t stop, until its host is dead. And so this past weekend, another beloved children’s author who died a year before Dr. Seuss found himself in the woke cult’s crosshairs, and this incident actually makes the Seuss cancellation downright reasonable by comparison. So The Guardian reports on the efforts of Roald Dahl’s to actually rewrite his books in order to bring them into line with modern sensibilities.

Roald Dahl’s children’s books are being rewritten to remove language deemed offensive by the publisher Puffin.

Puffin has hired sensitivity readers to rewrite chunks of the author’s text to make sure the books “can continue to be enjoyed by all today”, resulting in extensive changes across Dahl’s work[…]

Hundreds of changes were made to the original text – and some passages not written by Dahl have been added. But the Roald Dahl Story Company said “it’s not unusual to review the language” during a new print run and any changes were “small and carefully considered”.

Now, if you thought that the DEI consultants were useless parasites, what can we say about professional sensitivity readers? I suppose we would say much the same about them, but perhaps we might be tempted to give them a little bit of credit for finding such a profitable yet low effort grift. And speaking of low effort, here are some of the changes that were made at their behest:

Edits have been made to descriptions of characters’ physical appearances. The word “fat” has been cut from every new edition of relevant books, while the word “ugly” has also been culled, the Daily Telegraph reported.

Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is now described as “enormous”. In The Twits, Mrs Twit is no longer “ugly and beastly” but just “beastly”.

Well that’s good, because now the line has left open the possibility that Mrs. Twit might be beastly, yet not ugly. Perhaps she is a big, beastly, beautiful woman - that might be a somewhat incoherent image, I can’t imagine what a beastly yet attractive person would look like, but at least you get the alliteration there: big, beastly, beautiful.

In The Witches, a paragraph explaining that witches are bald beneath their wigs ends with the new line: “There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.”

I’m surprised that they didn’t add yet another line to note also that not all witches are supernatural creatures who create magical potions to turn children into mice as they do in Dahl’s book. There are other kinds of witches as well - in fact, we even have witches in congress, quite a few of them. Nancy Pelosi is one of them and she used to be Speaker Of The House. It seems the sensitivity readers missed the opportunity to fully combat the stigma against witches, I’m a little disappointed by that, hopefully they’ll catch it on the next go around.

In previous editions of James and the Giant Peach, the Centipede sings: “Aunt Sponge was terrifically fat / And tremendously flabby at that,” and, “Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire / And dry as a bone, only drier.”

Both verses have been removed, and in their place are the rhymes: “Aunt Sponge was a nasty old brute / And deserved to be squashed by the fruit,” and, “Aunt Spiker was much of the same / And deserves half of the blame.”

This is another important edit. As we all know, it’s deeply offensive to call a woman fat, we should instead be polite and merely call them “brutes” who deserve to be squished to death. But we shouldn’t be surprised that these changes make no sense at all. After all, the woke police still haven’t quite figured out what to do with fatness, because on the one hand, of course, they want to stop you from calling people fat because it’s intolerant, but on the other hand, they preach about fat acceptance and declare that fat is beautiful. But if fat is acceptable and beautiful, then why can’t we call people fat? Wouldn’t we be complimenting them in that case? I mean, one of the greatest things you could say to someone is “Hey, you fat ass!” You’re calling them beautiful.

Click here for Part 1

Now, the song that won the award is aptly titled “Unholy”, and the two award winning males performed it for the audience after they won this award. Madonna (who with each passing day comes to more and more resemble the creepy puppet from the Saw franchise) introduced the duo, who then launched into a blatantly demonic performance. The whole thing was designed to look like some kind of satanic sex ritual with fire and devil horns and BDSM and Sam Smith dressed like Satan. Here’s a clip, and make sure you pay attention all the way at the end of this clip:

”The 65th Grammy Awards is sponsored by Pfizer.”

The satanic ritual brought to you by Pfizer. A little too on the nose, I have to say. Now, needless to say, the main reason they went all in with the campy Party City devil costumes and demonic imagery and all of that is that they want attention. Sam Smith is the same guy who just released a music video that shows him parading around at a piss orgy, drinking urine. He's desperate to be noticed and will do literally whatever it takes. He certainly can't rely on the quality of his music to speak for itself. I mean, putting aside the Satanist stuff, just listen to the lyrics from that Unholy song that we just heard a clip of:

Mummy don't know daddy's getting hot

At the body shop

Doing something unholy

He's sat back while she's dropping it

She be popping it

Yeah, she put it down slowly

This is just absolute brain rotting stupidity. These are alleged artists who have no art to offer; nothing to say; no talent; no creativity, and so they can only try to shock us. There’s always been art with immoral messages. The difference is that in modern times, our immoral art is produced by the most tiresome collection of monotonous, talentless idiot hacks to ever walk the Earth. As with Sam Smith’s pee guzzling music video, this stuff is indeed offensive and gross and disgusting, etc., it’s all of that, but it’s also utterly tedious and boring. These depraved attention mongers can’t even manage to be offensive in an interesting way. Instead they simply recycle the same shock tactics over and over again, and we’ve seen it ALL by now. As it turns out, there are only so many ways to be a satanic whore. After a while it gets repetitive, and we are way past that point today.

But with that said, even if these degenerate pop stars are just vying for our attention in the most obvious overdone ways because they have the IQ and creative talent of a paper plate, there is still a certain significance to the fact that a major broadcast network broadcast a satanic ritual that night. I think it’d be a mistake to ignore this development completely. Instead, I think we should focus on it for long enough to learn two lessons that this event can teach us. First, the Left’s cultural agenda is to tear down and desecrate all that you love and hold as sacred. They have no ideas of their own, they have no plan beyond the destruction. That’s why they borrow from Christianity even while they try to RIDICULE it. They have to in effect sit on the same limb they’re trying to saw off the tree. They can’t stand on their own, they have nothing. They don’t have their own platform. It’s an agenda motivated by pure hatred and resentment. They don’t even know WHY they hate what they hate, but they DO hate it and their hatred drives them to destroy.

