Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ on X - "It’s been immensely gratifying to watch “that’s racist!” lose all of its rhetorical power. It’s been exhausted through years of unjustified use. The Left’s magic spell doesn’t work anymore. People are ready to discuss the substance—and they’re no longer afraid of the smears."
Sam Altman on X - "for a long time i said that antisemitism, particularly on the american left, was not as bad as people claimed. i'd like to just state that i was totally wrong. i still don't understand it, really. or know what to do about it. but it is so fucked."
The Great Jewish Realignment of 2023 - "If even a small portion of Jews becomes more hostile to the left in reaction to recent events, this has the potential to significantly reshape American politics. Those horrified by antisemitism on university campuses and opposition to Zionism more generally are likely to not only become more supportive of Republicans, but probably for understandable reasons become more right-wing on a wide range of issues.
I think what we’ve seen since the start of the conflict is the following dynamic. Americans at the 90th percentile of influence are becoming more pro-Palestinian. This might be your typical leftist activist or professor. But as you go up the pyramid of power, once you get to the top 1% or 0.1%, you’ve seen people shift to the right. American studies professors and White House interns are outraged over what’s being done to Gaza. Meanwhile, a few billionaires and centimillionaires are becoming more politically active and hostile to the left. For conservatives, this is a good trade. Despite there being fewer people in the top 1% or so, by definition of course, I still think that stratum is in the aggregate more important than the lumpenintelligentsia and activist classes below it. This is why we’ve seen conservatives able to force out an Ivy League president for the very first time, and put these institutions on the defensive. Bill Ackman, one Jewish billionaire, was able to help oust Liz Magill by publicizing her testimony before Congress. Upon doing that, he sent a letter to Harvard, demanding that they also fire their president, claiming that he is “personally aware of more than a billion dollars of terminated donations from a small group of Harvard’s most generous Jewish and non-Jewish alumni.” Marc Rowan, another Jewish billionaire, had similarly sent daily emails to the rest of the Board of Regents at Penn telling them to remove their president before they finally took his advice... in a few months, the influence of a handful of rich guys on elite universities has been greater than that of tens of millions of Republican voters and consumers of conservative media raging about the state of college campuses over the course of several decades... Harvard seems at least as responsive to major donors as it is to protesting students and most professors. As it turns out, with enough money you can just buy the Cathedral... The American elite is very, very Jewish. Everyone knows this to some degree, but unless you’ve spent time in the darker corners of the internet, you probably have no idea just how Jewish it is. In the US, Jews are about 2.7% of the population, but 17% of our billionaires, and 10% of billionaires globally. They make up 9% of the Senate and 6% of the House, which may seem somewhat low but is impressive given how geographically concentrated American Jews are. Most interestingly, in the 2020 election cycle, they were 15 of the top 25 individual donors as of September. That year wasn’t much of an outlier. In 2014, a third of the top 50 political contributors were also Jewish. I haven’t seen any numbers on megadonors to elite universities, but recent events indicate that they might be comparable. The fact that Jews can, depending on the year, make up a third to over half of the biggest donors to political causes can’t be explained by intelligence or economic success alone. Nonetheless, the mystery disappears when you realize that Jews are not only smart, but hyper-political compared to other ethnic groups... To be in the top 1% or higher of influence, you have to be extreme both in terms of how successful you are and how much you care about politics. This is why, despite East Asians being a highly educated group and about as numerous as Jews, they are basically a non-factor in American politics except when they’re pushing back on the most absurd initiatives to come out of San Francisco... despite non-Jews being a much larger share of the population, you could make a plausible argument that based on the composition of our elite, winning the 2% of Americans who are Jewish is of comparable importance to winning over the other 98%. Moreover, elite gentiles tend to associate with Jews a lot for obvious reasons, and are therefore often philosemitic. Some of the big donors who have cut off Ivy League universities since October 7 have been non-Jews like the Huntsman family. Getting Jews on your side therefore gives you some of the most accomplished gentiles too, and all of this means that whichever side of the political spectrum is seen as harboring more anti-Semites is at a major disadvantage... There are good reasons to expect that Jews believing that antisemitism is rampant on the left will make them more right-leaning on other topics... ratings for Fox News were up in Jewish metro areas, and people who might tune into the network because they like the way it covers Israel will also be exposed to right-wing arguments on the Biden economy or immigration. Razib has written about how, among Asian Americans, Christians are more likely than those of other faiths to lean towards the Republican Party... Leftists may look at surveys of young people and convince themselves that they have the wind at their backs. But they are in the process of making some powerful enemies. It is the Great Jewish Realignment, rather than broad cohort shifts, that is likely to end up the most important political story of 2023."
