Starve the Woke-corporation beast this holiday season.
Consumer Watchdog Lists 5 ‘Woke’ Companies to Avoid During Holiday Buying
Consumers’ Research issued a “Woke Alert” on Tuesday warning Americans not to buy from five prominent businesses in the country this holiday season.
The consumer watchdog listed Best Buy, Activision, Target, Nordstrom, and Home Depot as the firms to avoid while shopping. “These five companies went Woke, and now they’re vying for your business on Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Keep these companies’ woke antics in mind when you’re shopping for deals,” Consumers’ Research said. It advised people to “tell these companies to stop their woke ways.”
Follows, the naming of names, along with a brief summary of each PC retailer’s multiple offenses against decency, common sense, and Whypeepuh: Best Buy’s discriminatory restriction of its management-training program to non-caucasians only; Activision for same; Tarzhay you’ll doubtless be familiar with by now. The last two I hadn’t heard about before.
Luxury store chain Nordstrom is affiliated with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which runs the “Welcoming School Program.”
The program aims to “create LGBTQ+ and gender inclusive schools, prevent bias-based bullying, and support transgender and non-binary students.” HRC gives Nordstrom a 100/100 score for its promotion of LGBT policies at the workplace.
Over the past years, Nordstrom has donated almost $1 million to support LGBT activities. It has taken part in over 35 Pride festivals and parades across the nation.
Home Depot has also teamed up with HRC for the Welcoming Schools Program, which Consumers’ Research says is “specifically geared towards indoctrinating schools on how to promote LGBT ideology among vulnerable students under the guise of ‘inclusivity.’”
Sheesh. One wonders what, if anything, selling plywood sheets, 2x4s, hand tools, and assorted hardware has to do with LGBTQXR1369SKNXXX ideology. Which uncertainty, apparently, would reveal oneself as evil, unevolved, and not fit to walk around free amongst one’s ethical and intellectual betters.
Whatever happened to simply offering quality merchandise to interested customers at reasonable prices, your wares displayed in clean, well-organized stores staffed by courteous and competent personnel, pray tell? At what point did pimping the Progressivist ideological agenda become the most important part of your corporate mission? Do you malignant dickweeds actually believe your customers want you:
When did operating a chain of retail outlets become morally objectionable, the center of corporate focus shifted to political posturing rather than simply turning a profit for its shareholders? Has giving consumers value for their hard-earned money really become just très, très passé? Do you think your preaching, hectoring, and supercilious Woke-itude enhances the shopping experience for your customer base? Are you so deluded, so blissfully stoned-out on primo Leftist dope, that you seriously imagine the average customer has no choice but to buy from you and not your competitors?
Exactly what business do you shitheel CEOs think you’re in nowadays, anyway?
Update! Home Depot’s co-founder has to be quite displeased with the dark, dismal turn his former company has taken.
At 94, Home Depot Co-Founder Explains Why He’s ‘Never Been More Frightened for This Country’
“If you look at what’s going on around you, you know that we’re falling apart. Our economy is falling apart,” he told an audience in Palm Beach, Florida during an event for Job Creators Network, which he founded 10 years ago.
“I get up every morning, I swear to God, and I say, ‘what the hell is [President Biden] going to do today to kill our country? And he never fails to disappoint me. Something always happens every day that makes this country weaker, not stronger,” Marcus added.
He explained how different America was when he started Home Depot. Of course it was challenging, but the world then allowed them to succeed. Now, small businesses are being crushed by inflation.
Marcus called on all those in attendance to do everything possible to save the free market from socialism—because under such a system, small businesses “will not survive.”
Marcus said going back to the “old America” is key, which is in line with his recent endorsement of former President Trump as the right man for the job.
“We have to go back. Trump was right,” he said. “We have to clean the place out. And we need someone who’s going to have a lot of cojones to do it.”
A lot of cojones—and Level IV body armor, and armed security teams, and constant head-on-a-swivel SA, among other things.
This must be some of that “genocide” they’re always caterwauling about, one presumes.
3 Of The Trans People Eulogized By Biden Admin Died Attacking Innocent Strangers
President Joe Biden’s White House celebrated Transgender Remembrance Day on Monday by lamenting the deaths of 26 transgender-identifying Americans, at least three of whom were shot and killed while committing a crime or tangling with law enforcement.
“We must never be silent in the face of hate,” the official White House statement published on Monday reads. “As we mourn the loss of transgender Americans taken too soon this year, we must also recommit ourselves to never stop fighting until all Americans can live free from discrimination.”
During a press briefing on Monday, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre emphasized that these “victims are disproportionately black women and women of color.”
SO. Prone to violence and hysteria, poor/no impulse control, and mentally deranged, then. Gotcha.
The White House paints the 26 transgender people as victims whose deaths were tragedies linked to their gender identity. Several family members of the deceased even called the deaths the result of “targeted shootings,” but none of their accounts or the reports on their loved one’s death produced a direct link between the fatal violence and the transphobia the White House claims has gripped the nation.
While several of the 26 people listed died in hit-and-runs, shootings, and domestic violence that plague cities all across the U.S., at least three were killed while committing acts of violence.