Second, and I think maybe the most important point, is that leftism IS Satanism. There’s a reason why they rely so heavily on satanic imagery and all that kind of stuff: they are all literally satanists - just not for the most part theological satanists. That’s an important distinction here. There are some theological satanists out their who actually worship the Devil outwardly, but these people and most leftists certainly don’t consider themselves to be worshipping a being called Satan. Rather, they’re worshipping what Satan worshipped, which is the self. The story of Satan is that he refused to worship and serve God, choosing instead to worship and serve himself, and the modern leftist has made the same choice. Leftism is the worship of the self. It is the elevation of the self, and the wants and desires of the self—especially the sexual wants and desires—above everyone and everything else. Almost ALL modern pop music is an ode to this idea. Pop stars are singing praises to the gospel of self-worship, which is to say that most of it is satanic. Most pop music is satanic, because it is about promoting the worship of the self. It’s just that it’s usually not so explicit about it. But I think probably better that they are explicit, so that people can see all that stuff for what it really is, and respond accordingly to it.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Click here for Part 1

Click here for Part 2

But it’s not just idiots on TikTok with this message. The idiot running the largest city in the United States was singing the same tune. Here’s Mayor Eric Adams:

DON LEMMON: “Chief CJ Davis said all the officers being black it takes race off the table. Do you agree that?”

ERIC ADAMS: “No, I don’t[…]I think race is still on the table. When a culture of policing historically has treated those from different groups differently, even when the individuals are from that same group, that culture can still exist, and we have to zero in on it, being honest about it, and making sure that we properly train police for the realities of the cities that they are policing.”

Right, it’s the system, it’s the culture, racism, white supremacy. The Left will blame everyone and everything except the guys who actually did it. And this is often the case, you may notice, not just in this situation. Whenever something bad happens, they point the finger in every direction other than the direction where the culprit is actually standing. These people would be very bad at the game of Clue. I mean, even if all the evidence suggests that the murder was carried out by Colonel Mustard with a candlestick in the dining room, they will still declare that it was ultimately systemic racism and economic inequality and a lack of common sense candlestick control that really killed the victim.

They view everything through this lens partly because it’s of course more politically useful. Why is that? Well, because there isn’t much political utility in actually blaming an individual for his own actions, because an individual is small and limited and finite. There’s only so much you can do to harvest an individual’s actions for political purposes. Now, systems, on the other hand, well those are bountiful fields indeed, politically speaking. And then beyond the political, the Left is also philosophically committed to a view of life that denies the individual free will and agency. They cannot accept that a person might make his own choices, and choose to do an evil thing, and actually be culpable for that choice because in the end, he has power over himself. If they accept such a proposition, then all KINDS of scary boogeymen like personal responsibility and moral standards and good vs. evil come rushing in, and they can’t have that.

But the concern, obviously, that arches over all of this is the racial narrative, and the narrative DEMANDS that every evil that befalls a black person must be explained in terms of white racism. And they are committed to this idea too and cannot abandon it either, because think about it: if they to admit that perhaps Nichols was beaten to death by five cops for some other reason—because the cops are poorly trained, or they had a personal grudge, or they just happen to be bad and violent people, etc.—then they would be CONCEDING that incidents of police brutality, or alleged police brutality, can be explained that way - which then raises the question about whether such alleged instances by white cops might ALSO be explained that way. It doesn’t make sense to say that black cops beat a black man because of racism, but it even LESS sense to say that every black man beaten by a white cop is the victim of racism, while the black on black incidents have a variety of other non-racial explanations, because if THEY have non-racial expectations, then again, why couldn’t the white on black incidents potentially have non-racial explanations as well? I mean, you have entered into consideration other possibilities that would now have to be thought about, even when it’s a white on black situation.

Their narrative puts them in a bind, and the only way out is through. Either everything can be explained by racism, or they must face the possibility that lots of things are NOT explained by racism. The latter is untenable, so the former it is.

Click here for Part 1

Click here for Part 3

Jones got to this narrative early and many soon followed, though over the past few days, Twitter has been full of tweets like this one from “anti-racism educator” Time Wise, who says:

Anyone who says the killing of Tyre Nichols can’t be about racism because the cops were also Black really doesn’t understand how white supremacy or anti-Blackness work

And then Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost says:

Doesn't matter what color those police officers are. The murder of Tyre Nichols is anti-Black and the result of a system built on white supremacy.

Political commentator Mondaire Jones tweeted:

If you think the Memphis police officers had to be white in order to exhibit anti-Blackness, you need to take that AP African American Studies course Ron DeSantis just banned.

It is of course more accurate to say that if you think violence committed by five black men is somehow the fault of anti-black racism, then you’ve probably taken way too MANY African-American studies courses. In fact that kind of insane paranoid thinking is exactly why those sorts of courses shouldn’t exist in public school in the first place.

And you could find this kind of messaging of course elsewhere on social media, like on TikTok where this white woman explains why every white person is directly guilty of carrying out this beating. You may think you have a good alibi, maybe because you were in bed asleep in your home 500 miles away while it was happening, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t culpable, she explains.

”I got a message today for some white people. If we have white people listening, paying attention, I wouldn’t mind if if you would do this with me, we run our chests, we find our heartbeat, and we say, “We did this,” we did this. White supremacy did this. I’m talking about Tyre Nichols. Police didn’t do this. The Memphis police department didn’t do this, white supremacy did this.”

Well, I say we take her confession seriously. If she said she did this, then arrest and charge her. Sentence her to life in a maximum security prison. After all, she says that she beat a black man to death. Worse, she apparently did it through some kind of mind control mechanism. The black cops were the ones doing the punching and kicking, but she says they didn’t do this. She says it explicitly: they did not do this! This weird white woman with the GI Joe buzz cut says that she was the one pulling the strings. - I mean, she says “us”, “we”, but I had nothing to do with that, but if she’s saying that she was, arrest her, interrogate her, find out who her accomplices were. If she doesn’t give them up, then throw her in prison for the rest of her life. Drop the charges on the cops, and throw HER behind bars, I would unironically support that. She confessed, she said they didn’t do it, put her in jail then. Let’s see how deep her white guilt really runs.

Click here for Part 2

Click here for Part 3

One Friday evening, January 27th, after several days of hype and build up, video of the incident that led to murder charges for five Memphis police officers was finally released. There’s a couple of different places where the footage is coming from, and the body camera footage is harder to interpret - we see Tyre Nichols fighting with the cops after having been apparently pulled over for reckless driving, but the footage is sort of blurry and jittery and difficult to discern. The story is really told by footage of security cameras mounted to street lamps, and there we can see the cops beating and kicking Nichols while he’s restrained. The five of them together should’ve been able to figure out a way to subdue one man without pummeling him to death, but these officers decided to use much more force than what the situation would seem to require - in fact, if you saw the video from the street lamp security cameras without any other context, you wouldn’t think that it was an arrest at all, but rather gang warfare. It looked like street violence, not officers of the law executing an arrest. And the send result is that Tyre Nichols died in the hospital a few days after the beating.