Letters: School board's book-ban zealots lose the plot - "Half-empty bookshelves do not encourage our children and young adults to read. And on the matter of “relevance,” as a longtime English teacher in another board I remember several costly board-wide purchases of new English anthologies over the past few years, chosen as “relevant” because the stories contained were from popular media. Within a year the “relevance” was dated and the students were completely disinterested and even amused by the school’s attempts to be “cool.” The books went the same way as the words used to describe the attempt (see where you get today by describing something as “hip,” “cool,” “groovy,” “peachy,” or “swell”). Is this how we waste taxpayers’ dollars, while depriving our youth?"
I Was Married to My Husband For 37 Years. Then I Fell in Love With My Best Friend. - "At 64 years old, I took a very deep breath, divorced my husband of 37 years, fell in love with a woman and began reconstructing my life authentically with a new purpose... We were not only friends, but women who identified at that time as heterosexual, both going through a divorce. And to really ice the cake, she was my employee and 26 years my junior... Liz Hilliard is an author, motivational speaker, podcast co-host and personal and group trainer, as well as the owner and creator of Hilliard Studio Method ― a core-centric and Pilates-based workout. The HSM brand now includes the “Be Powerful With Liz & Lee” podcast, which Hilliard co-hosts with Lee Kennelly, HSM’s director of training."
Clearly, she was born that way and just didn't realise
Age gaps and dating employees are only bad if it's men doing it
Liberals to mandate quotas for Black, LGBT people - "The Employment Equity Act sets out Canada’s mandated diversity scheme, which requires the federal government and its contractors to set hiring “targets” for women, visible minorities, Indigenous people and the disabled. On Monday, Labour Minister Seamus O’Regan said he planned to add LBGT and Black people to the list of those with special hiring privileges. The expansion was recommended in a 500-page task force report released Monday. Led by McGill University law professor and critical race scholar Adelle Blackett, the review panel called for “transformational” change and strong adherence to diversity targets. But don’t worry: even though it walks and quacks like a quota system, the report writers screeched that it was not a quota system... The argument is legalistic. The task force insists that any concerns about “reverse discrimination” are unfounded because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects affirmative action programs like the employment equity scheme, and because our courts interpret “equality” to mean “substantive equality” (that is, a matter of equal outcome rather than equal treatment)... Over in the Department of Canadian Heritage, they’re looking for senior program advisors — but only disabled ones. Remember though, folks: “reverse discrimination” doesn’t exist. Proponents of employment equity would argue that because diversity candidates have to meet the basic qualifications of a job, they are still merit-based hires. They’re hardly merit-based, however, when they don’t have to compete against a full pool of candidates. The result: instead of hiring the best person for the job, the government is reduced to hiring the candidate who is good enough. As the program expands under O’Regan’s future reforms, expect exclusionary identity-based hiring to get worse. The task force, anticipating this line of criticism, simply dismisses it as Americanized fake news... The rest of the tome is a work of intersectionalist zeal, claiming that the federal bureaucracy is meant to represent Canadians (it’s not, in fact, a representative body) therefore meaning that every Canadian should be represented in the federal government according to population statistics rather than workforce availability statistics — “because it’s 2023.” That is, if 50 per cent of Canadians are visible minorities, but half of those are children and retirees, the respective quota would ideally still be set to 50 per cent. Why would the task force recommend a special category for Black people when the law already privileges visible minorities? The report writers largely cited history (slavery and segregation), as well as employment data. Drawing attention to hiring stats, it said that when comparing Black people to other visible minorities in the federal government, “representation between the period of job application, through automated screening, through organizational screening, assessment and ultimately appointment fell from 10.3 per cent down to 6.6 per cent.” This analysis ignored the fact Black people, accounting for only four per cent of the population, apply and are hired at higher rates compared to Chinese (five per cent of the population) and Indian minorities (seven per cent). Because Black people are comparatively overrepresented in hiring, this should satisfy DEI mathematicians. The numbers also don’t explain why failed applicants were screened out: were these applicants simply unqualified? The