West Yorkshire Police ‘only fought to keep ethnic minority staff’ - "West Yorkshire Police makes more effort to retain disgruntled officers if they are from ethnic minorities, a new report has claimed. The force was criticised by the police watchdog for not doing enough to encourage all employees to remain in its workforce, as it “only uses stay interviews for student officers and officers and staff from ethnic minority backgrounds”. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Service (HMICFRS) also found ethnic minority officers had “expressed concerns that recruitment processes were unfair and could be seen as positive discrimination,” with some complaining they “don’t want to be seen as receiving special treatment”. West Yorkshire Police was told it “doesn’t do enough to encourage officers and staff to stay in its workforce, or understand why officers are leaving” and that “stay interviews” – a process meant to deter those thinking of leaving their front line jobs – were only implemented for ethnic minority or student officers. The Peel (Police Effectiveness, Efficiency and Legitimacy) report, which assesses the performance of a force, comes after West Yorkshire Police was revealed to have spent £1.4m on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) staff and campaigners... Hampshire officers felt “controlled and pressured” during diversity training, with one in seven experiencing pressure “to be certain ways” during inclusion training. The latest HMICFRS report illustrates the extent some constabularies will go to try to meet quotas to hire and retain officers from the ethnic minorities. It also shows how elaborate schemes to promote DEI can cause “tensions” among rank-and-file officers... In the year ending November 2025, a total of 115 out of 944 people who joined the West Yorkshire constabulary were from an ethnic minority background. Officers from “under-represented groups” were singled out to receive “coaching and mentoring” and free “promotion examination books”, as well as attend “team-building days”... In 2025, a freedom of information request revealed that West Yorkshire had spent £1.4m on 19 diversity, equality and inclusion staff members, including £361,000 on training them. That year, it also emerged that the constabulary had blocked applications from white British candidates in an attempt to boost diversity as part of a positive action scheme, which has now been cancelled. It also emerged that senior officers intervened to ensure an ethnic minority candidate who failed her interview was given the job, according to leaked memos from 2025 that culminated in accusations of an “appalling racist hiring” policy. In May, the chairman of a West Yorkshire policing scrutiny panel was sacked after she complained that officers were “avoiding the elephant in the room” regarding Islamist extremism during a meeting about an anti-Semitic terrorist attack."
This is the moment I knew I had to quit the police. I was a counter-terrorism expert with 24 years of experience but it was the final straw... and it explains why Henry Nowak's horrific death was no surprise - "It was in 2024 that officer Paul Birch decided he could no longer remain in the police. The veteran counter-terrorism expert, with 24 years’ experience and a raft of commendations in his pocket, was sitting in a tired suburban training centre, attending a ‘mandatory leadership course’ on ‘anti-racism’, hosted by the Metropolitan Police... In a section about British history, instructors told the officers that Caribbean migrants had been forcibly rounded up and marched aboard the now-famous ship the Empire Windrush – whose journey to Britain in 1948 arguably marks the beginning of modern mass migration to Britain – before being ‘transported’ here. This apparent attempt to falsely link 20th-century economic migration with the monstrous Atlantic slave trade of centuries before was, he believes, sinister and deeply offensive. ‘Totally unbelievable. Totally untrue,’ he says. ‘These were people who came voluntarily to Britain to help build our country after the war.’ He was so furious at the misinformation being disseminated by ‘experts’, he challenged the claim publicly. ‘I questioned it,’ he says. ‘I was the only one who did. A lot of people my age there knew it was rubbish, but didn’t speak up.’ That day was the ultimate proof for Mr Birch of what he now describes as the force’s ‘ideological capture’ and a ‘top-down obsession with political correctness’ – an obsession that would finally drive him out altogether later that year. That ideological transformation, which Mr Birch argues has been undertaken in forces up and down the country, resulted in a style of policing that he believes contributed directly to Hampshire Constabulary’s handling of the fatal stabbing of 18-year-old Henry Nowak in December last year... Mr Birch points out that the number of officers attending the scene is highly revealing. ‘At least four were present: you don’t see that for a burglary or theft,’ he says. ‘This must have been because Digwa had falsely reported a “racist assault”.’ That, he says, would have immediately upgraded the alleged crime to a ‘serious incident’ trumping other emergencies on the call queue. How has British policing come to such a sorry state? Mr Birch, 57 – who held roles in response units, public order, intelligence and finally counter-terrorism in 2009, where he stayed for the rest of his career – has more than a good idea. He has shown the MoS a document commissioned and published by the Metropolitan Police a few months after he left. The London Race Action Plan proves, he says, the extent to which the force has fallen in thrall to an activist cabal. Written by Dr Shereen Daniels, the ‘founder of the African Diaspora Economic Inclusion Foundation’, it is prefaced with a ‘trigger warning for black readers’. 