Now, there’s still much we don’t know about this incident, and even though the video is quite brutal, it’s still always worth keeping in mind that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. I wouldn’t be surprised if more details emerge in the coming weeks or months that, while probably not exculpatory for the officers—it’s very hard to imagine what kind of context could possibly let them off the hook here—it at least help to explain what exactly is going on. Did one or some of these cops have some sort of personal grudge against Nichols? Is there a history here that we haven’t been told about which might explain why the beating looks so personal? I have no idea. Hopefully we’ll find out more as time goes on.

What I DO know though is that this even, whatever precipitated it, whatever explains it, certainly had absolutely nothing to do with racism, because this was a black man beaten black cops working for a department run by a black woman in a majority black city run by a majority black city council. There are no white faces anywhere NEAR this incident, which means that no honest or intelligent person could try to pin this on whiteness or white supremacy. But unfortunately for all of us, honest and intelligent is a bar too high for many people, especially those in the media, to meet, and so leftist activists and media propagandists immediately went to work, trying to explain how the actions of five black men under the leadership of a black woman somehow represent an act of anti-black racism. Van Jones over at CNN got the race baiting kicked off that Friday night with an op-ed titled, “Opinion: The police who killed Tyre Nichols were Black. But they might still have been driven by racism”

One of the sad facts about anti-Black racism is that Black people ourselves are not immune to its pernicious effects. Society’s message that Black people are inferior, unworthy and dangerous is pervasive. Over many decades, numerous experiments have shown that these ideas can infiltrate Black minds as well as White. Self-hatred is a real thing[…]

At the end of the day, it is the race of the victim who is brutalized — not the race of the violent cop — that is most relevant in determining whether racial bias is a factor in police violence. It’s hard to imagine five cops of any color beating a White person to death under similar circumstances. And it is almost impossible to imagine five Black cops giving a White arrestee the kind of beat-down that Nichols allegedly received.

There you have it: white people are to blame even for things that white people don’t do. Van Jones bases all this on essentially his own lack of imagination, because he says that it’s hard to imagine a white person treated this way by cops. And it might indeed be hard for HIM to imagine because he works for a media organization that simply ignores every occasion where a white person is killed by police. It’s not that Jones can’t imagine a white person falling victim to police brutality, it’s that he chooses not to acknowledge such cases when they happen. He chooses not to remember, for example, the worst police shooting ever caught on film, the one where Daniel Shaver, an unarmed white man, is executed in the middle of a hotel hallway while on his knees begging for his life. Shaver’s skin color makes the story inconvenient, and so it’s simply ignored, like so many other stories like it.

Click here for Part 1

Now, to add insult to injury, while New York litters its streets and buildings with these unsightly lumps, it’s also actively removing its good art. Just a few days ago, the city finally removed the statue of Theodore Roosevelt that has adorned the outside its Museum Of Natural History for nearly a century. The stated reason for removing this statue is that the depiction of a black man and a Native American walking alongside Roosevelt makes the whole scene somehow inexplicably racist. No one ever explains why by the way, it’s just the fact that you’ve got a white man, and then there’s a black man there also, that’s racist. But the real reason it was taken down is that the work of art commits two unforgivable sins in the modern age: one, it memorializes a heroic white man, which of course you can’t do; and two, it’s beautiful. It’s a beautiful work of art, and beautiful art is no longer allowed.

Of course, you don’t need to live in New York or Boston to have your eyes assaulted by these memorials to ugliness. Every American city is plagued by these sorts of modern art mutations popping up everywhere like tumors, like this art display sitting outside a Tennessee welcome center off of Interstate 81. Now, in times past, they may have welcomed you with a glorious representing the states unique culture and history. Instead they give you this weird orgy of malformed ambiguously humanoid shapes. And again, you find this stuff everywhere: in Asheville, North Carolina, you’ll find this towering pile of shapeless scrap metal which the artist calls “Passage”, but should’ve just been called “Tetanus”. And we could go on with examples - this might be the worst one: a recently installed statue in Carmel, Indiana, and the statue is titled “Rising Sun”, but instead it looks like a hairy potato, or perhaps a testicle, perched on a misshapen platform of some kind. It has the aesthetic quality of a Nickelodeon cartoon from the ‘90s, except a lot more explicit.

So what’s going on? I mean, why are they making this ugly nonsense? Why are these cities pockmarked with these hideously sculpted abscesses? Why are we all forced to live in towns with the artistic equivalent of skin cancer? I think there are a few reasons, and the first is pretty simple: great artists have skill, and they have training, and they have proper education. OUR artists have NONE of those, so they’re not capable of making anything that rises to the level of classical art. They couldn’t produce a sculpture that could pass for something sculpted 200 years ago, even if they wanted to.

Notice the lack of detail in all these statues. This is the thing with all modern art: there’s no detail in anything. The demon statue in the New York courthouse is mostly just smooth and featureless which gives it that kind of cheap flavor, and the artist didn’t even attempt to make arms or hands because those are the most difficult to get right. When I was in art class in seventh grade, I used to do the same thing: I didn’t know how to draw arms or hands because they’re difficult, and so I would claim that I’m just using my imagination and this is a person with tentacles for arms instead, easier to draw. The sculptor in Boston DID make arms and hands, but that’s ALL he made, because it requires great skill to sculpt head and faces, so he simply left them headless.

Meanwhile, the other statues didn’t attempt to resemble anything at all so that there’s no standard they can be judged against. If you try to make something that LOOKS like something, then everyone can look at your art and they can judge it against what you’re trying to capture. It’s the thing, if you make art and you’re trying to capture something, or actually say something, then that gives people a frame of reference that they can judge your art against. And so all of this in part is a cover for the fact that these artists have no talent.

But then even if they could make something beautiful, they probably wouldn't. Modern art is ugly because modern artists can only produce ugliness, and also because they only WANT to produce ugliness. We are witnessing as I noted at the top the systematic uglification of society. They uglify things on purpose because to them, to make an ugly thing is to commit a revolutionary act. They despise tradition, they despise all that came before us, and their ugly art is an attack on tradition. All of this garbage is the diametric opposite of the sort of art that our ancestors produced and celebrated and passed down to us, and that’s reason enough for our cultural elites, those in charge of facilitating our cultural decline, to prefer the garbage.

