Charlie Kirk on X - "The @ADL claims:
- "It's OK to be white" is a white nationalist expression
- The South African song "Kill the Boer" is just a "protest song" that isn't really about white genocide
- That the "Great Replacement" is a conspiracy theory despite Democrat politicians bragging about replacing American voters with immigrants.
- That the numbers 1-11, 109/110, 12, 13, 13/52, 13/90, 14, 14/23, 14/88, 18, 21-2-12, 211, 23, 23/16, 28, 311, 318, 33/6, 38, 43, 511, 737, 83, and 88 are all hate symbols.
The ADL has created a cottage industry claiming hate and anti-Semitism everywhere it doesn't exist, but it has yet to denounce Canada's Parliament giving an ACTUAL NAZI a standing ovation. The ADL is run by frauds and con men."
ADL condemned by 1500 rabbis over latest effort to fire Tucker Carlson - "The latest attempt and subsequent failure to fire and "cancel" Tucker Carlson has created backlash within the international Jewish community. This as one group of rabbis has sent a response to ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, accusing him of massive hypocrisy. The letter (obtained by The Jerusalem Post) put forward by the Coalition for Jewish Values accused Greenblatt of becoming a flagrant partisan. “Alas, the ADL has become markedly partisan under your leadership. Your organization published the guide, Naming the Hate, which features obscure neo-Nazis of the “alt-right,” yet says nothing regarding far more dangerous, leftist adherents of radical Islam. Similarly, the ADL denounced Brett Kavanaugh, but not Linda Sarsour.” A comparison between the ADL’s statements about Brett Kavanaugh and Linda Sarsour indicate the organization was more brutal towards the Supreme Court Justice. With Sarsour, the ADL defended her freedom of speech in light of controversial remarks. The CJV then goes on to say ADL inflated numbers when they said 163 bomb threats were sent to Jewish organizations in a “widely-circulated report.” Apparently 150 of those were made by one lone Jewish person. A review of ADL’s website shows that this exaggeration on their part indeed happened. The media uncritically ran with it. They closed their response to the ADL by shaming Greenblatt for “lending credibility” to MSNBC’s Al Sharpton. Who, as the letter says, “unapologetically led a three-day pogrom in Crown Heights” against what Sharpton called “the diamond merchants.”"
From 2021
ADL Spews Anti-Gamer Hate, Says Steam and Valve Provide Platform For 'White Supremacists' - "The Anti-Defamation League has set its sights on the PC video game digital distribution company Steam and parent company Valve, accusing the latter of “harboring extremists.” Putting aside the fact that in a strict one on one comparison the ADL is much closer to meeting the definition of a racial extremist organization than Steam is, the left-wing juggernaut’s attack on Steam last week was riddled with factual errors... The ADL also attacked Valve for having a bold, ethical approach – by modern standards at least – to free speech and content moderation on the Steam store. Users who had Pepe the Frog as their avatars on Steam were also singled out in the piece: “A significant number of Steam profiles feature Pepe the Frog, a popular Internet meme that was hijacked by the alt right, in clearly white supremacist contexts.” The ADL also tried to compare the 2019 Christchurch shooting to first-person shooter games, stating that the usage of a GoPro camera “mimics first-person shooter games that simulate real-world weapons-based combat scenes.” The fact that the Christchurch shooter had a Steam profile was also of note to the ADL. . At the end of the article, the ADL laid out a long-winded list of demands for Valve to follow, including the ludicrous cry for “transparency reports.”"