'This review names and details patterns of racial harm that many of us have lived, witnessed, or survived, in silence, in resistance, or in exhaustion,’ writes Dr Daniels. ‘Please approach the text at your pace, with what you need around you. Step away when you must. This was not written to retraumatise, but to confront what has been systematically denied.’ It is littered with activist buzzwords like ‘blackness’ (according to the report a word used to ‘refer not only to racial identity but to how institutions respond to the presence, proximity, or even suggestion of blackness’) and ‘misogynoir’ (the ‘intersection’ of sexism and racism). As a piece of arcane literature in an undergraduate essay, it would be one thing. But this has been circulated inside the Met to dictate how its officers should carry out their duties. The ‘action plan’, says Mr Birch, severely undermines the notion of neutrality – critical, of course, to the police whose job is to enforce the law equally. Yet Dr Daniels claims that neutrality is ‘often presented as a position of fairness, balance, or objectivity. But in practice, especially in institutions like the Met, neutrality is not neutral . . . It is structurally coded. It hides power while appearing impartial.’ Mr Birch says: ‘The purpose of the Met is to look at people for what they are, not who they are. Policing’s not like working at Tesco.’ Yet if the British police have now become indoctrinated with this far-Left dogma, the rot, he argues, set in years ago. On his very first day as a young constable in a Cambridgeshire force back in 2001, he was presented with a leather ring binder containing the ‘standard induction materials’ for new recruits. ‘The first page was nothing to do with fighting crime, or a precis on policing history,’ he reveals. ‘It was a map of Britain annotated with arrows showing the waves of immigration – from Anglo-Saxons to Vikings, Eastern Europeans and French Huguenots – portraying it as a “glorious melting-pot”. Diversity was already top of the agenda.’ Police forces across the country were then reeling in the wake of the 1999 Macpherson Report, commissioned after the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence six years earlier, which had branded the Metropolitan Police ‘institutionally racist’. Mr Birch insists the Met did, then, have genuine problems with racism, and says much progress was made. But, he says, the force’s approach ‘got rocket boosters under it’ after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020, when debates about race in the US spilled into British institutions. ‘I am not saying we didn’t need to make progress,’ he says. ‘I am not saying that there were not racist officers or there was not a problem with racism – far from it.’ But senior officers embraced the language and priorities of the Marxist-aligned Black Lives Matter movement ‘hook, line and sinker’. As Mr Birch rose into management roles, an increasing amount of his time was consumed by implementing ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ (DEI) policies with which he fundamentally disagreed – rather than his considerably more important job of helping to mastermind Britain’s efforts on counter-terrorism. ‘If you are in any form of managerial role, this DEI gremlin just sits there, dominating everything’, he says. ‘It wasn’t good enough that you just weren’t racist; you had to be anti-racist.’ He remembers a counter-terrorism meeting he attended with Home Office officials. The gathering was supposed to focus on issues affecting Britain’s Muslim communities, but he was baffled when civil servants opened proceedings with ‘a 15-minute lecture’ on ‘the evils of the British Empire. It had no relevance to what we were talking about – or to policing in modern London’. Indeed, he suggests, by focusing on historic grievances, it risked distracting from the very real current threat from Islamist terrorism – at a time when roughly 75 per cent of the terrorists on MI5 watchlists are suspected Islamist extremists. Few were willing to challenge such misplaced priorities, according to Mr Birch, owing to a pervasive culture of fear. Officers might express doubts in private, he says, but few were prepared to do so publicly, terrified of the professional consequences. ‘Some people would say behind closed doors or in hushed tones, “This is ridiculous”, or if they’d go for a drink after work, they’d say that it was nuts. But in an office environment, very few people would open their mouths and discuss it. No one was interested in questioning it on pain of being dismissed out of hand – or actually being dismissed,’ he says. He could see those concerns about accusations of racism increasingly seeping into operational policing. Birch says fellow officers stopped pursuing uncomfortable lines of inquiry. ‘We’ve seen what the consequences of those beliefs are,’ he says. ‘We’ve seen it in the grooming gangs issue in northern towns and cities, where fear of being called racist meant that the girls’ pleas were ignored and they were stigmatised.’ The strain became overwhelming. ‘I just got to the point where I would dread going to work,’ he says. ‘Not only did I not believe in this stuff, I thought it was utterly dangerous. Looking back – and especially following the terrible case of Henry Nowak – I see I was right. I remember sitting in the office and thinking, “I can’t do this any more.” I spoke to one of my managers and started getting really emotional. I said, “I’ve got to get out.” ’... He believes the police have abandoned their founding principles, established by Sir Robert Peel in 1829 when he set up the Met. ‘Anti-racism’ doctrine openly promotes “equality of outcomes” rather than equality of treatment,’ Mr Birch says. ‘So we’re being told to treat people from different backgrounds differently just to even up the outcomes. ‘Go back to the Peelian principles, which say everyone should be treated fairly and impartially. They are noble and should apply today. But they’ve gone out the window.’ Is it possible to restore faith in our broken police? Mr Birch believes so, but says reform can no longer come from within. He says front-line officers are not to blame. He points out that officers today face unprecedented levels of scrutiny. Body-worn cameras record their every interaction, while members of the public routinely film incidents on mobile phones. Split-second decisions are endlessly replayed and dissected online... Instead, it is the rotten leadership institutions, he says, which must be broken down and rebuilt, in particular the College of Policing – which sets policing standards and official guidance – and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which represents senior police leaders and decides how policing is run nationally. These are the institutions responsible for pushing the diversity, equity and inclusion agenda"
Meme - Erik Dale @EuroDale: "Norwegian media was finally forced to cover Henry's murder this morning. So they made it look like he was the killer"
"Killed student with knife - sentenced to life in prison. Police handcuffed the victim before discovering the stab wounds. *shifty looking Henry Nowak*"
Meme - Policeman: "I've been hit by a bin."
Normal person: "I don't think you have mate"
Meme - "THEY'LL HANDCUFF YOUR CORPSE TO APPEASE THE INVADERS. *handcuffed Henry Nowak*"
Meme - Xhorth: "From Hampshire Police website"
"Our commitment to racial equity means
Producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences with understanding that these will be racialised and with the aim of reducing harm.
It does not mean treating everyone 'the same' or being 'colour blind'"
"They literally state there in black and white that they don't believe in racial equality"
Meme - Vickrum Digwa with bloody knife: "I CARRY THIS FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS"
Crusader with sword: "Me too"
Mass stabbings and terror attacks could have been stopped if people weren’t afraid of being labelled racist, says Kemi Badenoch - "The Conservative leader made the claim as she announced her party would seek to abolish a duty for teachers, nurses and police officers to consider protected characteristics enshrined in equality law as they undertake their day-to-day jobs. The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) requires all public sector workers to consider how their work might have an impact on people because of their age, sex, sexuality, religion and race. The 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, the 2023 stabbings in Nottingham, and the 2024 Southport murders were all examples of crimes in which equalities law had a factor, the Conservative leader claimed. In a major speech in central London, Mrs Badenoch said: “All these crimes could have been stopped if people had intervened instead of having a fear of being called racist. “We would not have had so many girls abused by rape gangs if local authorities had not looked away because they were too scared to point out the obvious.” She added: “If the security guards at the Manchester Arena weren’t afraid of being accused of racial profiling, we wouldn’t have seen a bomber walk into the venue unchecked. “If authorities weren’t concerned that black people were overrepresented in mental health events, three people would not have been murdered in Nottingham by a man who should have been detained under the Mental Health Act. “And if authorities hadn’t chalked up Axel Rudakubana’s violent behaviour to autism, if his head teacher hadn’t been accused of racial stereotyping when she raised concerns about him bringing a knife to school, three little girls might still be here with us.” Public institutions have “spent so long worrying about institutional racism that they have become institutionally incompetent”, Mrs Badenoch added."
We're told, as an example, that the police in the Henry Nowak case had no common sense and were just using their DEI training as an excuse. But the law practically requires public servants in the UK to be racist, sexist, ageist etc, so
Hussain Abdul-Hussain on X - "American Islam, as in this video, is not Islam as practiced in Muslim countries. American Islam is its own religion. Most of its teachings and the practices of many American Muslims would be anathema to most schools of Islam. A woman cannot call to prayer or lead it. A woman is unwelcome (makrouh) to read the Quran in front of men who are not her family. Most schools consider tajwid (like this woman is doing) to be prohibited in front of men. So take your pick. The video below is not Islam the religion. It is America’s identity politics Islam."