SO? You Whypeepuh cis-het breeder scum made ‘em do it, it’s all YOUR fault. Follows, the list of the three, which I didn’t bother to read because who cares.
Would anyone like to explain to me again why we should think of these subhumans as our “countrymen,” rather than as what they actually are: our enemies?
Osama bin Laden’s infamous ‘Letter to America’ after 9/11 promoted by TikTok influencers, goes viral
Others on social media are promoting the terrorist’s justification of attacks on the U.S., antisemitic rhetoric
A TikTok influencer went viral this week for promoting Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to America.”
Online personality and pro-Palestinian activist Lynette Adkins urged her over 175,000 TikTok followers on Tuesday to read the words of the terrorist mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.
“I need everyone to stop what they’re doing right now and go read- It’s literally two pages. Go read ‘A Letter to America,” Adkins said the video. “And please come back here and just let me know what you think because I feel like I’m going through, like, an existential crisis right now and a lot of people are, so I just need someone else to be feeling this.”
Her video received roughly 800,000 views and over 80,000 likes on TikTok.
So there it is then, in plain, black and white numbers: 800k (at least) “people” who very much need to be, umm, removed, shall we say, without further ado before we can call this a truly civilized country again.
Update! Megyn Kelly, smokin’ hot as always (in more than just the obvious way), puts it to ‘em straight.
To the parents of all of these losers suddenly persuaded by the deranged musings of the man who murdered 3k American innocents: you failed. You were likely boozing, marching for some L-wing cause and/or simply ignoring your kids. You failed to teach wrong from right, a proper…
— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) November 16, 2023
Said a mouthful there, girlfriend.
…and, being a pluperfect, Mark-1 Mod-0 example of what our blog-bud JJ Sefton aptly dubbed “self-gassing Jews,” is scrupulously careful to make sure that he learns absolutely nothing whatsoever else.
I’m a Jew at ‘The Guardian.’ I Don’t Feel Safe at Work.
An anonymous employee describes the hostile environment at Britain’s foremost left-leaning newspaper.
I wake up on October 7 to a text from my brother-in-law: “Thoughts are with your family in Israel. I hope everyone is safe.”
I check the news. Hamas has entered southern Israel. They’re in a kibbutz. My partner’s family is in that kibbutz. His cousin is nine months pregnant. He’s in contact with them; they’re in the safe room. Terrorists are outside.
I check social media. Reports of hostages, maybe three. I check again; perhaps ten.
There has been a massacre at a music festival. I look at the video. Who do I know there? I check social media again; there are videos of hostages. I look at their faces. Do I know them?
We lose contact with family in the kibbutz. I tell myself that the phone lines are down because the IDF are there. I watch Hamas footage as it is coming out. I go on Telegram for the first time in my life and I see a room full of bodies covered in blood. I see children gunned down. I see the bodies of raped women. I see families holding each other as Hamas livestreams atrocities. I look for people I might know.
I look at the papers the next day. The newspaper I work for has a tank on the front page: ‘Hundreds die and hostages held as Hamas assault shocks Israel’—victorious terrorists hold a Palestinian flag. The subheading reads ‘Netanyahu declares war as 150 Israelis die. 230 Palestinians killed in air strikes.’
I don’t understand. I know people, Israelis, who were murdered. They did not “die,” as if in some kind of accident. I saw footage of terrorism. It was not an “assault.”
On Sunday, we get more information about what happened to my partner’s family, about how Hamas set the family’s house on fire when they thought it was empty, how my partner’s cousin screamed for her life when the room filled with smoke, how her husband had to pin her down to stop her cries, how Hamas laughed when they realized the family would need to crawl out of the room, how they refused to leave the burning building. We hear that they somehow survived and walked out through pools of their neighbors’ blood, pieces of dead children littering the street; kids who’d been playing on a Saturday morning.
My group chats are exploding as family and friends work out what has been happening, who is alive. I go back to the news. I type the name of the kibbutz into the wires. Nothing. I read how Hamas invaded “settlements.” They’re not settlements! They’re small, pre-state kibbutzim.
I find out that a friend of a friend was at the music festival and is missing. I’m shaking at work.
I see a colleague who had posted about “decolonization” all over social media over the weekend. They’re laughing with the rest of their team. They’re having a great day. I used to love their podcast, full of hot takes and celeb gossip. Now they’ve evolved into an expert on the Middle East. It doesn’t look like their family is in the middle of it, though.
No one else at work speaks to me about it. I nod my way through conversations about fonts and I stumble home.
I go back the next day. I look at the front page. A photo of Gaza and “violence escalates.” Israelis “dead” but Palestinians “killed.” If they can’t empathize with the Jews now, they never will.
Hate to be the one to break it to you, schmendrick, but guess what: they never will. Nor will any but the tiniest handful of left-wing ((((JoojoojooJOOOOOOOZ!!!)))) learn, either. Too uncomfortable a truth for any diehard shitlib to ever even consider taking on board, see. Better get used to it, at least until you and yours somehow scrape up the stones to finally remove those tired, worn-out old ideological/intellectual knickers and try a new pair on for size. We won’t be holding our breaths for that, I’m afraid. Until then, it will remain as Ace says:
“If I just repeat the leftwing mantra that will protect me from their hatred.”
