Bret Weinstein on X - "No, it’s not “Pride Month.” Not for me, and not for millions of others. You’re welcome to be proud of whatever you want, in any month you like—because this is America. But what started in 1969 as a rebellion against persecution, morphed into a license for public depravity, and then morphed again into a weapon aimed at families and innocent children. Along the way it went from a day, to a week, and then a month and became official, and thereby effectively mandatory for all. Enough! If you’re gay and wondering why you are facing resistance now, the answer is that, with few exceptions, most of you didn’t stand up against the expansion and weaponization of “pride,” and the coercion that went with it. In that failure to resist, the gay community compromised any expectation that the rest of us should support “pride” at all, but especially the obscene display of hostility toward civilization and the families of which it is built, and for whom it exists. If your hackles are raised by the idea that civilization is about families, realize that families are how civilizations persist through time. Not everyone needs to form one, but we all must respect and protect them—It is the foundation of what it means to be civilized. For the small fraction of gays and lesbians who DID courageously stand up and resist expansion, coercion and the weaponization of “Pride,” I stand with you, and I have all along. But I won’t be celebrating, and I won’t be silent. It’s not too late to join the voices of reason and to confront the insanity of what “pride” has become."
Riley Donovan on X - "The two suspects in a pride flag burning at a Markham high school are Sepehr Abadar and Mahan Mohammad Radmard."
Jonathan Kay on X - "Sounds like a white supremacist Diagolon operation."
Cynical Publius on X - "One of the great power imbalances between conservatives and Leftists is the fact that our religion is religion, while their religion masquerades as politics. As such, we are governed by SCOTUS-determined “separation of church and state” and the Leftists are not. Case in point: “Pride Month.” This is a month-long celebration of the Left’s religion, but because it is not treated as a religion, federal/state/local governments everywhere can indulge in it. However, if we were to try and have governments celebrating “Jesus Month,” the lawsuits would be so thick you couldn’t cut through them with a rainbow chainsaw. I’m not sure how to solve this."
Christian Heiens 🏛 on X - "You solve it by accepting that all politics is theological and someone's worldview will always be promoted, so it may as well be ours. Wokeism is a religion that evolved to circumnavigate the First Amendment's ban on state religions. It's an ideological virus that could overcome the immune system the Founders constructed. Understanding that means that we can never go back to the old myth of neutrality. As John Adams warned over 200 years ago, the system only worked for a moral and religious people. The entire concept of "separation of church and state" only functioned so long as +90% of the population were devout Anglo-Protestants. It was never designed to work in a multi-cultural state where one side of the political divide can weaponize their political theology without ever admitting that they have a theology at all."
Protect and Teach on X - "It's not just schools and the police. The Essex Fire Service teaches local schools,Year 10, all about hate crime...how are they qualified to do this? ..parents think their child will learn about fire...Oh No...Your Tax pays for this. @nickwallis @ThePosieParker @JenKteach"
Jennifer Thetford-Kay on X - "Firefighters teaching Year 10 children “Hate Crime Awareness” complete with Progress Pride flags, protected characteristics, and reporting guides. Since when were these part of fire safety? This isn’t safeguarding. This is public services pushing ideology on children with taxpayer money. UK emergency services need to get back to core life-saving work."
Sports Illustrated on X - "Three Giants pitchers wore Bible verses on their Pride Night caps during Friday’s game. MLB has since issued a warning to them."
Payton Alexander on X - "100% of the recent backslide in support for gay rights is because of things like this, by the way. This is vile, totalitarian, vicious extremism. There is no possible justification for this. There is no natural end point here. Gay organizations urgently need to return to the principles of freedom of religion and association. This totalitarian impulse to crush anything short of complete submission is revolting."
Matt Whitlock on X - "The shift from “let us live our lives” to “you will wear the trans pride hat or it means you don’t believe gay people are full human beings” has been pretty staggering."
Clearly, if you refuse to wear pride attire or wave the flag it means you are a hateful bigot
The same people praising Colin Kaepernick and claiming right wingers were hypocrites who hated free speech are apoplectic over MLB players who subtly altered their caps
Monica_Harris on X - "This week, the DOJ reminded Major League Baseball of a simple constitutional principle: employers cannot selectively protect some forms of speech while suppressing others based on viewpoint. While MLB allowed — and even encouraged — players to display BLM messages on their uniforms, it barred players from displaying Bible verses during Pride Night. This is a violation of the First Amendment — full stop. As we celebrate Juneteenth, @fairforall_org urges @MLB to recommit to equal protection for all under the law. Civil rights are meaningless if they only apply to favored groups or causes. Freedom of expression and conscience belongs to all Americans, or it belongs to none."