Captain-Dork 🌺 on X - "I love how their advice is for valve to work with civil rights groups while describing themselves as a civil rights group. It almost like the ADL is a scam"
Charles Barkley Is a Great Example of a Black White Supremacist - "I’m sure some educated, right-leaning Negro conservative has already jumped in the comment section typing in all italics (because a black Republican would never use all caps, like a savage) about how “black people are not a monolith” and something about questioning people’s blackness. But let’s be honest—we all have a friend, co-worker or cousin who believes that the white man’s ice is a few degrees colder, and no one exemplifies the black man’s subconscious acceptance of white superiority more than Barkley... You’ve heard white-people solutions before. “White-people solutions” are the Caucasian answers to all black problems: “White people circulate their dollar 120,333 times in the white community before it leaves their neighborhood.” “White people start reading to their kids when they are still a sperm.” “White people invest their money in stocks, pork futures and private prisons.” To be clear, these aren’t solutions for or by white people. Instead, they are the imaginings of black people who are white supremacists. Black white supremacists believe that the only correct way to do things is how they envision the white man would do it. A black white supremacist could never find anything wrong with a white man’s methodology, so he or she continually contorts him- or herself to end up on the Caucasian side of the argument. And this is the difference between independent thinkers and black white supremacists. Most independent thinkers sometimes have legitimate disagreements with the accepted opinions of black America, but black white supremacists never find fault with white America, which means that everything ailing black people is black people’s fault. For them, nothing—not even the monuments of white supremacy—is the fault of racism. We’re just doing it wrong."
Somehow, taking the liberal view is being an "independent thinker"
Somehow harmful language is good when used to slime black people who don't follow liberal gospel
What’s Wrong with Asking “Where Are You From?”
“Where Are You From?” Racial Microaggressions – The Other Sociologist
Op-Ed: The question Asian Americans hate: 'Where are you from?' - Los Angeles Times
In a Facebook thread, a deluded liberal claimed saying for liberals “asking where are you from is considered sinful in their circles” was "Literally not true at all, are you incapable of coming onto this app without making stuff up first?" His cope when I provided these 3 articles was that it was Australia and not the US (which the OP was talking about). Apparently HBR and the LA Times are in Australia
Prom dress prompts 'cultural appropriation' row
The same deluded liberal claimed liberals don't care about cultural appropriation
Why The Democrats Have Shifted Left Over The Last 30 Years - "The 2020 Democratic primary field has been touted as far more liberal than that of previous years. Candidates have proposed a number of progressive policies that were not even under consideration in the last presidential election, such as decriminalizing border crossings, levying higher taxes on the wealthy and offering reparations to descendants of enslaved men and women. What’s more, two of the field’s most liberal candidates, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, still sit atop the national polls. Is this apparent leftward shift in the Democratic Party real? And if so, what’s driving it?... the data shows that Democrats have indeed become more liberal over time, particularly on questions related to race and immigration... the recent uptick in the share of voters holding liberal beliefs is driven not just by the departure of conservative voters, but also by Democrats themselves becoming more liberal. It is, of course, hard to identify just one reason the Democratic Party has shifted leftward in recent years, but in my conversations with experts, they all pointed to party elites (both politicians and influential liberal voices online). Now, some research has found that cues from the parties and party elites are even shaping voters’ personal beliefs, particularly on issues of race and immigration. But why have so many Democrats moved to the left on these issues? On the one hand, the fact that race and immigration played such a central role in the 2016 election was certainly a contributing factor. A 2018 study by Peter Enns at Cornell University found that rather than voters choosing a candidate who matched their views on controversies like the Black Lives Matter movement, they actually changed their own views to match those of their preferred candidates. And there is evidence that Trump is continuing to drive some of this — although, perhaps not in the way one might expect. There isn’t evidence, for instance, that his rhetoric has contributed to an uptick in racist and sexist attitudes among white voters; instead, as FiveThirtyEight contributor Matt Grossmann has written, “the evidence shows that liberal-leaning voters moved away from [Trump’s] views faster than conservatives moved toward them.”"