Can I see your ticket, sir? Yes, I see; your ticket is in order.
The trouble is, sir, that this ticket proves that you bought the ticket, and now you’ll have to take the ride.
I know: How could you have foreseen this? Socialists and communists are never antisemitic, never ever!
Pretty much, yeah.
How ANY self-respecting person of Jewish descent could even dream of aligning himself with the Left-wing religious creed—much less a solid majority of them—is way beyond me. Yet somehow…well, here we all are, as we have been for years.
The only surprising thing is how unsurprising it all is.
Some interesting sidenotes to Larry Sinclair’s tale of sex and drugs with Obama
Last night, Tucker Carlson released his interview with Larry Sinclair, the man who alleges that, in 1999, while in Chicago, he did cocaine with Obama (who preferred to smoke his) and then performed oral sex on Obama. This is a tale that Sinclair has told before. It’s worth noting because it reminds us of the partnership between the media and the Democrat party. There were also some interesting details about big tech and a strange death (or maybe a few strange deaths).
There were two interesting parts of the interview with which I was not familiar. The first was Sinclair’s discussion about how the media and big tech went after him. Some media outlets lied about Sinclair’s criminal history (which he’d been quite open about in the YouTube video he originally made), grossly exaggerating it, and then dismissed him as a criminal and a crackpot.
Others blacked out the story after the Obama campaign said that, if they reported on it, the campaign would blacklist them. They chose access over investigative reporting and honesty. They also chose it over national security. After all, a president with a secret life of drugs and gay sex is perfectly situated to be blackmailed, with huge national security consequences. But for the national political media, getting a black man into the White House was more important than America’s well-being and safety.
Sorry, Andrea, not quite: it was more important to get a neo-Communist, hard Left black man who, because of his fraught and decidedly sketchy history and/or personal inclinations, could be easily manipulated and controlled by the real Power in Mordor on the Potomac.
The second interesting thing was Sinclair explaining how, in late 2007, he reached out to the Obama campaign suggesting that the campaign stop telling all sorts of conflicting stories about Obama’s drug use. The campaign, he said, should just admit that Obama was still using drugs at least as late as 1999. Sinclair didn’t hear back from the campaign. Instead, he heard from Donald Young, who explained that the campaign wouldn’t acknowledge any sex or drug stories about Obama.
According to Sinclair, Young eventually told him that he was the gay choirmaster at the Reverend Wright’s church, the one where Obama sat in the pews for 20 years as Wright blasted America. He also said that he had a long-term “intimate” relationship with Obama. Not long after that, Young was murdered in his apartment. Young’s mother believes that it was to silence him (according to Sinclair).
Curious about this, I searched Young’s name on the internet and stumbled across an anti-Obama article from 2009. According to this article, Young was one of three gay men in Wright’s congregation who were executed within less than two months of each other. The local media suspected a gay killing rampage. However, the 2009 article suggests that they were killed because it’s possible that all three, not just Young, could have talked about Obama.
That’s conspiracy theory stuff, but if true, it would also answer a question I’ve always asked myself: If Obama was indeed having gay sex in Chicago, how was it that only one person talked? Can that many people really keep a secret? Well, they could if those who knew were getting knocked off. Then, it’s very likely that others would discover the virtue of silence.
Well, duh. Andrea Widburg, among many others, really ought to take a moment to reflect on just how many times in the last few years what she blithely dismisses as so-called “conspiracy theory stuff” has turned out—UNEXPECTED!™—to be perfectly true and accurate. As for Tucker, I’ve said it before and will say it again: he very much needs to keep his head on a swivel, checking his six 24-7-365, lest sooner or later, one way or another, he gets himself well and truly got.
My old friend Jesse Malin spells out where we now are in Amerika v2.0, right down to the name of his band.
Yep, we’re living in D-generation Nation for sure and certain, and there’s no way out. No easy, non-violent way, at any rate.
The indecipherable yet ineluctable twisting and turning of the irrational hoplophobic mind.
Frequently Debunked Crackpots Claim the AR-15 is Worthless for Self-Defense
When the young paste-eaters at Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun propaganda factory, known as the Trace, team up with the stodgy window-lickers at the Gun Violence Archive to produce a story about the utility of the AR-15 platform as a modern self-defense tool, it’s hard not to get too excited.
It’s like watching two freight trains headed toward each other on the same track. You know the results are going to be cataclysmic. None of these halfwits have ever heard a shot fired, much less one fired in anger, or especially one fired to good effect. They know less about what makes a reliable home defense weapon than I do about man-buns, skinny jeans, or avocado toast.
We have debunked the Trace and the Gun Violence Archive so often it’s getting old. The kids at the Trace masquerade as legitimate journalists when, in fact, they’re nothing more than highly paid anti-gun activists. The GVA purports to track gun crimes and maintain a list of mass shootings, but their data is collected from media, and even social media sources, and their stats are so inflated they’d have you believe a mass shooting occurs nearly every time someone draws from a holster. When the two anti-gun nonprofits combine for a story, it’s bound to be something as bereft of facts as it is poorly written, and to that standard, their most recent collaboration does not disappoint.