Left wingers love discrimination when they approve of the cause, so they got very upset
'I can't get sponsorship'- why UK LGBT Pride events are disappearing (aka "Sponsorships cut, safe spaces lost: The quiet collapse of UK Prides") - "The reason is simple – money. The grassroots event costs £8,000 to pull off, financed by sponsors and funding bodies. ‘Sponsorship has very much disappeared,’ Sharan said. ‘Even the usual sponsors that email us going, “we want to get involved,” have gone silent.’ One funder rejected their application because Middlesex Pride had expressed solidarity with Palestine in its manifesto. Their manifesto said: ‘Middlesex Pride stands in solidarity with Palestine. Israel has enforced 75 years of apartheid upon Palestine and are currently commiting genocide in Gaza.’ Even when they said they would remove it, they were told: ‘we won’t give you money anyway because you’re too political.’ ‘We just didn’t realise how big the problem would be,’ she added. ‘We got almost zero funding from funding bodies, and we applied to everything. ‘With everything happening with trans rights, too, it seems no one wants to take a side.’... Local authorities need to rescue Pride events, no matter how small, Ben said, adding: ‘Pride is a reminder of the real and lifelong struggles we still face.’ The UK was once the most LGBTQ+ friendly in Europe, ranking number one on the Rainbow Map from 2011 to 2015. This year, it ranked 22nd. Map-maker ILGA-Europe told Metro that April’s ruling by the Supreme Court on the definition of ‘woman’ is among the reasons why the UK has fallen. Major Pride organisations, meanwhile, have even banned political parties from marching for not backing trans rights... ‘But where we are feeling the shift is in the rising visibility of far-right and fascist rhetoric.’ Figures like Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and US President Donald Trump are ’emboldening’ people to voice anti-LGBTQ+ hatred, he adds. For Sharan, it’s trans people who especially feel the impact of this. 'They’re finding it difficult to speak to anyone about their identity outside these safe spaces,’ she said of Pride events. ‘Without these smaller events, trans people will become more isolated.’ She worries that figures around trans people’s mental health – that two-thirds have experienced depression – will only increase. And that includes her team. ‘We’re a team of queer people, trans people, people of colour, sitting here asking,’ Sharan said, ‘”Does anyone give a sh*t?”‘"
From 2025. Of course, left wingers are complaining, because they think Pride events are entitled to money. Clearly, overreach in both trans and other items on the endless left wing wishlist is not their fault and only bigots would complain
Demanding that you're celebrated and trying to blackmail people into doing so is not narciccism and trying to silence others isn't censorship if it pushes the left wing agenda
Andy Ngo on X - "The WA State Patrol was made to apologize on microphone for its graduation ceremony triggering woke ideologues (like @GovBobFerguson) during the raising of the Trans-BLM-Pride flag at the state capitol. It was seen as blasphemous to the state religion."
Zoo Pride Week - Zoophilia Wiki - "Zoo Pride Week (also known as ZPW) is a world-wide holiday taking place from July 1st through July 7th annually. It was first announced in April 2019 on ZooVille.org by ZTHorse to create a worldwide zoophile awareness movement"
Zoophilia pride march in Germany : r/NoahGetTheBoat
Parents upset after student's suspension for wearing 'straight pride' shirt to N.B. school - "The Anglophone South School District and some people in the Belleisle school community are at odds over the suspension of a student for wearing a "straight pride" shirt during the school's Pride Week. Jaxon McDonald, a Grade 10 student at Belleisle Regional High School, was suspended for five days after he wore a T-shirt with the words "straight pride" on the front. Jaxon said he wasn't looking to offend with the shirt and wore it when inclusivity was the theme of the day's Pride events. "I wanted to wear my shirt to feel included, just like anyone else could wear any other type of shirt," he said in an interview. "So I wear my shirt on this week just to express who I am and what I believe in."... The petition said Jaxon was told by school administrators that wearing the shirt constituted a "hate crime," and for that he was suspended for five days... a couple of students whose parents had signed forms opting out of one of the Pride events were told by an administrator that they would either have to go to the event or leave school property... McDonald is a longtime volunteer with the school, helping the shop teacher with welding instruction and assisting with a club where students built a racing truck. The day Jaxon was suspended, McDonald was told he would no longer be allowed to volunteer with the school, which he believes is retaliation for his son's shirt... Education Minister Claire Johnson said she had been briefed on what happened but wouldn't say whether she thought the situation was properly handled by the school. She did say the wearing of a "straight pride" shirt at school is "problematic.""