Liberals still claim the US has no left wing and that the left has not become more radical, as if open borders, abolishing the police and discriminating against white people are far right positions
In defence of ‘Brown Sugar’ - "the [Rolling] Stones have announced they will no longer perform the song ‘Brown Sugar’ due to, as far as I can gather, a few fannies complaining about the lyrics... apparently the song, in touching on as many taboo topics as possible in a somewhat lurid scattergun approach, has caused offence. Especially in its references to slavery. These were obviously not on the pro-slavery side, but such things need to be spelled out for today’s young audiences, who are more sensitive, and are also objectively bad people with no clue about art. Oddly, Neil Young once got into trouble for the vehemently anti-slavery song, ‘Southern Man’, so perhaps it is simply a topic not best suited to rich, white musicians. But should we really be censoring – or in this case, self-censoring – rock music for being controversial? I seem to recall that was kind of the whole point of it. Ironically, it used to be the sexual content of rock’n’roll that caused a stir, with Elvis famously being filmed from the waist up on The Ed Sullivan Show due to his dangerously subversive pelvis. Today, Cardi B is celebrated for her ‘WAP’ as the culture slides into porn-addled sexual degeneracy, while anything actually provocative in a social or political sense gets swiftly cancelled. The Rolling Stones were of course formed in the wild era of the Sixties. But even since I grew up in the Nineties, the attitude towards edgy or challenging music has changed massively. I recently revisited Eminem’s The Marshall Mathers LP, which I used to enjoy as a teenager, lifting weights in my room after yet another harrowing school day, like a perfect cliché of Mr Mathers’s angry, young, white, male demographic. There is zero chance this album could get made now, due to basically all of the content. Perhaps that is why Eminem has now opened a spaghetti restaurant. Hopefully he won’t get in trouble for cultural appropriation. And can you even imagine something like Morrissey’s ‘The National Front Disco’ being released now? Twitter would crash for about six days. To his credit, Morrissey would probably still release it. He has been perpetually cancelled for about 30 years anyway. The Rolling Stones, now a mega-corporate, stadium-touring juggernaut, have been somewhat less brave. Bands used to be so instinctively anti-corporation that the singers sometimes literally killed themselves if they sold too many records... In hindsight, this art seemed to depend on a certain level of economic prosperity and general confidence about shared cultural values. You could attack the existing order from the privileged position of knowing deep down that it would remain intact. But it didn’t remain intact. For one, the rise to cultural dominance of the left – or at least a certain offshoot of left-wing thinking – has meant that, while the image of ‘the man’ was once a fusty conservative who deserved shaking up, you are now far more likely to be censored by someone who still owns a Che Guevara t-shirt. As Ben Folds once sang: ‘Once you wanted revolution, now you’re the institution.’ And beyond this lies the problem that we are now so divided and suffering from the relentless politicisation of absolutely everything – turbocharged by social media and exacerbated by the inherent tensions of globalism – that the notion of provocative, interesting art and popular culture has become a decadent luxury we can no longer afford, or just an obscure relic we cannot even decipher."
Meme - "THAT Guy'S A NAZI!"
"ARE YOU SURE?"
"WHAT ELSE DO YOU CALL RACIST, ANTI-SEMITIC, HOMOPHOBES?"
Muslim Man: *shrugs*
Meme - Hema Offical: "A young man beats his sister with sharp tools, after he finds her dancing on TikTok"
Ahmed Ale: "All the support. For brotherhood and manhood"
Ahmed Assal: "Where is the manhood?"
Nour Adel: "All the support"
*Arabic name*: "His manhood"
Ahmed Al Hawary: "A man"
Mohammed Ilyess: "king of kings"
*Arabic name*: "Full support"
Damn colonialism!
Meme - "IF YOU WANT ME TO TRUST THE SCIENCE THEN STOP TELLING ME
*??? Trans Man* THIS IS A MAN
*Dylan Mulvaney* THIS IS A WOMAN
*Greta Thunberg* THIS IS AN EXPERT
*Lizzo* THIS IS HEALTHY"
Disturbing rise in countries coercing women into having more children, report finds - "A GROWING number of countries are adopting coercive pronatal policies in a bid to make women have more children, a report has found today. Almost 30 percent of countries globally now have pronatalist policies – up from 10 percent in the 1970s. The Welcome to Gilead report raises serious concerns about the abuse of reproductive rights by nationalistic governments, echoing the pronatal dystopia of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. The report was produced by UK charity Population Matters backed by the Central and Eastern European Network for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. It details how right-wing, populist and nationalist administrations are stigmatising women who choose to have smaller families as unpatriotic The report describes how policies intended to limit women’s reproductive choices are linked to population goals"
Weird. We were told with covid that no one was coerced into taking the vaccines, since no one was being tied down and injected, or forced to take a vaccine on pain of prison. But it seems having incentives to and encouraging people to have children is "coercion" (of course, encouraging anything liberals hate is coercion)
Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Prevalence of Psychotic Symptoms in the General Population
Damn racism leading black people to have 2.1% lifetime prevalence of schizophrenia, vs 1.4% for whites and 0.8% for hispanics!