A story published Tuesday asks: “How Often Are AR-Style Rifles Used for Self-Defense? Supporters of AR-15s, often used in mass shootings and racist attacks, say they’re important for self-defense. Our analysis of Gun Violence Archive data suggests otherwise.”
Don’t give a fart in a whirlwind what your ginned-up, jerry-rigged “data” does or does not suggest. My God-given rights, as codified in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, are not up for negotiation, nor will they ever be. I like my AR, I intend to keep it, and I care not one iota whether it’s practical as a self-defense weapon or is as useless as teats on a boar-hog. That’s flat; end of discussion, no more to be said. You can’t bear the idea of me having it, you just come ahead on and try to take it from me, then. FREE ADVICE: bring help. Level III body armor might be a pretty good idea, too.
As Mr Williams points out, the writer of Tuesday’s “published story” arrived at her conclusions via data glommed off her gungrabber sob-sisters at Herr Bloomberg’s GVA, which ludicrous tag-team circle-jerkery amuses me no end. As if any gun person in existence would ponder this meticulous, scrupulously impartial and honest “analysis” and freely decide he needed to shitcan his AR, so as to improve his ability to defend himself and his family using some other alternative.
More “as ifs”:
As Williams says, we’re talking about people who have not only never heard a shot fired, they’ve probably never so much as even been in the same room with a gun, and are totally ignorant about them. In fact, the one and only thing they DO know about guns is that they don’t like them, and wish they would all just go away. Yet somehow this footling, cowardly neurosis translates into blanket moral authorization to trample the rights of more mentally balanced, less hysterical sorts.
So yeah, go piss up a rope, shitlib hoplophobes. I repeat: stop flapping your yaps and just come take ‘em already. Let’s see how that works out for ya in the end.
Without asking if we were ready for it, nor even if we wanted the damned thing. But then, war has a longstanding habit of doing things like that.
Trans Days of Violence
Gender ideology + violence = terrorism.
One month ago a heavily-armed, 28-yr-old female named Audrey Elizabeth Hale, who identified as a transgender male, literally shot her way into a Nashville private Christian grade school called Covenant and murdered three nine-year-old students and three adults before police terminated her and her rampage.
Hale left a manifesto reportedly detailing her motivation, the contents of which the FBI is still protecting. Joseph Giacalone, former police officer and adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, believes authorities are not releasing the manifesto because there may be “something in there that is truly damaging for the transgender community.” Does the manifesto explode the narrative that the Left wants so desperately to maintain: that trans people are the victims of genocidal bigotry and not a threat to anyone? The narrative that the real domestic terror threat in America is Trump supporters and Tucker Carlson viewers?
Something called the Trans Resistance Network in Massachusetts, for example, released a statement on the Covenant school shooting stating that life for “transgender people is very difficult” due to “anti-trans legislation” and “right wing personalities.” The group also painted a sympathetic picture of shooter Hale as a “complex tragedy” who felt she “had no other effective way to be seen than to lash out by taking the life of others.”
No other way to be seen than to kill nine-year-olds? There is no one more visible in America today than a trans activist. They are celebrated in the culture, lauded as trailblazing heroes, and given every platform from the daytime gabfest The View to the White House itself. It is a grotesque lie and sick rationalization to claim that Audrey Hale had no other way to be “seen” than to shoot innocents dead – and furthermore, to claim that the trans community is marginalized and endangered.
NBC ran a story with the headline, “Fear pervades Tennessee’s trans community amid focus on Nashville shooter’s gender identity: ‘We were already fearing for our lives. Now, it’s even worse.’” As Federalist editor Mollie Hemingway put it on Twitter, “Gee, you’d think heavily armed Christian children were hunting down trans activists instead of the other way around.”
More examples of violent rhetoric from gender ideologues: the e-commerce site Etsy allows a significant number of shops to sell trans- and nonbinary-themed items threatening violence.
“Armed queers bash back,” reads a “Pride” flag with a picture of an AK-47.
“Respect my pronouns or yours will be was/were,” reads a sweatshirt.
One t-shirt pictures three daggers along with the words “Protect Trans Kids.”
“Respect gender pronouns or I will identify as a problem,” reads one sticker. Another one reads, “Respect my pronouns or die by my sword.”
“We’re here. We’re queer. I have a brick,” reads another shirt.
These are not vows of self-defense against a legitimate violent threat, but violent threats themselves against someone who might merely “misgender” a trans person. These are public warnings that if you fail to participate in or celebrate this gender delusion, or simply get someone’s “personal pronouns” wrong, some trans people are willing to kill you.
These are not the expressions of a community “living in fear,” but of thugs looking for an excuse to commit murder and mayhem – and confident that the media will circle the wagons around them, and the police will suppress information about their motivation, if they do.
As the Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh tweeted recently, “Always remember what happened at the Covenant School. Remember what happened to those innocent victims, to those children. We are facing a truly demonic evil. Never forget that.”
It is a truly demonic evil, and it’s time to call it like it is: terrorism.
Oh, I’d say it’s time, and past time, that this evil was dealt with by much harsher measures than just calling it names. This, and all too many other evils along with it. But maybe that’s just me; as I always say, your mileage may certainly vary.
Did somebody say “evil” just now? Why yes; yes, somebody did.