Mario Zelaya on X - "🚨 WOW University of Guelph just banned a young woman FOR LIFE from campus. Her crime? Standing NEAR a conversation she wasn’t even part of. Her family member was talking to a group of people. She was in the vicinity. That’s it. The Campus Safety Office decided the TOPIC of that conversation was sufficient grounds for a lifetime ban. Not her words. Not her actions. A conversation she was LISTENING to. Soon, having the wrong opinions NEAR YOU is gonna be a crime. OH WAIT, TOO LATE - SHE GOT BANNED!"
Insomniac Removes "Men" from X-Men Name in Wolverine Game After Reported Sweet Baby Inc. Involvement - "Insomniac has finally done what short-sighted Marvel executives have been trying to do for years with its new Wolverine game—take the word “Men” out of X-Men. And they may have had some help from Kim Belair’s Sweet Baby Inc. For years, some of Marvel’s most prominent executives and creatives have openly questioned whether the X-Men name still fits “modern audiences.” Fans saw it in Dark Phoenix, where a much-mocked line suggested the team should be called “X-Women.” They saw it again when former Marvel Studios executive Victoria Alonso publicly argued that the X-Men name felt outdated because the roster includes female heroes... “It’s our own unique take on the world, and as such, we are putting it in modern times,” he said. “But the X-Men do not exist. The X-Men are not in our game, and where we do start is Logan has been around for a while. He’s been part of a team called Team X.” At face value, that sounds like a major departure from traditional Wolverine lore. But then Smith elaborated on what Team X actually is, calling them: “A group of mutants who go all around the world and save other mutants who are in danger.” That description immediately caught the attention of longtime Marvel fans. Because that’s essentially what the X-Men have done for decades... Another factor makes Smith’s explanation even more confusing for longtime Marvel readers: Team X already exists in Marvel lore. Historically, Team X was a covert black-ops unit connected to the Weapon X program rather than a globe-trotting mutant rescue organization. Over the years, the roster included characters such as Wolverine, Sabretooth, Maverick, Silver Fox, and John Wraith, with the group carrying out clandestine missions for government agencies."
Alice Smith on X - "Here’s list of things that are worse than racism:
Murder Treason Terrorism Rape Torture Sexual assault of a minor Child molestation Human trafficking Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon Bombing Kidnapping Sexual harassment Home invasion Shoplifting"
Natalie Jean Beisner on X - "I was today years old when I found out Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent is gay and “married” to another man. That’s the thing about President Trump—he hires gays, but the administration doesn’t shove it in our faces like some glass ceiling is being shattered every five seconds. It’s not the focus, so like more than half the population doesn’t even know someone’s sexuality, and that person is just judged on their merits and performance instead of whom they’re attracted to. Not so with the left."
Joel Webbon on X - "It’s taken years, but I’ve finally discovered the true definition of “racism”.
Racism: Whenever white people express any degree of the same in-group preference that every other race justifies and celebrates."