report also finds that Black employees from 2005 to 2018 had a negative promotion rate relative to non-Black employees — another non-proof of racism, because it’s possible those employees simply didn’t merit a promotion... Slavery was objectively wrong, but it is much less clear why it should factor into special hiring considerations today. There were relatively few slaves in Canada and not all of them were Black. It would be notoriously difficult to determine who in Canada is still affected by this history — and impossible to hold others living today responsible. Additionally, the majority of Canada’s Black population is made up of immigrants who are unlikely to trace family lines back to enslaved Canadian ancestors... Another was the state of the law in other countries and within Canada. The report writers described a program in Argentina as an example of progress, which set a transgender quota in its public service at one per cent. It’s hard to say whether this will last, though, considering the country’s gender ministry no longer exists as of this week. The report writers failed to engage the main reason an LGBT quota can’t work: identity verification. The standard practice to determine whether a person is gay, bisexual or transgender is self-identification, which means anyone can claim to be a member of those groups and render the quota meaningless. The task force admitted this was an obstacle but presented little for solutions... task force members want Canadian legislation to abandon the term “visible minority” for the glaringly unpopular “racialized”; they also want religious minorities to be considered for special quotas someday (special mentions went to Muslim women and Sikhs). The upsides of “good enough” diversity hiring are few: the feds pump the numbers of venerated minorities and wax poetic about how their condescending program is really making a difference, and a small number of uncompetitive people will get prized government jobs. The downsides are many: it’s made fair game to assume employees with government-preferred identities are undeserving diversity hires; the feds aren’t staffed by the very best; the bureaucracy is weighed down by the heavy lattice of diversity administration; resentment over the unequal treatment brews. And in the future, a ton of “bisexuals” who have not once been interested in the opposite sex could crowd out the applications of actual gay people (who never needed quotas in the first place, at least not in the federal public service). But hey, at least we’ll be properly diverse."
ACLU on X - "Some of our personal favorite Thanksgiving conversation starters:
💬 "My pronouns are…"
💬 "Firing people for being LGBTQ is illegal and Trump asked SCOTUS to change that"
💬 "Who loved Pose season 2?"
💬 "Please pass the pie, and the Equality Act""
If you don't shove the liberal agenda into everything, you're not a decent human being
A secret attraction or defensive loathing? Homophobia, defense, and implicit cognition - "Psychodynamic conceptions of homophobia suggest that homophobics may have a latent attraction to gay sex. Although at least one study has partially supported this idea, the implicit cognitive reactivity to gay images has not been examined. We conducted the current study to investigate such cognitive forms of reactivity with the intent to better understand defensive homophobia. Participants completed two implicit sexual interest tasks in addition to questionnaires of self-deception and homophobia. We found that self-deception moderated the relationship between homophobia and performance within the implicit tasks. Contrary to the idea that defensive homophobics (i.e., homophobics high in self-deception) harbor an implicit attraction for gay sex, we found that such individuals displayed evidence of a phobic-like aversion. We also identified a non-defensive form of homophobia (i.e., homophobics low in self-deception) that was relatively inconsequential for performance within the implicit cognitive tasks related to gay sex. The results suggest that defensive homophobics have an implicit aversion rather than an implicit attraction to gay sexual stimuli."
This person claimed that there were multiple studies showing that homophobes were secretly homosexual, but this was one of the ones that popped up in her link (it was a link to Google search results) and it said the exact opposite. Another used the IAT, which is very problematic
Please don’t wish me ‘Merry Christmas’ - The Washington Post - "It’s impolite and alienating to assume I follow your religion."
This won't stop liberals for insisting that the War on Christmas is a myth, and no one gets offended when wished Merry Christmas
Data Shows Affluent Black Kids Are More Likely to Be Incarcerated Than Poor White Kids
Regardless of socioeconomic status, Black communities face higher gun homicides
Clearly it's racism, since socio-economic status is not the driver (weird how usually we're told that crime is caused by poverty)
GOLDSTEIN: Why are race-crime statistics banned in studies of police racism? : OntarioNews - "there are also other influences such as a culture that celebrates depravity."