You’re a pedophile. pic.twitter.com/k00rWKQ7w6
— Nicole Solas Domestic Terrorist! (@Nicoletta0602)
“We’re here, we’re queer, I have a brick”? Sorry, love, gonna take something a bit more, umm, stout than mere bricks to deal with all the things Our Side has in store for ya, once we’ve been pushed hard enough to finally break ‘em out. You and yours really, really need to think about that some, before it’s too late.
That would be shitlibs, whose endless, depthless misery is just begging to be shared with the entire world.
From the ‘Everything Enjoyable Is Bad for You’ Files: New Car Smell Gives You Cancer
The famed fictional advertising wizard Don Draper said it in Mad Men: “You know what happiness is? Happiness is the smell of a new car.” But that TV series was a long time ago and the time it depicts even farther from ours. Now we live in a sadder, more fragile age, in which even the smallest pleasures are to be denied us. The new car smell is no longer the smell of happiness; it is the stench of cancer, decay, and death. Welcome, Don Draper, to the enlightened twenty-first century.
The UK’s Daily Mail reported Friday that a new study has made a grim discovery: “The much-loved smell of a new car is caused by cancer-causing chemicals.” Well, of course! What pleasure, large or small, hasn’t been touched by the Left’s obsession with doom? Take weather reports. On warm, sunny days even just a few years ago, TV weather maps were green and pleasant, studded with images of smiling suns and blooming flowers. Now, for exactly the same temperatures, they are full of oranges and reds and images of extreme heat, working hard to sell climate change hysteria.
Major sports have not only been thoroughly politicized, but they have also become the vehicles for the same buzz-killing hysteria. Were you excited about the beginning of a new baseball season? Not so fast: AccuWeather wanted you to know that “MLB season is here: Experts warn lightning is a danger at games.” Now, maybe it really was true that “upwards of 90% of the lightning that happens in the United States, specifically the lower 48, occurs during baseball season,” but life is fraught with risks. Do the guardians of acceptable opinion want us to live in fear, cowering in terror at the prospect of a sunny day and forgoing a happy outing to a baseball game for fear of being struck by lightning? Why, yes. Yes, they do.
In line with the overall atmosphere of fear and gloom, the Daily Mail explains that “a cocktail of leather and plastics creates a gasoline-like odor which becomes more intense in the heat — due to an increase in energy available to odor-causing molecules.” And so if you’re enjoying your brand new car, pull over, stop, and get out of the vehicle. Quickly: “Sitting for just 30 minutes every day in a car exposes you to dangerous levels of carcinogens formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. These chemicals are linked to myeloid leukemia and rare cancers such as in the nose.” And so one day soon, when you step into your new electric car, you may find that the fabled new car smell has been relegated to the odiferous dustbin of history.
OH NOOOES WE’RE ALL GONNA DIIIIEEE!!!, they all ree-ree-reeeed. Which, to me, amounts to the best imaginable argument that, instead of wallowing in pointless agony along with the killjoys of the Gehenna-obsessed Left, we should all strive to wring every last ounce of enjoyment and happiness out of every single day that we possibly can.
And yet the weak, weepy Sad Sacks wonder why any intelligent person would reject the idea of living like they do. As if their neverending search for new sources of anguish, new and ever-more-fearful threats to life and limb, acts as some kind of lure and/or enticement to join them in their misery. As if the sound of kvelling, kvetching, and complaining rings at all appealing in our ears.
Sorry, idiots, not even slightly tempted over here. Life’s tough enough as it is, without your pathetic ilk going well out of your way to make it worse.
All just slices of the same nasty, unappetizing pie.
It’s Turtles All the Way Down
The trans crisis is the vax crisis and all the other crises, too. You can’t talk about one piece but not another piece.
The problem is, every crisis is the same crisis, and the trans crisis is the COVID-19 crisis: the same arguments from authority, the same gaslighting, the same strawmanning, the same bad faith, the same coercion, the same attack on family structure. Remember this, the argument from California legislators that it’s OK for children to go get the mRNA vaccines without parental knowledge or consent because they can already do the same with abortions and birth control?
So you have to get the vaccine for your child, or you’re a murderer, because the experts say, and you have to get top surgery and hormones for your child, or you’re a murderer, because the experts say, and all objections are inescapably monstrous. The vaccines are safe and effective, and gender-affirming care is lifesaving medical treatment. Trust the science and comply. We can take bets on how many years it takes to see the first “we should have an amnesty for the proponents of transgender surgery for children” article.
The assault on the body is the assault on the body. The assault on the family is the assault on the family. The medicalization of social reality is stretching out to touch bigger and bigger pieces of your life. Take the pill, bigot, and we’ll shove the other one down your child’s throat for you. You know, for your health.
You can’t talk about one piece but not another piece. The crisis is the crisis. It’s a crisis of “reality debt,” of the increasingly absurd rule by experts, and of the endless recourse to narrative-making maneuvers that reconstruct reality on unsustainable ideological models. Above all, it’s a manufactured crisis that has instrumental force, suggesting over and over again that family is atavistic and an impediment to a healthy society. Consider the possibility that people who keep telling you how much they hate the family mean what they say.
Yet again: not an accident, not a coincidence. Hey, what better way to keep the FUD escalating, to undermine any inclination to resist, than by making Normals as hopelessly cray-cray as Leftards already are?