Christian Heiens 🏛 on X - "The single greatest mistake that liberals make is believing that politics exists because people haven’t yet learned how to be reasonable with one another. “If only we had more guaranteed rights, more minority protections, more education, more electoral and judicial reforms, more resources and a fairer allocation of them, or the right people in charge, we can all learn to get along!” This is a noble delusion, but a delusion nonetheless. Politics exists because human groups disagree about ultimate things, not just processes and procedures. They don’t fight about taxes or education, but rather what those taxes should be for and what should be taught. They will argue over what’s sacred in life and what’s profane. They’ll fight over who belongs or who should be shunned. They’ll struggle over what to tolerate or cancel, and ultimately, what kind of person society should cultivate. The liberal, of both the Left and Right alike, will argue that we can all live together under neutral rules. But there are no neutral rules. Every legal order presupposes a prior decision that someone or a group of people have made about what kind of society the law is meant to protect. Rights do not enforce themselves. Courts do not make themselves legitimate. Constitutions do not interpret themselves. Elections only work when the losing side still believes that they belongs to the same political community as the side that won. Progressives and Conservatives alike think they are merely protecting rights. But the fact that they hate each other so much proves the point here. Eventually, someone has to decide which rights exist and which ones don’t, what legal claims on the state are valid and which ones are frivolous, what kind of speech and religious practices are protected by law and which are too dangerous or incompatible with society to be allowed, what kinds of associations are permitted and which ones will be declared illegal, which borders are closed and which ones get opened, and whose worldview will be promoted and at whose expense. There is no metaphysics that permits everything, everywhere, at all times. The Open Society is a myth. At some point, a line will get drawn and a side will be picked. And when that decision is made, the veil of universal neutrality gets torn to shreds. Progressives can tweet all day long about how they are fighting for more diversity, tolerance, and inclusion, but inclusion into what? Every act of “inclusion” presupposes an exclusion. To include the 70 IQ third world illegal alien, the trooned out Marxist, the homeless drug addict overdosing on fentanyl in broad daylight, the knife-wielding mentally ill criminal on public transit with a dozen prior arrests, and the army of agitators and activists who seek to loot the public treasury because they claim to be oppressed, you must inevitably exclude those who reject the moral worldview these people adhere to or the social order they want to build. Rather than just being honest with themselves and simply saying “These people are our enemies because they threaten our people”, Progressives continue to claim they’re fighting for universal ideals. They will never concede that someone could ever have a valid reason NOT to be a Progressive. They’ll instead insist that their enemies are just a bunch of evil social pathologies that have to be eradicated. Their foes are morally illegitimate, unenlightened, backward, hateful, bigoted, extremists, Fascists, and Nazis. And they are just “decent fucking human beings”. Progressives claim to be fighting for diversity, tolerance, inclusion, and multiculturalism, but they define that “multiculturalism” as the eradication of every culture that rejects Progressivism. They’re fighting for a utopia that will never exist, and every attempt to bring it about just divides people even more."
Eid-al-Adha recognized as holiday for Rochester Public Schools - "Rochester Public Schools (RPS) says it will be adding the Islamic holiday Eid-al-Adha to its school calendar beginning in the 2027-28 school year. As a result, there will be no school on May 5 in 2028, as it observes Eid. RPS adds that the district already sees higher absenteeism rates when Eid falls on a school day."
Time to ban the Bible to protect separation of Church and State
On Fake Hannah Arendt Quotations - "A quotation attributed to Hannah Arendt has been floating around various social media sites. The apparently altered quotation is: "This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore. A people that can no longer distinguish between truth and lies cannot distinguish between right and wrong. And such a people, deprived of the power to think and judge, is, without knowing and willing it, completely subjected to the rule of lies. With such a people, you can do whatever you want." -Hannah Arendt I’ve received numerous emails in the last month asking for the provenance of this quotation. At first, I looked, since to be honest, the spirit of the quote is very much in line with Arendt’s own thought. But as far as I can tell, Hannah Arendt never said this or wrote this. She did, however, say many similar things. Which raises the question: Why would someone create a fake quotation when so many real ones express a similar viewpoint? And, does such an altered quotation matter? To answer this question, it is important to first look at the quotations that likely serve as the source for the fake aphorism. The closest in spirit and content, and also the most easily available, is from an interview with Roger Errera in 1973, what turned out to be Hannah Arendt’s last public interview. Arendt spoke about the importance of a free press in an era of mass manipulation of truth and public lying: She said: "The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie—a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days—but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please." The key point in Arendt’s statement is that as lies multiply, the result is not that the lie is believed but that people lose faith in the truth and are increasingly susceptible to believe anything. When cynicism about truth reigns, lies operate not because they replace reality but because they make reality wobble–a phrase Arendt employs in her essay Truth and Politics. In that essay, Arendt argued that mass lying undermines our sense of reality by which we find our bearings in the real world: The result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth and truth be defamed as a lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world—and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end—is being destroyed. The Arendtian point is that constant lying by a propaganda machine does not lead to the lie being believed but leads, instead, to cynicism. This is an argument that Arendt made, already, in her first published book The Origins of Totalitarianism. In that book, Arendt writes: "Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.""