"So American culture doesn’t celebrate crime? Godfather? Scarface? Breaking Bad? Sopranos? Jesse James? Billy the Kid? Ozarks? Wolf of Wallstreet? I could go on on about how mob/crime/gangs are celebrated in AMERICAN culture not just Black culture. You racist are so dumb and short sighted it’s unbelievable lol."
"Have you even seen those movies / TV shows? They're tragedies. Not a single one turns out well for the protagonists and they're in constant turmoil. If you thought they were glorifying criminal culture then you completely missed the point you dumb fuck lol. Meanwhile "gangster" culture is the exact opposite. There's no character arc. There's no moral lesson. It's just "I have fifteen baby mamas, hate gay people, steal peoples' chains, do drugs, and can hurt you so I deserve respect". It's the complete opposite to breaking bad. How many Walter Whites were created because of Breaking Bad? As far as I can see, next to none. How many little thugs are running around committing crime because of "gangster" culture where it's cool to join gangs? Fucking countless. The number one cause of death for black people from the moment they're born until they're 40 years old is being murdered by another black person according to the CDC. Those are the stats. It's something like heart disease for other races."
Window into a Depraved Culture | Chicago Torture Video - "Anti-police activists and the mainstream media are incensed at the suggestion that the Black Lives Matter movement could have influenced the behavior of the four individuals in Chicago who tortured a disabled white man for hours last week while yelling “Fuck white people” and “Fuck Donald Trump.” In one sense, the activists and media are right: The influences were broader than that. They include the reign of racial victimology, inner-city gang culture, and black anti-white animus. We live in Ta-Nehesi Coates’s America, characterized by the assumption that blacks are the eternal targets of lethal white oppression... Black Lives Matter ideology is just a more in-your-face manifestation of the Coatesian conceit that blacks are living in a system determined to destroy them. The Chicago Black Lives Matter chapter embraces the motto “Stop killing us,” aimed at the Chicago Police Department. It chants: “CPD, KKK: How many children did you kill today?” (The answer is: Virtually none. Last year, over 3,400 people in Chicago were shot, overwhelmingly black. Victims included 24 children 12 years of age or younger. The Chicago cops shot 25 people, virtually all armed and dangerous, or .6 percent of the total.) The Chicago Black Lives Matter chapter disseminates inflammatory lies about the Chicago police, such as that BLM activist Ja’Mal Green was beaten for 30 hours following an arrest for battery against an officer and trying to disarm an officer. Increasing the size of the Chicago Police department, per the Chicago BLM, will simply result in “more killings by police, more police torture and violence.” These anti-law enforcement claims reinforce existing anti-white animus in the inner city. The notion that the dominant or exclusive racism in America today is white anti-black racism is absurd. Though many urban residents harbor no racial animosity, the recurrent “Fuck Whitey” and “Kill the cops” themes in rap music are not accidental... I have been warned by residents of one East Harlem housing project not to go to a neighboring project because “they really hate whites there.” Even if there weren’t already a strain of racial hostility in inner-city culture, the constant establishment refrain that whites oppress blacks at every opportunity would create it. Every highly publicized cop assassination in the last two years has triggered gloating on social media. Ja’Mal Green told the New York Times that the assassination of five Dallas police officers was “not a setback at all” for Black Lives Matter. The Dallas gunman had said he wanted to kill white people and white cops... The establishment typically looks the other way at manifestations of black anti-white animus. Racism in rap music is usually ignored. The Associated Press excluded any reference to the race of the victim and assailants in its initial report on the Chicago torture episode, as John Hinderaker observed at Powerline, and merely noted that police were investigating a “beating” captured on social media. The AP’s follow-up report acknowledged that someone in the video appeared to use profanities about “white people” and that the victim “appeared to be white,” while “others shown in the video appeared to be black.” Radley Balko rushed to tweet out that the Chicago kidnapping is not a trend because since 2001, 80–85 percent of white murder victims were killed by whites. True, but the percentage of blacks killed by blacks is higher. From 1980 to 2008, 93 percent of black victims were killed by blacks. White-on-black homicides are much rarer than black-on-white homicides. The vast bulk of interracial violence is committed by blacks. In 2012, blacks committed 560,600 acts of violence against whites, and whites committed 