Alternate reality, that’s where the shitlibs dwell.
It’s not that they are ignorant; it’s that so much of what they know isn’t so
In his famous speech “A Time for Choosing” Ronald Reagan hit the nail on the head about liberals: they have strong opinions based upon complete falsehoods.
This struck me once again as I read a report from The Skeptic Research Center. The goal of the Center is to do research into what people think and provide basic information to increase people’s knowledge regarding important issues of the day. I just ran across this particular piece of research and it caught my eye. You will see why in a minute.
The study in question has to do with Americans’ understanding of race and policing, and the results were rather stunning. It boils down to this: Americans haven’t a clue about the basic facts and liberals in particular live in a world completely divorced from reality.
What we see in the chart is that 22% of liberals think that 10,000 or more unarmed black men are shot by police officers every year. Almost 55% believe that 1000 to 10 or more thousand are gunned down every year.
The answer is 12 in 2019, and 11 in 2020. That doesn’t equate to being a bit inaccurate. It is not being in the same universe as the truth.
Conservatives overestimate the numbers, although about half of them get it right and the rest are not nearly as wrong as the liberals.
Liberals know a lot, but so much of it is simply not true. In no universe is 12 close to 1000-10,000.
This pattern, I am certain, is duplicated across the issues, and my educated guess as to why has to do with trust in the mainstream media. The media creates panic as a matter of course; it is their business model, after all. And since they are liberals they like to create panics that push people to adopt liberal positions.
So they dramatize problems they feel strongly about and create the impression that a problem that bothers them is an existential crisis for the country or the world.
Another factor, besides believing the news media, in liberals being so wrong is that they actually want to believe that certain things are true despite having little to no evidence that they are. They call this “following The Science™,” by which they mean following the witch doctors. They invent facts out of thin air and repeat them endlessly in order to create a reality that doesn’t exist.
And why wouldn’t they, for Pete’s sake? Reality as it actually exists would have to be extremely unpleasant for them, even quite painful, utterly demolishing as it does nearly all of their most cherished beliefs. Which in turn means that, far from being the most intelligent, informed Über-beings on the face of the earth as they consider themselves to be, shitlibs are only delusional asshats—batshit lunatics whose unhinged opinions inspire not awe and respect, but pity and contempt.
Far from being Sages for the Ages, they’re more in line with your average stinking-blotto, muttering street bum, tugging at your sleeve and begging for spare change as you hurry away from his crazy ass, trying to put some distance between you before he flips the fuck out completely and gets violent.
Which, y’know, is another thing shitlibs tend to do, especially these days.
Much, much more at the link—and the hell of it is, you know it’s only the tip of a very large iceberg. Via WeirdDave, who follows up thusly:
I saw another poll that asked what percentage of the population was gay. The most common answer from liberals was between 20-30% (I do not have a link, I am citing from memory). This is the flaw in our system as envisioned by the founders. They never dreamed of a society where the populace was not uninformed, but deliberately misinformed, by a media and educational bureaucracy perverted to perform the opposite of their intended functions.
If they HAD dreamed of such, it would’ve been a nightmare—the scary, sweaty kind you just can’t seem to wake up from, that stays in your head the whole stinkin’ day afterwards.
Peters asks the pertinent question.
Mentally ill people are inclined to do mentally ill things. Like shoot up a school. But we are not allowed to point out the former thing, because it is a politically incorrect thing to identify a boy who thinks he is a girl (and vice-versa) as…mentally ill.
And yet, that is precisely what such a person is. Unless one takes the position that fantasy is the same as reality, in which case why not endorse the fantasy of a 60-year-old man who insists he is a teenage girl and let him date teenage boys? On what basis would an objection to this be made, if one has no objection to a boy insisting he is a girl and must be allowed to enter the girls’ bathroom, as he is in fact a “girl” himself?
This is, of course, insane.
But one cannot fault the insane. Indeed, the law is indulgent toward them and with justice because an insane person is a person who does not appreciate that he is insane. From his—insane—point-of-view, it is the rest of the world that’s off-kilter. Not him.
The real crisis we have, then, is not one of insanity. It is the encouraging of it, which assures there will be more of it.
Bold mine, and that’s all anybody needs to say about that. But don’t let’s anybody be thinking that this all just came at us out of the blue nowhere, some kind of cosmic coinkydink. Ain’t no such thing.
This began in a mass psychosis kind-of-way with the normalizing of pathological hypochondria and its symptoms, including the wearing of odd garments and the performing of strange rituals. People were egged-on to regard these expressions of mental illness as normal—as opposed to in need of therapy. Indeed, those who counseled sanity were showered with opprobrium for hewing to facts, objective reality—to sanity.
Just as the same opprobrium is heaped upon the sane who refuse to concede the insane as regards the supposed fungibility of sex, that a boy can “transition” to a girl (and vice-versa) and that it actually is so – in the literally true sense. We are thus expected to not merely pretend but to accept as true that a boy who insists he is a girl is one and that if we say he isn’t, then we are cruel and “hateful” people in need of…therapy.