Communist propaganda had the same aim, so
Idris Elba: 'Don't try to make James Bond woke' - "British actor Sir Idris Elba has said that James Bond shouldn't become "woke" and that some audiences would not accept a black male playing 007. Sir Idris, who has previously said that he was "never in the race" to play the famous spy despite years of rumours, told GQ that he was nevertheless flattered by the suggestion. He said that Bond "was written how he was written for a reason", but added he was "complimented" by being linked to the role. "In realistic terms, some markets just don't go for that," Sir Idris said. "Bond is big all over the world. And [audiences] won't [all] go for a black male, an African male, playing Bond. That's not what they like in their culture. Period." Sir Idris continued: "Bond is so unrealistic, so a hint of reality is good, but let's not try and make it woke. I think you've got to be pure to what it is: escapism. Don't try to answer the world's taste. Just be Bond.""
What a racist bigot
Meme - "A HORRIBLE CRIME HAPPENS
"WHITE MEN, COMMIT CRIMES Too!""
Per capita is only important when it makes white people look bad
Meme - spooky mistress misandry @hannahtraining: "Ain't that the fucking truth.
Me: "I feel like my life is pointless."
Therapist: "Why?"
Me: "Impending fascism and climate change mean I probably won't live to see 60."
Therapist: "Are you sure that's rational?"
Me: *looks at camera like Jim on The Office*"
kate wagner @mcmansionhell: "this point in history sure is a really wild time to be trying to manage mental illness"
"Honestly, in my work as a therapist, I’m seeing this A Lot, and tbh I still don’t have a satisfactory approach to it. A heavy dose of Existentialist “create your own Purpose” tempered with “when the plane’s going down, put your own oxygen mask on first”, but… yeah, there is no ethical way to work on individual emotional distress without acknowledging the systemic socioeconomic, geopolitical fuckery going on at the moment, and the sheer grief that comes with it."
"I’m a guidance counselor/psychologist for teenagers and it’s getting really hard to motivate young people to work for a future they don’t believe in. They look at ther future and see global warming, wwIII, unemployement, political unstability, poison in everything they eat, the earth and animals dying all around them. I saw this video where someone was asking french teens in the 50s how they imagine the future would be. The war hadn’t been over for long and yet it was all positive with like peace and flying cars and such. Then they went and ask the same questions to nowadays teens and hell that was depressing. Some still had hope, but it was just that “well I hope I’ll have a nice house and maybe some kid” but there was such a hesitancy to it, like they didn’t dare to hope too much. People mock Greta Thunberg but what they don’t get is that when she said “you stole my dreams”, it was the truth. Young people don’t get to dream like they used to. They don’t dream anymore, they grief all that won’t be anymore and that’s just so fucking sad."
Wokeness is reverse CBT that worsens mental health
Time to ban religion to stop kids from being traumatised, while continuing to "educate" them about climate change and "fascism" so they become radicalised, miserable, and ready to become revolutionaries to push the left wing agenda
Meme - Thor Odinson @Thor_Odinson: "Whenever these people imagine "superheroes", it's always them killing regular people they hate. Not, you know, actual supervillains or criminals. Just their dad, their neighbor, their coworker, etc. Regular people. You know who else hates regular people? VILLAINS."
THE MORTAL THOR LAWYER @Thorlawyer: "thor crashing a homophobic march is fucking iconic."
Meme - i/o @avidseries: ""So much of what has made politics run over the past decade has been the transgressive energy of injecting politics into previously non-ideological spaces. This isn't a virtue. The saturation of everyday life and private social spaces with politics is a fundamentally totalitarian tendency. And failing to compartmentalize politics is most often a manifestation of narcissism or emotional dysregulation rather than moral sensitivity or anything laudatory." - @feelsdesperate"
This is why the left shove politics into everything, claiming the personal is political
When the Police Raid the Neighborhood: The Real Lesson of Science’s Politicization - "Imagine some people in your neighborhood are mixed up in organized crime—say drug trafficking. Some locals decide to blow the whistle because they worry that the whole community will get a bad reputation, and they start urging everyone else to speak up too. Most people, though, just keep their heads down, understandably reluctant to pick a fight with the gang leaders and their enablers. And then someday a new mayor arrives in town, eager to look tough on crime. In a big show of force, he has the entire neighborhood raided. Dozens are arrested, including plenty of people who did nothing wrong. Shops are shut down, and community leaders are strong-armed into accepting harsh, sweeping measures against anything that looks even remotely suspicious. Now, what would you think of someone who blamed the internal whistleblowers as follows: “Why did you bad-mouth your own neighborhood when a much bigger threat was looming on the horizon? You kept harping about some petty crime that may or may not have happened, while the police were gearing up for a massive crackdown. You didn’t see where the real danger was coming from.” That, in a nutshell, is