But most of all, they make ugly things because they hate beauty. The artists of antiquity made beautiful things—objectively beautiful—things that all human beings can recognize as beautiful. And they did this in order to lift the viewer up, to bring them up and into the experience of beauty - whereas the modern artist, clouded by his own ego, obsessed with his own hang-ups and preoccupations and anxieties, creates things with the purpose of dragging the viewer down, sinking them in a state of anxiety and confusion. A man named Jeremy Wayne Tate on Twitter made this point very well:

Renaissance artists aimed to uplift the viewer and draw them into beauty. They were primarily interested in their subjects. Modern artists aim to shock and confuse. They are primarily interested in themselves.

And that is the truth, no doubt. And truth ultimately is the enemy as always. Modern artists hate beauty because they hate truth. The Left in general hates beauty because it hates truth. And as the English poet John Keats said, “‘Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.’ - that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.” They know it, and they hate it, and so they give us this ugliness instead.

Click here for Part 2

One of the great tragedies of my life was that I didn’t get to write about Boston’s MLK statue when the news cycle came and went and passed me by. The thing that motivates me to get up every day and write these rants is that one day, I’ll be able to deliver a monologue on something as hilarious as a statue that’s meant to honor Martin Luther King Jr., but instead looks like a disassembled pile of limbs that arranges itself into a different sex act depending on the angle you view it from. It’s supposed to be a memorial to King, but the sculptor accidentally made it a memorial to PornHub - well, I assume it was an accident. Whether he meant for the thing to be sort of a sexualized three-dimensional Rorschach test is anybody’s guess, but we do know that what he created, whatever the intention was, is a giant $10,000,000 hunk of garbage.

There’s a lot to be said about the subject - mainly to point and laugh at it, but also to discuss the continued and rapidly increasing uglification (if I can coin a term) of our society. This is a process that is deliberate and systematic. Beautiful art is taken down and replaced by hideous vomitous nonsense. WHY is this happening? What is the end game? These are the important questions, but I missed my chance, or so I thought, to talk about them. That is, until New York City came to the rescue. Only a week after the MLK sex sculpture revolted and amused us all, NYC has made their OWN contribution to the conversation. They are attempting—valiantly, I might say—to recover their crown as the ugly statue capitol of the country, and with this latest eyesore they may have succeeded. Here’s the article from Time Out, which is a New York City news site:

Statues of nine men from history and religion perch atop the courthouse near Madison Square Park. Now, for the first time, the representation of a woman has joined their noble rooftop plinths.

"Havah…to breathe, air, life," an exhibition by artist Shahzia Sikander focusing on themes of justice, has brought stunning golden sculptures to Madison Square Park and the nearby courthouse at 27 Madison Avenue (officially called the Courthouse of the Appellate Division, First Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York). The statues, unveiled this week, will be on view through June 4.

Inside Madison Square Park sits "Witness," a monumental female figure measuring 18 feet tall and wearing a hoop skirt inspired by the courtroom’s stained-glass ceiling dome. The figure's twisted arms and legs suggest tree roots, referencing what the artist has described as the "self-rootedness of the female form; it can carry its roots wherever it goes." You can even use your smartphone to bring the figure to life through AR technology.

Adorning the nearby courthouse, “NOW,” an 8-foot-tall female figure resembles the park sculpture, but a lotus symbolizing wisdom replaces the hoop skirt. Her horns indicate sovereignty and autonomy. A delicate collar nods to the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who often wore detailed collars with her traditional black robe. The statue—the only woman represented—sits next to figures including Confucius, Justinian, Lycurgus, Moses and Zoroaster. At last, this work puts a female figure on a level plane with the traditional, patriarchal depictions of justice and power.

Well, not quite a level plane because those other sculptures are legitimate works of art. This one is a satanic monstrosity. It’s a woman with tentacles for arms and horns on her head resembling a doodle that a disturbed ten-year-old might draw. It’s the kind of thing that the child in the horror film sketches in his notebook right before his parents realize he’s possessed. And on top of all that, it looks cheap as though it were sculpted out of plastic. It looks like it was made of the same material they use for those little green toy soldiers that you buy in a bag at the dollar store. This is modern art in a nutshell: cheap, ugly, stupid, and vaguely, or not so vaguely in this case, demonic.

New York City by the way is no stranger to ugly statues. Just a couple of years ago, they confused us all with a monument sculpted by a “conceptual artist” and placed outside the Rockefeller Center that looks like a giant cartoon head, like something that a not very talented caricature artist might sketch. Really, it looks like a parody of African art, though the artist is black, so he escaped the racism charge I guess, but he certainly cannot escape the charge of being a talentless hack, which is what he is.

Click here for Part 1

Click here for Part 3

But it’s not just trans indoctrinated youths who the media says are now living in fear - trans adults are feeling so terrified and oppressed that, as Vice reports this week, they are now fleeing the country. There will soon be trans refugee camps in places like Canada, I guess (until the camps are all shut down because the workers in the camps all end up fired because they can’t keep track of everybody’s pronouns).

Rynn Azerial Willgohs, a 50-year-old transgender woman, has been rapidly researching ways to flee the United States. She’s from the U.S., but with physical attacks against transgender and nonbinary people on the rise and lawmakers targeting transgender people with increasingly draconian legislation that criminalizes their very existence, Willgohs is worried.

The national landscape, accompanied by some of her [and by the way, every time they say “her” or “she”, do the air quotes in your mind] own personal experiences, has made a future in the U.S. feel untenable for Willgohs. In March 2021, when Willgohs had just started her transition, she was traveling across the state for work when she decided to stop at a public bathroom. A man followed her inside and pushed her up against a wall. “I thought he was going to choke me to death,” she told VICE News.

Now, we need to stop here for a moment. First of all, notice how this man just began his “transition” in 2021 and yet is already so persecuted, according to him, that he needs to leave the country. Also, as for the claim about the incident in the bathroom, it should be needless to say that anytime you hear anything like this from a trans activist—actually, anytime you hear them say anything at all about anything—you should be immediately skeptical absent any additional evidence. In this case, we aren’t told whether this alleged encounter with the man in the bathroom even had anything to DO with the fact that Rynn identifies as trans. The incident is mentioned extremely briefly with very few details, and then the story just moves on. This is how it almost always works with claims of anti-trans violence: very few details are provided, the story is always sketchy, but you’re meant to just accept it as more proof of an epidemic of anti-trans hate crimes, even though there IS no such epidemic to begin with.

Today, she mostly feels safe in Fargo, North Dakota, where she lives, but she’s careful in rural areas. And when she leaves the state, she often doesn’t feel safe at all.

“There’s like 30 states right now I wouldn’t even drive through,” Willgohs said.