“Accept,” my rosy asscheeks. We’re not only supposed to accept it, but required to actively celebrate it, to act as if the demented are in fact somehow superior—to be neither censured nor pitied, but praised for their infirmity. The end result of this standing of all good sense and rationality on its head is entirely predictable, of course.
Is it any wonder people are going insane? That it feels society is, too?
This girl who shot up the school might not have, had she received the help she obviously, badly needed. Instead she was encouraged to think of herself as a “he”—and got worse rather than better, for the same reason that Crazy Uncle Bill up in the attic who thinks he’s Napoleon isn’t going to get better by addressing him as Your Majesty.
As a society, we once understood this. People with mental problems were treated—or at least, it was understood they needed it. This latter being the most important point, for their sake as well as ours. Having mentally ill people on the loose is bad news. It is something far worse when it is presented as good news – and something to want to see more of.
And that’s the bleakest, most horrid aspect of the thing: we assuredly will see more of it, lots more, unless and until enough of us stiffen our resolve to deal once and for all with the epidemic of Woke “liberalism” that created this whole situation—to make it clear that we will have no more of our children slaughtered, cities ruined, and public spaces made into No-Go Zones for decent people in the name of advancing a warped political agenda.
The headline alone gives the game away.
Joy Behar of ‘The View’ claimed on the show this week that she sometimes gets approached at the grocery store by Trump supporters, and that she tries to talk with them.
Does anyone believe that Joy Behar does her own grocery shopping at some supermarket? Perhaps more importantly, does anyone believe that Joy Behar would want to engage in some serious dialogue about politics with strangers who voted for Trump? In a public place? Really?
Joy Behar is one of most anti-Trump hosts on ‘The View’ and even in media in general, and that’s saying something.
This is a woman who pushed the Russia collusion hoax and just a few weeks ago, blamed the people of East Palestine, Ohio for the train disaster there because they voted for Trump.
But now we’re supposed to believe she chats with Trump supporters?
What’s even more un-credible than the entirely specious notion that the chronically deranged Behar would stoop so low as to “chat” with anybody who even looked like they might dissent, however mildly, from Standard Issue, Mark-1 Mod-0 shitlib cant is the very idea that any sane person would even dream of “approaching” this wretched, pinch-faced sow ANYwhere, at ALL, EVER, for ANY reason whatsoever.
Shit, if I was out and about and had to pee so bad my eyes were crossing, my knees were weak, and my teeth chattering I would still be willing to walk a mile or more rather than ask the likes of her baggy ass where the nearest public restroom was.
Are America’s big cities ungovernable? And if they are, do those of us who don’t live in them give a shit? SHOULD we? If so, WHY, exactly?
In the wake of the failure of failure Lori Lightfoot to gain admission to the Chicago mayoral runoff, The Atlantic, a left-inclined publication, has decided to salve her wound, though not the wound her mayoralty has inflicted upon Chicago, with an article proclaiming that “Big Cities Are Ungovernable…”
If that thesis were put to a for / against debate among scholars of urban history and dynamics, how do you think the discussion would go? Myself, I expect the participants would squabble endlessly over the definitions of “big,” “cities,” and “ungovernable.” (That would consume them so completely that they’d have nothing left for “are.”) Thus they could evade all discussion of the actual proposition until the last of the audience had drifted away.
Robert A. Heinlein was no fan of the big city:
“As a thumb rule, one can say that any time a planet starts developing cities of more than one million people, it is approaching critical mass. In a century or two it won’t be fit to live on.”
And so my own preference is clear, though it might have a Mae West feel, I shall add this: I’ve been a country dweller and I’ve been a city dweller, and honey, the country is better. But that’s all to the side.
It’s hardly a state secret that America’s largest cities are in bad shape today. They’re overrun with social pathologies, consistently underperform at “public services,” and cost a fortune to live in. Yet that was not always the case. Indeed, during the mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani, New York City returned from an abyss of squalor to a quality and livability it hadn’t known since Fiorello La Guardia. The Di Blasio and Adams mayoralties have dissipated that. Los Angeles during Ronald Reagan’s governorship over California was equally a beautiful, highly livable place. It’s not enough to say sic transit gloria mundi and pass on. We must discover the reasons for the changes and what “governability” or the lack thereof has to do with them.
Large numbers of people cannot be “governed,” in the original sense of the word, by a discrete “government.” (If that statement mystifies you, look up the function and operation of a steam engine’s governor.) They must ultimately “govern” themselves, which destroys the usual interpretation of governable and governability. Moreover, the “large number” doesn’t need to be in the millions, as The Atlantic would have it.
Today, sufficient fractions of the populaces of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and other major cities simply refuse to be governed. They do as they please, aware of the potential consequences but willing to risk them. That has rendered those cities ungovernable, in the sense generally understood by private citizens. But clearly it was not always thus.
The residents of Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, New York City, Chicago, and other homeless capitals have elected to tolerate the public degradation that their homeless populations impose upon them. Conditions there have made them resemble “closed systems” de facto where homelessness is concerned. They would rather tolerate huge homeless camps and what comes with them than strict code enforcement. The homeless find the results congenial to their filthy and dissolute preferences. What the city governments could do, they will not, for fear of electoral backlash.
And day by day, their entropy increases.