the reaction from a lot of left-leaning academics and journalists to The War On Science, a new collection edited by the physicist Lawrence Krauss, to which I contributed a chapter along with 38 others (including Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Alan Sokal, Jerry Coyne, Luana Maroja and Carole Hooven). The collection, written and assembled before Donald Trump’s re-election, argues that scientific institutions have been increasingly captured by left-wing ideology: prestigious journals announcing the screening of submissions on political grounds; activists canceling and deplatforming speakers who stray from orthodoxy; Ivy League universities punishing students for using the wrong pronouns or other speech violations; professional societies embracing progressive doctrines on sex and gender that clash with their own disciplines’ evidence, and so on. In short, we’re describing an internal assault on science, largely waged from within academia—a contemporary version of what student leader Rudi Dutschke once called a “long march through the institutions.” In the time between the writing and publishing of our book, however, Donald Trump was re-elected as president, and started to launch a very different kind of “war on science” of his own: cracking down on prestigious institutions, slashing research funding on anything that smacks of progressive causes, and threatening scientific journals to scrap DEI initiatives and reinstate strict meritocracy. So, is it true, as the kids say, that our book “didn’t age well,” becoming cringe-worthy and out of touch even before it hit the shelves? How could we have been so oblivious to the looming right-wing assault on science while we were preoccupied with left-wing critiques? In fact, many left-wing critics were already singing this tune long before they even had the chance to read our work... This isn’t just an annoying bit of whataboutism, where critics scold us for not having written an entirely different book on a different topic... the incursions of left-wing ideology in universities and other academic institutions have helped to turn them into prime targets for the populist Right. If you turn universities and academic journals into partisan lobby groups, don’t be shocked when you find yourself in the political crosshairs. Yes, it is true that Trump’s assault on universities is both reprehensible and unconstitutional, that his professed concern about antisemitism is just a pretext for “owning the libs”, and that his sudden embrace of academic freedom is disingenuous—he just wants to swap one orthodoxy for another. But that is exactly why we should have cleaned our Augean stable before it came to this. As sociologist and physician Nicholas Christakis says in this interview about our book: “We made ourselves into political actors and so therefore became political targets.”... the more severe external assault was motivated by the internal war, marking a further escalation in the politicization of science. Conversely, these Trumpian attacks now risk radicalizing left-wing ideologues in academia even further, convincing them that science must become an even stronger fortress of progressive ideology. You can already see it playing out. Thanks to Trump’s ham-fisted attack on DEI and campus antisemitism, anyone criticizing DEI programs now risks being lumped in with the Trumpian Right. Case in point: this hatchet job posing as a book review in New York Magazine, with the subtle-as-a-brick title: “How the New Atheists Joined the MAHA War on Science”. The reviewer claims that we—the book’s authors—weren’t merely blindsided by the MAGA assault on science, but have actively contributed to it. By “railing against DEI, critical race theory, and social justice for years,” the argument goes, we supposedly “provided fuel and ammunition” to Trump and his allies, in effect joining their camp. This line of reasoning is strikingly similar to the argument, endlessly repeated by progressives (mostly in Europe), that we shouldn’t discuss the negative consequences of mass migration, as doing so might “help the Far Right”. The reality, however, is quite the opposite—it’s precisely the unwillingness of progressives to engage honestly with these uncomfortable truths that drives people toward the Far Right. Similarly, many academics’ reluctance to call out the ideological antics within their own circles has led to a widespread perception that universities have devolved into left-wing boot camps (which is still a wild exaggeration). By the way, I’m flattered that New York Magazine has singled out my chapter for special scorn, devoting a whole paragraph to it. The author even manages to hand me a backhanded compliment: “There’s something of Christopher Hitchens in Boudry’s one-sided defense of Israel against the slavering Islamic horde.” I’ve long admired Hitchens’ virtuosity and acerbic wit, so being compared to him is about as high a compliment as I can imagine (never mind that Hitchens was actually quite critical of Zionism, a detail our intrepid critic seems blissfully unaware of). Finally, many of the book’s critics are so fixated on Trump that they treat the U.S. as the center of the universe... there are plenty of countries where Trump isn’t president and where universities are not sued by a right-wing government. If you’re an academic in one of those places and you’d like to avoid becoming the target of a politicized backlash, it’s worth asking what provoked it elsewhere. If you don’t want to end up like Harvard or Columbia, then don’t go down the road they traveled."