Her own experiences, and the increasingly hostile national climate, inspired Willgohs to start TRANSport, a budding non-profit that seeks to help trans people transition, navigate bureaucratic mazes, and ultimately finance their journeys as they flee the country.

Willgohs is considering claiming asylum in Iceland, a country she visited last summer and considers more accepting—and safer—than the U.S. And she felt like being trans was a “non-issue” while there. Though there’s currently a lack of clarity around whether it’s even possible for trangender U.S. citizens to claim asylum elsewhere—and an expert told VICE News it’s unlikely—the devolving situation in the U.S. has inspired people like Willgohs to try.

So, just to be clear: trans activists now want to claim asylum in foreign countries. They want to be treated like a defector fleeing North Korea. And of course the difference—and it’s a very subtle difference—is that the North Korean asylum seeker, if he’s not given asylum and is sent back to North Korea, will almost certainly end up in a concentration camp where he will starved and beaten and tortured and killed. But what would happen to Rynn Willgohs if he is not given asylum in Iceland? What awful unspeakable fate awaits him back in the United States? What will happen to him? Well, literally nothing. Not a single thing. In fact, as a 50 year old man who just decided about 85 seconds ago to become a woman, none of the laws being considered or passed in any state will have any measurable impact on him at all. He says he’s terrified to even drive through a state like Tennessee, as if they have anti-trans checkpoints set up on the highway, and any trans person they catch will be carted off to a forced labor camp.

Click here for Part 2

Click here for Part 3

At the beginning of last year, podcast host Matt Walsh predicted and promised that he and the Daily Wire would be launching a full-scale war on gender ideology, and now as we sit at the beginning of 2023, we can clearly see how effective the anti-gender ideology insurgency has been. Multiple states across the country are preparing to ring in the new year with legislation banning the sexual mutilation and sexual indoctrination of children. Soon, in these states at least, things like gender transition surgery for minors and also “family-friendly” drag shows will be a thing of the past.

These new laws though have set off a new wave of panic on the Left. Hard to say that when they’re always in a state of panic, but it’s been increasing even more recently as the media and trans activists (a distinction without a difference I realize) screech about the dangers that these legislative efforts pose. Here’s NBC’s Jo Yurcaba (they/them, by the way) trying to explain the danger of this legislation:

FEMALE REPORTER: “We are only about a week into 2023, and across the country people are already seeing a wave of anti-transgender legislation making its way into state houses across the country. More than two dozen bills looking to restrict trans health care access have already been introduced in 11 states so far this year, you see them here. In Texas, three separate bills would classify gender affirming care for minors as child abuse, and the Oklahoma bill would ban gander affirming care for anybody, anybody under the age of 26. I want to bring in NBC out reporter Jo Yurcaba. So, Jo, talk about these new bills coming forward this year coming forward, who they’re targeting, etc.”

JO YURCABA: “Yeah, so, many of of these bills like you mentioned seek to restrict or ban access to gender affirming health care completely, and that includes hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and surgery for anyone under 18, but some of them are taking it up a notch this year like Oklahoma’s for example, which would bar that care for people up to 25 and would block coverage for that care under the state’s Medicaid plan for anyone. Um, and then we have a bill in Texas that seeks to completely bar minors from attending drag performances in the state. So what we’re seeing is really an escalation of legis- of, uh, ah- of this legislation and protests of drag shows that we’ve seen over the last two years.”

REPORTER: “You describe it as an escalation. Part of that is because we saw record anti-trans legislation last year, ahhm, and, you know, m-more last year than the year before, et cetera, et cetera. Um, talk about where the trend lines are going, and what this means for people in the LGBTQ+ community.”

JO: “Yeah, well, advocates in Texas have told me that they expect things to get a lot worse before they get better, um, and so even if these bills don’t pass, they say they still have an impact. A recent National Survey for example from the Trevor Project found that 85% of trans and non binary youth across the country said debates on this legislation have negatively impacted their mental health.”

Well, no, that’s not what’s going on. The debates around the legislation have not negatively affected any child’s mental health - rather, the things that people like Jo Yurcaba (they/them) at TELLING children about the legislation are negatively affecting their mental health. These gender confused and brainwashed kids are being TOLD that bills which protect them from mutilation and sterilization and exploitation and indoctrination will somehow put their lives at risk. They are being TOLD, with a wink and a nudge, that maybe they might even want to KILL themselves because of it. The trans propagandists, because they’re the most evil people currently walking on the planet, tried to convince children, CONVINCE them, to be afraid, confused, and suicidal. And that is indeed having an extremely deleterious impact on their mental health, and their physical health, and their spiritual health, and their health in every other sense in the word.

Click here for part 1

Second: Elon Musk is right to mock the pronoun thing. This is what we need people in the mainstream to do, that’s what we all need to be doing. Arguing against it is fine, explaining your arguments about why you disagree with the pronoun stuff - but heaping pure mockery and scorn on the entire ritual is even better, because that’s what all this is. The exchanging of pronouns, the listing of pronouns, it is a ritual, it’s a religious right. It is a symbolic gesture meant to signal an individual’s affirmation and assent into LGBT dogma. And it’s spreading everywhere - this is not just a routine relegated to anymore. Schools and workplaces increasingly expect and demand participation in the liturgy of pronouns. And they usually give reasons like “tolerance” and “professionalism” to justify the intrusion of preferred pronouns in these spaces - CBS News outlined the case in a recent article titled, “Everything you need to know about gender pronouns at work”, and it begins by saying:

It is increasingly common for professionals of all stripes to include a line in their digital signatures, below their name or title, indicating what gender pronouns they use. That may read something like "she/her/hers" or "they/them/theirs," and specifies how an individual wants to be addressed other than by their name.

For some people who are gender nonbinary, or transgender, being misgendered can cause discomfort and anxiety.

"Being misgendered is a dehumanizing experience: it's being reminded again and again that you don't exist as your gender in other peoples' eyes," said Camy Seitz-Cherner, a co-founder of a tutoring cooperative who uses the pronouns "they/them."

Advocates stress how important it is that companies develop policies around personal pronoun use as part of their inclusion efforts, in part so LGBTQ people feel safe at work.

More simply, it's a matter of respecting everyone in the workplace.