Is this a verdict on whether “Big Cities Are Ungovernable?” I don’t think so. History speaks to the opposite effect. But it does cast an interesting light on whether large groups of left-liberals are governable.
Well, I think the answer to that ever-more-pressing question has been made plain enough by recent history; anyone still in doubt is encouraged to take themselves a nice, long stroll around downtown Detroit late at night for further education, if they dare. Wear full Class-III body armor with ceramic plates, that’s my advice.
Governable or not, the libtards can damned sure be suppressed. Nobody seems much interested in talking about that option right now, even sotto voce. Nevertheless, it’s a conversation we’re going to need to get started on sooner rather than later.
Waitwaitwait, boogs are equestrians now too? My late wife was a professional Hunter-Jumper rider and a trainer as well, and I can’t recollect seeing any of our darker-complected brethren (or, y’know, sistren) at the many events she dragged me off to over the course of our tragically-foreshortened union. I mean, really now: who knew?
The New York Times, that intrepid warrior for anything and everything that the Left is hysterical about, on Friday published a lengthy piece about a source of systemic racism that no one has ever noticed before: It seems that equestrian helmets are racist because they don’t accommodate the dreadlocks that some black horse riders wear. One black rider’s mother lamented: “Mostly everything in this sport isn’t designed for us.” Well, that’s got to change, and these Jackie Robinsons of the Coiffure, with the Times’ generous help, are leading the way to the Equestrian Helmet Justice that our society so desperately needs.
Chanel Robbins, the Times tells us solemnly, “has been riding horses most of her life, ever since her grandmother traded a cow from their family’s farm in Ontario for a pony when she was 7.” Horse riding “offered an escape from thoughts that weighed on her,” which included the fact that “she was the only Black girl in the neighborhood.” But when she grew dreadlocks, her helmet didn’t fit anymore, and that, as you must know by now, is racist.
Fighting back tears (really, the Times actually said she was), Robbins said: “I finally freaking feel like myself, and now society is asking me to change. I just want to be able to ride.” How dare Whitey do this! Is there nothing to which he will not stoop? Poor Chanel Robbins can only find relief on the back of a horse from the systemic racism that confronts her every hour in Amerikkka, but now Whitey has taken even that away!
The Times generously ascribes this not to malice, but to callous indifference: “Black equestrians have long felt virtually invisible in a sport that remains overwhelmingly white. For those with natural hair, which for many is a declaration of pride and Black identity, finding a helmet that fits properly can be nearly impossible, creating yet another barrier to full inclusion.” Big Helmet (ah, but not big enough) is just as indifferent to their plight as Whitey in general: “Some are now lobbying for change, mindful that horseback riding is among the leading causes of sports-related traumatic brain injury. The helmet companies say there isn’t a simple fix.”
The second most-dangerous sport in the world, actually, or used to be anyway. Snow-skiing being the first, back when my wife told me about it. Spencer’s next bit is truly sidesplitting, so swallow that mouthful of whatever you’re drinking or eating before reading on.
Well, yeah. What are the helmet companies going to do, make the helmets three feet wide? This most first-world of all first-world problems brings Oscar Gamble to mind. Baseball fans of a certain age will remember Mr. Gamble, who played major league baseball in the 1970s while sporting an Afro of truly awe-inspiring proportions. In my neighborhood, baseball cards featuring Oscar Gamble with his baseball cap stuck on the massive thing, making his head and hair look like three planets of roughly similar size orbiting in close proximity to one another, were a coveted commodity. Many marveled at his hair, some dared to laugh, but Gamble himself took it all in stride. Never once did he demand that the people who manufactured baseball caps fashion one large enough to go around his huge hair. The white kids who played baseball in the 1970s often had long hair also, and got used to having it mashed uncomfortably under the cap. In life, sometimes one must put up with a bit of discomfort, or sacrifice one desired item in order to obtain another. But that was before everything, and I do mean everything, became racist.
A pic of Gamble—who racked up good enough stats over his long and storied career as a power-hitting Major League DH to be able to wear his hair any damned way he liked—and his ludicrous, totally off-the-chain ‘Fro.
Couldn’t say why, exactly, but for some strange reason that photo puts me in mind of the classic Mad magazine parody of Starsky & Hutch—renamed Harsky & Stutch, natch—wherein the Huggy Bear character was rejiggered (ahem) into “Buggy Hair.” Gamble is also remembered among baseball mavens for his brilliant Jive-speak quote referencing the general organizational chaos that plagued the Yankees at the time he was playing for them: “They don’t think it be like it is, but it do.”
Heh. Anyways, onwards.
And so now the Times tells us that Caitlin Gooch, “who wears her hair in locs that fall to her mid-back,” takes her riding helmet along when she gets her hair done, “to ensure it will still fit.” That’s perfectly reasonable and sensible. If someone wants some extravagant hairstyle, it might cause difficulties in other areas. Sometimes one must choose between the two. But Gooch “started teaching riding lessons” and “found herself having to tell children they couldn’t ride if there was no helmet that properly fit them.” This was, once again, perfectly reasonable, but apparently it’s a new and heinously racist offense in the Times’ dizzy and ugly world.
Yeah, well, what ain’t nowadays, according to these determinedly miserable shitlib gimps.