House arrest for impregnating daughter a race-based sentence - "In the summer of 2019, a baby was born in Nova Scotia with “serious medical complications and significant developmental delays.” Concerns by a medical geneticist led to police becoming involved. When the mother, 23, was discovered sexting her father during a visit to the neonatal intensive care unit, it all made sense. The parents were a father-daughter pair with a 31-year age gap between them. Both were intellectually disabled. Their child, also disabled, has since been placed in foster care... Applying progressive sentencing principles, a majority of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decided late August that the father should only have to serve two years of house arrest (more reasonably, the dissenting judge believed that four years in jail was apt)... The trial court, and a majority of the appeal court, didn’t buy the Crown’s argument. Why? Because the offender was remorseful and was determined unlikely to re-offend. Another reason was that he is Black. While the Crown established, using past cases, that a jail sentence of four to six years was normal for this kind of crime, the appeal court dismissed this as merely a guideline. The court also noted that the offenders, in previous cases, were not African Nova Scotians. When deciding whether offenders of such heritage should serve house arrest or jail, the court wrote that “a more nuanced approach” was required. In short, a racial discount was to be applied... The uptake of race-based criminal procedure in Canada has been a concerning trend, and this is only the latest example. Race-based sentencing discounts began being used for Indigenous people in 1999 after a decision called R v. Gladue; this practice was expanded for Black offenders in Nova Scotia in 2019 and in Ontario in 2021. The Supreme Court of Canada has also said that Charter rights are also to be interpreted with a racial lens. In Ontario last year, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the race of an accused person should be factored into the decision to allow a jury to know their criminal record. It’s hard to say how much the father’s community appreciates the court’s leniency, but what is clear from the court record is that he is not welcome. His crime put a rift between him and his seven other children, some of whom have barred him from seeing his grandchildren. His eighth child will be raised in foster care. He has been denounced within the broader African Nova Scotian community, and has consequently experienced social isolation. The dissenting appeal judge, who also applied racial sentencing considerations but concluded that the father should serve jail time, pointed out that the crime had “a negative impact on the African Nova Scotian community.” There’s no doubt of that; incest harms the people at the heart of a small community the most. The theory behind lenient race-based sentencing is that it benefits a community, but in practice it deprives them of justice — while undermining the fairness of the system for everyone."
Structural racism is good when liberals approve of it
Australian prosecutors drop attempted murder charges after Muslim father allegedly stabbed daughter during 'attempted honor killing' - "Family members of a 21-year-old Muslim woman in Australia had attempted murder charges dropped this week after they pleaded guilty to lesser charges for an incident in 2021, where they held her down and stabbed her repeatedly. According to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, prosecutors in the case alleged that the family members were attempting to punish the young woman for bringing shame onto their family after she started dating a Christian man she met at university."