But this of course is nonsense. This is not inclusion, this is not respect, this is forced conversion. It is the leftist version of, if you can imagine, a secular school or workplace strongly encouraging students and employees to do the sign of the cross periodically throughout the day. This would not be a way of including Catholics - Catholics are already free to do the sign of the cross whenever they want. Pressuring others to engage in a symbolic ritual act which signals accent to a belief system they don’t even HOLD is not tolerance. It is again indoctrination. And in the case of the sign of the cross, such a policy would be considered wildly illegal, and any secular school or workplace that initiated it would be sued into oblivion. Pronouns are not treated the same way because they are the symbol of the LGBT religion, which is now our unofficial—and maybe eventually official—state religion.

This is why it’s so necessary that we resist the pronoun garbage, and mock it ruthlessly whenever we get the opportunity: people who demand that you adopt their belief system deserve nothing but scorn. And there is no neutral way to look at any of this - the very concept of an individual having a pronoun—“These are MY pronouns. What are YOUR pronouns?”—it’s nonsensical, because in reality, nobody has pronouns, you can’t have a pronoun anymore than you can have a preposition or an adverb. The concept doesn’t make any sense. Pronouns are not things that you can own, they’re not accessories. They are parts of speech. That’s it. You don’t get to customize them. So, when someone asks you what your pronouns are, any attempt to sincerely answer the question is a concession that the question makes sense. It concedes that each individual gets to take possession of their own pronoun which are dependent of their self-perception.

So if you’re a man, and somebody asks what your pronouns are, and you think that you’re not participating in the game if you just tell them, “Well, my pronouns are he/him”, you actually ARE taking part in the game, because in this exchange, the way the symbolism works, you’re not actually declaring yourself to be a man - you’re rather declaring that you PERCEIVE yourself to be a man, as if there’s some sort of meaningful or relative or relevant or definitional distinction between what you are and what you perceive yourself to be. You are playing the game, whether you mean to or not. When someone says what are your pronouns, what they really ask you is, “What gender do you perceive yourself to be?” That’s what the question is. But if you just say “man”, then again you’re going along with it. The actual answer you want to give is, “What do you mean ‘perceive myself’? I am a man! That’s it! That’s what I AM! It’s not about what I perceive myself to be, it’s just simply what I am. I reject the framing of that question.”

When it comes to pronouns, the appropriate response then to the question of “what are your pronouns?” must be something along the lines of, “That question makes no sense, leave me the hell alone.” Or you can cut out the first sentence and just go right to the second. Either option works. Or come up with your own variation - as long as it’s something that communicates your refusal to surrender to this madness, and your contempt for the fact that it’s being pushed on you to begin with.

Click here for part 2

Last weekend, Elon Musk appeared on stage with Dave Chappelle on a show at San Francisco. Now, I’m not sure what sort of reception Musk was expecting, but he’s obviously a smart guy, so I’m assuming he was not surprised by the reaction he actually received, which sounded like this:

DAVE CHAPPELLE: “Ladies and gentlemen, make some noise for the richest man in the world!” [overly long mixture of booing and applause] “Cheers and boos, I see.” [more booing and applause] “Elon.”

ELON MUSK: “Hey, Dave!” [booing grows louder] “Weren’t expecting this, were ya?”

CHAPPELLE: “It sounds like some of them people you fired in the audience.” [audience laughs]

So they don’t seem to like him very much, and if we were to watch the rest of that clip, we would here Musk have a short exchange with Chappelle before shouting the famous Chappelle’s Show line, “I’m rich, bitch”, and walking off the stage, which is certainly one way to handle this kind of situation, and not a bad way either.

Needless to say, there are few honors greater than being booed by a crowd of low IQ San Franciscans. Question though is whether anyone in that crowd knew why they were booing. They’re vaguely aware that Elon Musk is one of the guys they’re supposed to hate, but if you were to stop them and conduct a poll maybe as they left the stadium and said, “Hey, what was that all about, why do you guys hate him?”, would they be able to EXPLAIN their hatred? That seems pretty unlikely. They would not be able to articulate why they hate Elon Musk because their hatred is a reflex; it’s a result of cultural conditioning; it’s a sort of tribal response against an outsider. All they know is that Musk has taken positions and conveyed ideas that do not follow the leftist orthodoxy, he’s a mainstream figure who has gone off script. And not even that FAR off script. I mean, he could not by any measure be credibly described as right-wing - even if the media does describe him that way, he’s certainly not. But ANY amount of improvisation, any attempt to think for oneself—especially by a mainstream figure—is apostasy in the minds of many people in the culture.

Musk would continue off script over the weekend, tweeting on early Sunday morning:

My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci

Now, this was a fascinating experiment in some ways because the Left had to choose whether to be primarily angry that he was mocking the high priest Fauci, OR that he was mocking LGBT dogma. Now, they can be angry about both of course, they can be angry about many things all at once—t’s perhaps their only skill: juggling multiple outrages—but the ensuing outrage cycle would have to revolve around one of the other because that’s the way outrage cycles work, and it’s no surprise tha the LGBT desecration is what attracted the most ire, because on the Left, Fauci is a high priest, but LGBT people are deities, so even HE must take a back seat in this kind of situation.

There are many furious responses accusing Musk of transphobia and homophobia and so on because he was making fun of the pronoun stuff - one of the responses drew an additional reply from Musk himself. Former astronaut Scott Kelly posted:

.@elonmusk Elon, please don’t mock and promote hate toward already marginalized and at-risk-of-violence members of the #LGBTQ+ community. They are real people with real feelings. Furthermore, Dr Fauci is a dedicated public servant whose sole motivation was saving lives.

And to that, Musk replied:

I strongly disagree. Forcing your pronouns upon others when they didn’t ask, and implicitly ostracizing those who don’t, is neither good nor kind to anyone.

As for Fauci, he lied to Congress and funded gain-of-function research that killed millions of people. Not awesome imo.

Not awesome indeed. As for the rest of this, I think there are two important points as we’re having a national discourse on pronouns. First: contrary to Scott Kelly’s claims LGBT people are not in the slightest bit marginalized. They are in fact the least marginalized people in the history of the human race. I don’t think that there’s ever been a demographic, a group of people, a “community” that has been less marginalized than LGBT people in modern America. And I can justify that based on the fact that when you compare their percentages in the population to their influence, and their representation in the culture, and the over-the-top adulation they receive, you quickly see that they belong to a VERY unique category. Entire months on the calendar are devoted to celebrating them.