99,403 acts of violence against blacks, according to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey... Blacks, in other words, committed 85% of the interracial crimes between blacks and whites, even though they are 13 percent of the population. This data accords with the last published report on interracial crime from the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Bureau stopped publishing its table on interracial crime after 2008, the first year of the Obama presidency. Some portion of those black-on-white crimes may be driven by the same racial hostility that gives rise to urban flash mobs and the knockout game... Even if the higher rate of black-on-white violence is simply a product of blacks’ higher rate of violence generally, that violent crime rate is another fact suppressed by the mainstream media whenever possible. In response to the Chicago torture video, Callum Borchers of the Washington Post sneered at conservatives’ supposed delusions, such as that “Chicago is a war zone.”... One wonders how quickly Collum would move his family out of the allegedly pacific South and West Sides of Chicago if he actually had to live there... Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King, responding to the Chicago torture, rejected the idea of speaking out “on crimes committed by black folk because nobody in this country is held more responsible for the crimes they commit, and even the crimes they don’t commit, than black folk in America. . . . American prisons are full of black folk who are being held responsible for every mistake they’ve ever made.” Try telling that to Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson. Johnson regularly bemoans the fact that convicted gun felons in Chicago have little to fear from the criminal-justice system, because they are so quickly back on the streets following a shooting. The Illinois Black Caucus has blocked stiffer penalties for gun crime. The victims of a November 2016 robbery spree in Chicago may also disagree with King that the criminal-justice system is vindictive against black criminals. Isaiah Scaife had already been convicted of theft, attempted theft, criminal trespass, and possession of a stolen motor vehicle before he turned 18, according to DNAInfo. He continued to commit gun crimes as a young adult. At age 19, after a conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, Scaife was already out on parole. That’s when he began his five-day crime spree on November 18, robbing a Subway store’s customers after sticking his gun in a baby’s face and trying to manhandle his way behind the restaurant’s counter. A few minutes later, he robbed a man leaving a Citgo gas station, beating the victim unconscious with his gun before shooting him in the face. The next day, Scaife returned to the same Subway, where he robbed and choked a man while a juvenile accomplice pointed a gun at the victim. A few days later, Scaife pulled a gun on a man at another gas station and stole his possessions and car. At his arraignment, he yelled at the court deputies: “I’m going to spit on your ass.” Scaife is hardly unique. A huge percentage of violent crime is committed by people with serious criminal histories who are free to continue terrorizing the innocent. And, pace King, if you commit a drug crime, you’ll get more leniency in a large urban jurisdiction than in a rural county, where sentences for white drug dealers dwarf those of inner-city traffickers"
Kentucky Summer Camp Teaches "Sex Liberation" - "The principles of queer theory have escaped from the college campus and made their way into a summer camp for children in rural Kentucky. Last year, a nonprofit coalition called Sexy Sex Ed organized a series of “Sexy Summer Camp” events targeted toward minors that included lessons on “sex liberation,” “gender exploration,” “BDSM,” “being a sex worker,” “self-managed abortions,” and “sexual activity while using licit and illicit drugs.” The program is the brainchild of Tanya Turner, who calls herself a “femme, fat, queer, magical pleasure worker” who was raised by “a host of witchy women” in a “coven-like mountain matriarchy” and uses “crystals,” “sex toys,” and “tarot” in her teaching. She founded Sexy Sex Ed in 2012 and has run dozens of events across the Appalachian region, recruiting LGBTQ youth and working with a number of regional philanthropies, including the Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky, Southern Power Fund, Chorus Foundation, and Rise Healthy for Life, which is affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist church. According to the organization’s promotions materials, the purpose of Sexy Summer Camp is to teach “teenagers and people of all ages to openly discuss personal and political consent, sexual safety, and anatomy.” These euphemisms, however, obscure the true mission of the camp’s programming. The agenda for last year’s events, which I have obtained from the organization’s publicly available calendar, reads like the syllabus from a radical queer theory seminar. The sessions included “Sex With Me Self-Pleasure