Time to retire the term "honour killing" and replace it with "honour beating"
Year Zero - "revolution is in the air. Only in America would it look like this: an elite-sponsored Maoist revolt, couched as a Black liberation movement whose canonical texts are a corporate consultant’s white guilt self-help manual, and a New York Times series rewriting history to explain an election they called wrong. Much of America has watched in quizzical silence in recent weeks as crowds declared war on an increasingly incoherent succession of historical symbols. Maybe you nodded as Confederate general Albert Pike was toppled or even when Christopher Columbus was beheaded, but it got a little weird when George Washington was emblazoned with “Fuck Cops” and set on fire, or when they went after Ulysses S. Grant, abolitionist Colonel Hans Christian Heg, “Forward,” (a seven-foot-tall female figure meant to symbolize progress), the Portland, Oregon “Elk statue,” or my personal favorite, the former slave Miguel de Cervantes, whose cheerful creations Don Quixote and Sancho Panza were apparently mistaken for reals and had their eyes lashed red in San Francisco... the fear of being shamed as a deviationist so high, that most of the weirder incidents went uncovered. Leading press organs engaged in real-time Soviet-style airbrushing... The New York Times, once the dictionary definition of “unprovocative,” suddenly reads like Pol Pot’s Sayings of Angkar. Heading into the Fourth of July weekend, the morning read for upscale white Manhattanites was denouncing Mount Rushmore, urging Black America to arm itself, and re-positioning America alongside more deserving historical parallels in a feature about caste systems... The people who run this country have run out of workable myths with which to distract the public, and in a moment of extreme crisis have chosen to stoke civil war and defame the rest of us – black and white – rather than admit to a generation of corruption, betrayal, and mismanagement... It became taboo even to say something as tame as, “Trump sold fake solutions to real problems.” Even that was too near the truth... It was one thing when Donald Trump’s campaign was denounced as racist. But as far back as the 2016 primaries, when the Clinton campaign began adopting the language of critical theory to denounce Sanders and “Bernie Bros,” we started to hear that protests coming from the left were also a white grievance campaign... By the accident of a leak, we know exactly how the New York Times perceived its mission during the Trump years. When Slate published a taped transcript of a Times town hall captained by editor Dean Baquet, we learned the paper in the early Trump years “built their newsroom to cover one story,” i.e. the Trump-Russia scandal... As journalism, 1619 read almost exactly like the paper’s post-mortems on the 2016 election – probably not an accident, since Baquet told us it was conceived identically as an effort to “understand the forces that led to the election of Donald Trump.” In both cases history was reduced to a simplistic showdown between evil racists and oppressed peoples. The best explanation for these sudden reversals in rhetoric is that Trump broke the brains of America’s educated classes. Like Russian aristocrats who spent the last days of the Tsarist empire flocking to fortune-tellers and mystics, upscale blue-staters have lost themselves lately in quasi-religious tracts like White Fragility, and are lining up to flog themselves for personal and historical sins... The same pols and pundits who not long ago were waving the flag for wars and insisting that American-style democracy was so perfectly realized that it made sense to bring it to all the peoples of the world, by force if needed (think Friedman’s hypothesis of a borderless utopia of forced wealth creation called the Golden Straitjacket), have now reversed course to tell us our entire history needs to be wiped clean. Everything is a lie now. CNN even put “Independence” in quotes when describing the holiday today (i.e. “Reexamining ‘Independence’ Day”). This revolution will end with Wolf Blitzer pulling a switch to dynamite the Statue of Liberty. Even if America is an idea whose time is past, I doubt it deserves an ending this ridiculous."
Re-educate yourself! - "‘OK Boomer’ is so last year. The new put-down of choice is ‘Educate Yourself!’... Sometimes ‘Educate yourself!’ is accompanied by a handy reading list. Or a compilation of podcasts and films for those not quite ready for books yet. Or a list of Twitter accounts to follow for those lacking the attention span necessary for an entire newspaper article. Because people who are not woke are clearly thick, right? In the eyes of activists, people dumb enough to ask whether it’s right to pull down statues, to graffiti war memorials, or to erase the word woman, are very obviously in need of all the instruction they can get. But beyond prescribing reading material, what does the command, ‘Educate yourself!’, actually mean? One answer is silence. ‘Educate yourself!’ closes down discussion. It means the end of any further dialogue. Along with ‘I’m so tired of all this’, and ‘I’m exhausted’, it allows the speaker to simultaneously take the moral high-ground and avoid any further interaction. In her bestseller Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race, Reni Eddo-Lodge provides a detailed exposition of the impossibility of conversation between people with different skin colours, and the exhaustion of having to explain her lived experience to white people who refuse to accept her truth about the existence of structural racism. Rather than dialogue, it seems today’s anti-racists would have us all segregated in a hierarchy of different truths... Of course, those barking ‘Educate yourself!’ do still talk to other people – they just don’t want the inconvenience of being challenged by those who might question their worldview. ‘Educate yourself!’ means ‘Come back when you agree that I’m right’. Ordering others to go away and do their homework allows activists to make as many assertions as they like, to proclaim their truth and talk of their lived experiences without having to provide evidence for their claims or be held accountable for their arguments. Afua Hirsch embodies this anti-dialogue movement. In response to a psychotherapist who contacted her with criticisms of her work, Hirsch informed the world: ‘A white lady just emailed me scolding me for A) “turning her off” and B) not serving her adequately with practical advice. So A) I am not your minstrel, it’s not my job to make you feel good B) my advice is very practical EDUCATE. YOURSELF. You’re welcome.’ In between being an award-winning author, Guardian columnist and broadcaster, the Oxford-educated Hirsch is also the Wallis Annenberg Chair at the University of Southern California. She teaches on the university’s summer immersion programme for new journalism master’s students. Yet Hirsch’s tweeted message reveals a peculiarly narrow view of education. By her own account, education means: do not ask me questions and do not think critically. ‘Educate yourself!’, as those yelling at JK Rowling on social media also demonstrate, means subject yourself to re-education until you come to understand the world in the way decreed correct by your woke betters. It doesn’t mean read widely — it means read the books we tell you to. It doesn’t mean think critically — it means think like us. This is the very opposite of what education should be about."
The ugly rise of left-wing racism - "In a remarkable exchange in the House of Commons recently, Labour backbencher Florence Eshalomi questioned whether home secretary Priti Patel truly understood racism in the UK. Essentially being hectored into doing so by Eshalomi, Patel discussed her personal experiences of racism in front of her parliamentary colleagues... Labour MPs sent Patel a letter, accusing her of ‘gaslighting other ethnic-minority communities’ – essentially of using her own heritage and experiences to downplay other forms of racism. As well as striking an unsavoury tone, the letter itself was authored by Bradford West MP Naz Shah – who is hardly the strongest authority on race relations. Then there was the backlash to the announcement that Munira Mirza, head of No10’s policy unit, would be heading up a new commission on racial inequalities. Since the announcement she has been subjected to the most appalling forms of racism from the bigoted left. Mirza has previously criticised the politics of grievance, which she says acts as a barrier to meaningful policy change on issues of racial inequality. Leftist figures, in predictable fashion, have wasted little time in directing racially charged slurs towards her. Novara Media’s Ash Sarkar has labelled Mirza a ‘racial gatekeeper’ – a term used for non-white people who supposedly provide political cover for perceived injustices based on race. Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, arguably one of the most poisonous voices in Britain’s race-relations debate, labelled Mirza a ‘brown executioner’ of ‘white supremacy’. University of Cambridge academic Priyamvada Gopal conducted a class-based analysis on the background of South Asian surnames, in a desperate attempt to tie Mirza with a position of natural privilege. This was strange, not least because Mirza is the daughter of a factory worker and Gopal is the daughter of a diplomat... she will not shy away from delving into politically sensitive territory. This would include, for instance, exploring how problematic internal cultural norms and social behaviours feed into economic disparities between British ethnic groups. This is deeply unsettling for the feelings-over-facts critical-race theorists, who refuse to acknowledge the possibility that family dynamics, lack of female empowerment, and a general failure to cultivate aspirational attitudes may be stalling the progress of certain non-white communities in the UK. This reflects the hypocrisy and contradictions contained within Britain’s anti-racist movement. A growing number on the left are not welcoming of ethnic-minority advancement, unless the successful individuals fall neatly into their own political agenda on a range of matters – particularly ‘cultural’ issues such as immigration, multiculturalism and social cohesion. Nor are they willing to discuss admittedly sensitive factors that are holding back the social progress of certain non-white ethnic groups in the UK. It is critically important that debates on race relations and ethnic inequalities are not hijacked by these ideologues. They label themselves as progressive anti-racists but are uninterested in truly getting to grips with and tackling what is driving inequality. Worse still, they are guilty of indulging in one of the most dehumanising forms of racism: insisting individuals must think a certain way, purely on the basis of their racial identity. This ultimately strips non-white people of agency, and rejects the idea that they can think for themselves"