Of course, left wingers blamed the parents. We are still told that heterophobia is not a thing
Left wingers still claim that Pride events are not compulsory in school
Keywords: mandatory pride events in school, compulsory pride events in school, unable to opt out of pride in school
vittorio on X - "the modern liberal was raised and cultivated in an environment purged of real debate, logic, and reason. brainwashed to deny what their own eyes can see and immersed in a monoculture where even minimal divergence from the party talking points meant total and eternal exile they cannot conceive of people using reason to argue against their pravda approved messages. reason and data are definitionally fascist and whoever tries to argue with them is an enemy. whenever someone tries to explain things with facts, their only reaction is scorn. their brains have lost the ability to process information that would make them deviate from the approved message. there's no justification for their beliefs other than dogmatic allegiance. they can only make this face and say something like "how dare you" or "thats racist" or "that's mean," but they can never tell you why you're wrong. so what comes out is the ad hominem and the appeals to feeling and authority, because their subjective reality cannot afford to be confronted with truth. and that's also why 𝕏 is so dangerous to them, why free speech is so "problematic", why online media has to be controlled "in the public interest." the libtard fears nothing more than truth, because truth would force them to accept that their entire worldview is built on a lie and that they've been led to believe in a fairy tale. they have been fed comforting lies and trained to live in a world decoupled from reality so when reality has to be faced (biological limits, sexual dimorphism, genetic differences), the cognitive dissonance becomes unbearable and their minds short-circuit the only way to keep functioning is to retreat deeper into the bubble, double down on the narrative, and reject any form of debate that involves logic or facts. that's also wwhy a lot of them end up medicating themselves just to tolerate the gap between what they were told and what actually exists. not by chance, the population with the highest reported incidence of mental illness are liberals: it's both true that modern libtardism makes you mentally ill and that mentally ill people find their delusions validated in it"
wanye on X - "It is not just that liberals don’t know what conservatives think. Not knowing what other people think would be like, you think they support immigration, but it turns out they’re against immigration. Liberals know that conservatives are against immigration. They’re not confused or uneducated about *what* conservatives think. What they lack is a model of how and why conservatives think as they do. What most of them cannot do is take the other side of the argument in a debate. When they model conservatives it basically reduces to, “well, I guess I’m just a big dumb idiot racist.” If you point this out, they do long threads about how you’re desperate for their approval, which is just another demonstration of the same phenomenon. The term that people use for this kind of understanding is, “theory of mind.” It’s not my term. I didn’t invent it. We could use some other term. But you need *some* term for this to distinguish it from merely not understanding what other people think. I don’t really see the utility of finding some other term. This term captures it pretty well. People know what it means. It seems to be working just fine.
Look, I can understand why, “they just don’t understand me, man” can get tedious and whiny, but,uh, they don’t. I don’t know what to tell you. It’s obvious that they don’t. And they never shut up about how smart and insightful and empathetic they are, so the dissonance this creates genuinely is kind of maddening."
JamesT on X - "Most people are stupid Wanye, this is true on the left and the right - but truer on the right. So yes, many liberals/leftists have a very poor theory of mind for conservatives, but that's really just a function of the fact that almost everybody is actually quite stupid."
wanye on X - "Right, but the median dumb guy conservative thinks of liberals mostly that they have big hearts, but they just simply don’t understand the unintended side effects of their policies. That’s actually a pretty sophisticated understanding of the situation. There’s no symmetry here. Liberals don’t have any theory of conservatives other than that they are dumb racists. The median liberal is baffled by conservatives. They can’t understand why anybody would think as they do. You really see this with the Elon Musk discourse where they are very clearly shocked that anybody would defend the idea of a trillionaire. They literally cannot think of any argument for why somebody would do that. They tweet all the time that they, “cannot understand why anybody would defend a trillionaire.” It’s not that they don’t know what conservatives think. It’s that they cannot think of even one argument in favor of what conservatives think. They have no model whatsoever for what conservatives think."
Covfefe Anon on X - "The actual joke here is not that liberals lack a theory of mind for anyone on the right (they do) while the average person on the right has one for liberals (they do, it's mistaken). It's that lib lack a theory of mind *for themselves*. Their views of themselves and why they believe what they believe are entirely incorrect - they view their beliefs as "rational" and "following the evidence" but their actual beliefs are more simply described by "attempts to match the beliefs of the hivemind" and the hivemind changes beliefs based on if those beliefs produce power. The simplest example (and there are others) is everything around covid where it went from "it's racist to worry about a disease - hug a Chinese person" to "shut everything down" to "racism is the real public health emergency" all following purely from the logic of power. If a liberal had a good theory of mind *for himself* he would see himself as so cynical that he couldn't function as a good liberal - just saying that this is how they form views is enough to disqualify anyone from taking their views seriously. Them lacking a theory of mind for anyone on the right is just a natural consequence of this"
Matt Walsh on X - "The three most egregious body cam videos over the past decade, where cops unequivocally murdered someone or left them to die, are Henry Nowak, Daniel Shaver, and Tony Timpa. These victims have a few things in common. No riots. No murals in their honor. And they were all white."