When’s the last time a marginalized group in society had a MONTH to themselves? Not just ONE month, but months and then weeks after that and multiple days? They have their own flags which are draped all over schools and government buildings; every major corporation bows at their feet; celebrities go out of their way to identify themselves as of this club. People are desperate to be a PART of this marginalized community, so-called. And it’s not because everyone likes to be marginalized, that’s not the case - throughout history, what you find is when it comes to actually oppressed and marginalized groups in history, if anything, people are trying present themselves as though they’re NOT a part of that group even if they are because they don’t want to be marginalized and oppressed. So why is everyone clamoring to be a PART of this marginalized group, is because everyone knows that the marginalization claim is total nonsense.

Click here for Part 1.

Now, there are a few points here that I think are worth making. First, of course the story of Thanksgiving that we tell our children, or used to tell them, is simplified. That’s because young children are only capable of understanding simple concepts - you give them the simple version first, and then over time, you build on it, adding layers of complexity. And in fact, the Left AGREES with this, which is why they haven’t actually set out to give children a more complex or nuanced understanding of the European settlement of the New world - instead, they’ve replaced one simplified story, with a different, even MORE simplified story. It’s just been simplified in the other direction. So the popular and simplified myth now—told not just to children, but hammered into everybody’s head—is a story of evil barbaric white people who came here and just immediately carried out a genocide against peaceful Indians, who never did a single thing to provoke or deserve ANY of the violence visited upon them. This is the story we’re supposed to believe now. It is the NEW founding myth of America.

You know, every nation has its founding myth, right? Usually the myths are designed to instill pride and patriotism and gratitude. And yes, they’re not always 100% accurate, but people in other cultures and in other countries don’t spend time debunking, “Well, that’s not exactly how it happened! They wouldn’t have been dressed like that!” Getting the wardrobe details right is not the point of the story. A lot of times, the point is again to instill pride, patriotism, and gratitude. But our NEW founding myth is designed instead to instill resentment and guilt and shame. The Modern Western World is the only civilization that I’m aware of that LIES to itself about its own history and founding in order to make itself seem worse.

Second, as I’ve pointed out in the past, the claim that we stole land from some group called “Native Americans” or “indigenous people” is incoherent - there never was any homogeneous group of natives occupying this land before the settlers got here. It’s not like the whole country was occupied by this one group that we would call Native Americans. There were, rather, disparate and warring tribes that waged wars of conquest and extermination against each other and have been doing so for centuries before we arrived. The ACLU says that we’re on native land, but whose land exactly? I mean, which natives? The ones who were most recently occupying the land when white people showed up, or the ones who those natives stole it from? Or the natives who the natives it was stolen from stole it from? Or the natives who had it before that, etc.? You have to be more specific. But you CAN’T be more specific because there is no coherent chain of custody for this allegedly stolen land. There was, for thousands of years rather, only the law of conquest, which is a law that all people lived by and died by. That doesn’t make it right, doesn’t make it wrong, it just makes it what it is, what it was. It simply means that it doesn’t make any sense to try and identify special victims of conquest, because every conquered people were conquerERS before they were conquered. So, there are winners and losers in such a system. This is the distinction. The Left wants nuance? Well here it is.

In a world governed by the law of conquest—which is how the whole world was governed for thousands of years—there are winners and losers, but it is much harder to identify villains and victims. By the law of the land at the time, it’s hard to make villains out of Indian tribes that, for example, massacred settlements. That’s just how it worked, and the settlements were on land that those Indian tribes wanted, or felt that they had a right to. But it’s also hard to make villains out of the settlers who responded in KIND to that sort of aggression. Again, it’s the way the world worked. We can only be grateful that we do not live in times nearly as harsh or unforgiving as that. And we CAN and should be grateful to our ancestors who GAVE us the comfortable luxurious lives that we lead. Modern people love to feast at the banquet of western civilization while still whining about the people who provided the banquet, and judging them for doing what they had to do in order to provide it. But you notice that none of these people are leaving the banquet - they’re still shoving their fat ungrateful faces.

Third, and this is the point that I most wanted to drive home, and it is this: I am a Native American, and so are most of you reading this. And I don’t mean that in the Elizabeth Warren sense, I’m not claiming 1/1000 Comanche blood or whatever. I’m saying that I was born here, I am a citizen and therefore, I am a native. I am a native to this country, and I am an American, therefore I am Native American. Now, that’s a title that we really need to start using correctly. ANY legal citizen born in this country is native TO it, and thus is a Native American. We have no trouble recognizing this when it comes to STATE citizenship. Now, if i told you that I was a native New Yorker because I was born in New York, nobody would have any problem with that. I am native to New York because I was BORN there. And yet, somehow, we have this idea that I can be native to New York—again, something no one would dispute—a native New Yorker, and yet, not native to the country that New York is part of? So I can say I’m a native New Yorker, but I cannot say I’m a Native American, because that title, “native to the country,” is reserved for a VERY specific group of people, to a special victim group, because they were here “originally”, we’re told.

But they weren’t, because if you trace it back far enough, every person who has ever LIVED on this side of the world is originally from the other side of it. NOBODY is native here in the absolute sense. We are all descended from foreign nomads, ALL of us. And yet, my ancestors came here, just as the ancestors of those we call indigenous came here, and my ancestors fought for this land and conquered it, just as the so-called indigenous had done before them. And then I was born, and this is my country, this is my home. It is my native land, and I’m proud of that, and I apologize to no one for it.

Click here for Part 2.

As we head into December, we’re gonna start hearing more about the war on Christmas. But before the focus shifts in that direction, it’s worth noting the much more direct and intense war being waged on the holiday that we just celebrated, which is Thanksgiving. The war on Thanksgiving has been waging for years now as the cultural powers that be attempt to turn a time of gratitude and celebration into an occasion for guilt and recrimination. Now, we know that these forces seek to destroy all traditions passed to us by our ancestors, and this is the primary issue they have with Christmas too—with every holiday that they themselves didn’t invent—is that it’s a tradition passed to us our ancestors, and so they hate it reflexively. But Thanksgiving, like Columbus Day, is especially egregious in their eyes because it harkens back to the European conquest of North America, which is a historical even that these days is supposed to provoke nothing but grief and lamentation. In fact, for years, the Left has literally tried to literally rebrand Thanksgiving as Un-Thanksgiving, or as it’s called in some quarters now, Thanksgiving is a National Day of Mourning, in recognition of course of the alleged atrocities carried out against indigenous people by white settlers.

This was the message that the Left tried to send again this past Thanksgiving, many taking the opportunity to post on social media with messages like this from journalist Walter Bragman:

While giving thanks and celebrating the holiday, remember it is a national day of mourning for Native Americans that marks generations of broken promises and oppression.

It is important to recognize that legacy as we grapple with a resurgent fascist movement.