Workshop,” “Gender Diversity,” “Let’s Talk About Sex,” “Sexy Trans Sex Ed,” “The 3 P’s: Pee, Poop, and Pleasure,” “Sex on Drugs,” and “Eugenics in Appalachia.” The biographical details of the instructors reveal even more about the camp’s political orientation: one describes herself as a “radical queer mountain woman” who loves “social justice”; another calls herself a “young, nonbinary queer” who “spends time co-facilitating sex education workshops for fellow Appalachian youth”; a third identifies as a “young, fat, differently-abled, queer community organizer” who is “fighting for inclusivity for people like her.” Such a program would hardly cause a stir on the campuses of Oberlin or Barnard, but Sexy Sex Ed is hosting its programs in a deep-red state and recruiting children as young as 13 to discuss graphic sexual practices with the instructors and adult co-participants in their thirties and forties. The camp organizers have admitted that they target vulnerable youth, including foster children, who are at high risk of sexual abuse. In one video, founder Tanya Turner says, “Masturbation is really healthy, and I recommend it to people of all ages. All ages. As soon as my nephews could talk, they were doing that.” In a saner world, these statements and materials would all be red flags. Yet Sexy Summer Camp has received lavish praise in the media. Yes! magazine told readers that the program “helps rural young people feel more comfortable discussing their bodies, sex, and reproductive health to empower them to advocate for themselves.” CNN reported that Sexy Sex Ed is “what women in Appalachian Kentucky really want,” framing the summer camp as a way to “bring honest conversations to young people to fill the void left behind by homes and schools.” Programs like Sexy Summer Camp are unfortunately becoming more common in the United States. Another organization in Indiana was recently exposed for hosting a camp for children as young as eight that featured an instructor who encourages children to explore “gender identity,” “kink,” and “condom demonstration[s].” Activists have tried to launder this type of material into schools and nonprofit programs through the guise of “comprehensive sex education,” another euphemism that might lull the public into complacency. Parents should proceed with caution"
Why do liberals want to sexualise children so much?
Why Big-City Dominance Is a Problem for Democrats - The Atlantic - "the Los Angeles Times published an analysis of California ballot measures that found that “the state’s two major population centers have grown more and more different” from the rest of the state. Residents of Los Angeles and the Bay Area were at least 30 percentage points more likely than other Californians to support various propositions, such as reinstating affirmative action and allowing parolees to vote. A 30-point gap is massive—akin to the difference between deep-blue Massachusetts and purple Pennsylvania. From a political perspective, Los Angeles and the Bay Area look like leftist havens in an otherwise moderate state. This phenomenon is not specific to California; it is evident across the country. America’s richest and most progressive cities—from San Francisco to New York and Washington, D.C.—have filled with young, unmarried, “extremely online” graduates of elite colleges, who have collectively birthed a novel philosophy you could call “Instagram socialism.” Instagram socialists are highly educated, but not necessarily high-earning, urbanites who shop like capitalists and post like Marxists and frequently do so in adjacent tabs. Many of their causes are virtuous, such as universal health care and higher pay for low-income service workers. But given the dynamics of online communication, which prizes extremity, Instagram socialism usually functions as a crowd-sourcing exercise to brand widely appealing ideas in their most emotional and viral—and, therefore, most radical—fashion. Thus, major police reform (a popular idea) is branded “Abolish the Police” (an unpopular idea); a welcoming disposition toward immigrants (a popular idea) is blurred with calls for open borders (an unpopular idea); and universal health care (a popular idea) is folded into socialism (an unpopular idea). “Defund police, open borders, socialism—it’s killing us,” said Representative Vicente Gonzalez, a Democrat from South Texas who nearly lost a district this year he’d previously won by 20 points. Beyond giving Republicans and Fox News easy ways to tarnish otherwise appealing reforms, Instagram socialism’s sloganeering is a turnoff for moderates who spend time online but are not, in the modern capital-O sense, Online. The average voter in a general election is something like a moderate 50-year-old woman without a four-year college degree who stays away from partisan media and follows politics only occasionally. She might hate Trump, but her dispositional conservatism makes her less likely to embrace policies tweaked in a social-media lab for viral emotionality."
Of course, liberals still insist that there's no left wing party in the US