Solidarity forever

Say it with me: The United States carried out a genocide against this continent’s indigenous people and it served as a blueprint for future monsters.

A writer named Simon Moya-Smith agreed, posting:

Today is the National Day of Mourning for Indigenous peoples all across this land. We also call it “Un-thanksgiving.” On this day, we as Natives celebrate our resiliency & that we are still here. The U.S. tried to kill every Indigenous man, woman, and child…but we’re still here.

And there were also acts of protest around the country, like in Chicago, as The New York Post reports:

For the second time in under two months, a statue dedicated to former President Abraham Lincoln statue was defaced in Chicago.

On Thanksgiving, a statue of a young Abraham Lincoln in Senn Park in Chicago’s Edgewater neighborhood was found covered in splotches of red paint along with the words “COLONIZER” and “LAND BACK,” the Chicago Tribune reported.

According to the outlet, the statue also had “Dakota 38” written on it, in reference to the Dakota Sioux members who Lincoln ordered to be executed following the Dakota War of 1862.

Well, it’s a good thing that there aren’t any injustices happening in the world today right now, which frees us up to protest injustices from 150 years ago. That is quite a nice luxury, I must say. There may be even something to be thankful for, I don’t know - just not on Thanksgiving, as the holiday is simply to “complicated” now. It’s “complicated”.

This indeed has become the media’s favorite term to describe Thanksgiving, with many outlets bringing in Native American activists to talk about the emotional complexities surrounding what we all once thought was a simple and wholesome holiday, but it’s not anymore, because it’s just complicated. Watch:

NEWS ANCHOR: “Thanksgiving, originally celebrated [as] a harvest feast shared by Native Americans and English colonists, but as Fox 43’s Harry Lee explains, the holiday can bring out different emotions for indigenous people”

HARRY LEE: “For many Americans, Thanksgiving means gathering with family to eat a large meal together. For Native Americans, the holiday isn’t so simple.”

FRANK LITTLEBEAR: “A lot of people in the indigenous communities do want to look at this as the time of mourning because they see, you know, just what we have lost.”

HARRY: “After Europeans colonized North America, many Native colonies were decimated by disease, famine, and displacement. Frank Littlebear of the Plains Cree Nation explains though that the many tribes and families of indigenous communities now celebrate Thanksgiving in different ways. He points out Fall was always a season of thanks.”

FRANK: “It actually started in October, a time of, you know, receiving the harvest of, like, the Three Sisters: the corn, bean, squash, um, deer, things like that, and really preparing for Winter, so it was actually a time of celebration.”

HARRY: “As for the elementary school depictions of the first Thanksgiving, which often depict Puritan English and Wompanoag tribe members inaccurately dressed in western plains attire…”

FRANK: “I think, yeah, there’s certain things that they could probably do better.”

HARRY: “Littlebear says it’s still important to build a connection to Native American culture from a young age.”

FRANK: “It’s a building process that’s it gonna happen overnight.”

“Build a connection to Native American culture,” that’s what Thanksgiving’s all about. Meanwhile, the ACLU tried the repetition technique, posting on Thanksgiving morning, in all caps:

*YOU ARE ON NATIVE LAND.

YOU ARE ON NATIVE LAND. YOU ARE ON NATIVE LAND. YOU ARE ON NATIVE LAND. YOU ARE ON NATIVE LAND. YOU ARE ON NATIVE LAND. YOU ARE ON NATIVE LAND. YOU ARE ON NATIVE LAND. YOU ARE ON NATIVE LAND. YOU ARE ON NATIVE LAND.*

Unfortunately, they only repeated the phrase ten times. If they could’ve squeezed in that 11th time, I may have been convinced, but they only got to ten.

Click here for part 1

Click here for part 2

Third, all of that said, there is one place at least where the Republican Party has a message and knows how to communicate it, and as we already covered, that place is Florida. In fact, Ron DeSantis conveyed that message very concisely I think during his victory speech last night:

”We have embraced freedom, we have maintained law and order, we have protected the rights of parents, we have respected our taxpayers, and we reject woke ideology. We fight the woke in the legislature. We fight the woke in the schools. We fight the woke in the corporations. We will never ever surrender to the woke mob - Florida is where woke goes to die.”

Now, these election results are shaking out in such a way as to guarantee that both parties learn exactly the wrong lessons. Democrats will decide that losing by less than expected counts as a historic paradigm shifting victory, and they will proceed to double down on left-wing radicalism. Republicans on the other hand will likely determine that they lost because they leaned too heavily into the culture war. They’ll decide that they should simply stick to talking about taxes and leave it at that because that’s what they learn after every election. But Florida proves both assumptions wrong. You heard it there in his speech. Ron DeSantis ran on, and governed on, a commitment to freedom, law and order, the rights of parents, opposing leftist indoctrination in education, and rejecting some ideology wholesale. On that final point, he is one of a few Republicans who made gender ideology, especially as it targets kids, into a central campaign issue, and do you know what those few Republicans all have in common? They won, and they won BIG.

Ron DeSantis fights the culture war - he fights it boldly, and he fights it not with speeches, but with law and policy, and he wins. He doesn’t just win, he flipped deep blue parts of his state red with his strategy. He took entire Democrat voting blocks away from them. He won the Latino vote - and not by pandering, but with a cultural family first message. And it turns out that’s what Latino voters are looking for. Many of them live in multigenerational households. They value family. So, they don’t need to hear Latin-X; and they don’t want to hear the LGBT; they don’t want to hear about that. They want to hear about the rights of parents protecting kids. That’s what many Americans want to hear about. DeSantis is perceived as the governor most invested in the culture war—and most willing to fight it—and this was the result. And on top of that, he is simply an effective and competent governor in a country that has too few of them. And you need to have both of those, because you can’t just talk about cultural issues and all of that, you also have to govern. He does both. The common thread connecting the underperforming is that most of them, not all, MOST of them were empty vessels with no coherent vision or message. And despite of what you’ll hear from in the coming weeks, they mostly shied AWAY from the cultural issues, or they were too busy sucking up to Donald Trump, thinking that that would bring them over to the finish line.

And that brings me to my final point, which is that we can whine and cry about this, and throw up our hands in defeat, and that’s it. Or we can see this as an opportunity, because again, neither party has a mandate; neither party came away with a landslide victory on a national scale; the voters, as I said at the top, are listless, confused, apathetic, uninspired; they’re looking for leadership, for a message, for something and someone to rally behind. Are we gonna give that to them or not?