Christian Heiens 🏛 on X - "Ever notice how the Constitution was utterly powerless to stop everything from COVID lockdowns to the explicitly anti-White/anti-Male DEI regime of the last dozen years, but it's now constantly being invoked to defend everything from giving citizenship to the children of illegals and CCP spies to sending unlimited sums of taxpayer money to the Progressive NGO complex?"
Reaction to Sir David Amess' murder says a lot about the modern media - "It's a mark of the prevalence of the anti-Enlightenment philosophies of Rousseau and Marcuse that one of the few pieces of information available to the public on the afternoon of Friday 15th October was that David Amess was an anti-abortionist. When an inexplicable random murder occurs, a selfish type of defence mechanism kicks in; most murder victim and perpetrator are known to each other. Do we know anyone likely to kill us because of our unfashionable views? No, of course not. And after all, unlike the less developed moral universe of many around the world from parts of the US to Russia to Somalia, we don't respond to murder with a sense of vengeance. Instead, we seek to understand that the perpetrator may have suffered himself and be as much as a victim as the slain, because this concept in itself makes us human. Plus, what if in this age of intersectionality where tribe is paramount, there are repercussions? Rage and, even more reprehensible, objectivity gets us nowhere. Better distance ourselves from the victim in as many ways possible. Might he even got what he deserved? A creature of the establishment whose advocacy of neo-liberal capitalism inflicted much privation on the developing world. The editorial offices of mainstream media outlets must have collectively slammed on the breaks when the facts became clear; a socially conservative, white male Christian politician was murdered by a radical Islamist in a Church. There was a grim predictability that the BBC would struggle with this, but the depths to which information was deemed tolerable for consumption by an untrustworthy public breaks new bounds of deceit. Within twenty-four hours we knew more about David Amess views on abortion, Thatcherism and support for Brexit than any tangible information about the killer. He was initially described as a 25-year-old, then a 'British National'. That is unusual. Wayne Cousins or Jake Davison were never described as 'British Nationals'. We know that Jake Davison once liked one of Donald Trump's tweets and had issues with women. Though the media didn't mention it, one suspects David Amess's killer's ideological prescription for women's role in society would be less benign than either Wayne Cousins or Jake Davison. We know the politician, in the photos attending his daughter's wedding, appears the embodiment of patriarchy and establishment, and much can be learnt about the mindset of a man who poses with a Union flag. But his murderer? Initially nothing (though we are now slowly starting to see more of a picture emerge). Amess had an identity which fitted neatly into a despised political tribe, 'Brexiteer', whereas his murderer was merely a 'British National'. Later, as he was identified the media quickly explained that his father was a diplomat who had worked against radical Islamists in Somalia and as far as anyone knew this was a nice, well to do family. The average house price in the area is £1.5 million. Lockdown had forced the lad onto the internet where social media radicalised him, and such is the Prime Minister's belligerent attitude during PMQs it is inevitable a misguided youngster would see it entirely permissible to attack an MP. In effect this was somebody who could be me or you or your brother or son. As the narrative ran its preordained course, interviews with Brendan Cox were published and Kim Leadbetter's partner reportedly asked her to step down from her role as MP. This and David Amess' opposition to abortion, no doubt informed by his Christianity, were crucial in shaping the Marcusian reality. The Guardian, another outlet that must have found it exceedingly difficult to report on the attack, tried to level things up by headlining President Macron's apology for the bloody murder of Parisian Algerians – 60 years ago. More stories of asylum seekers being wronged by the British State appeared on their frontpage by Monday morning. Opinion pieces mentioned threats to female MPs, but nothing comparable to the thirst with which they consumed George Floyd's death and how this explained a wider story of White Oppression. The media and progressive politicians will let this story fade away. Hopefully the funeral will appear stately, formal, almost abstract from most normal people's lives. Give him a plaque, having already made Southend a city, then let him reside alongside all those other dead white men who haunt British politics. No days of rage, knee taking or murals. No weaving of his tale into educational packages. According to the Mayor of London, David Amess merely "passed away". The only truth we can draw from this is what kind of a person David Amess was; remember, he was against abortion."
From 2021. The contrast with Jo Cox's murder was instructive where, among other things, politicising murders is good when it pushes the left wing agenda
The strange reluctance to discuss Islamist terror | The Spectator - "Ten years ago this week, the British MP Jo Cox was murdered. In his post on social media platform X marking the anniversary of that horrifying crime, Keir Starmer writes, in his very first line, that her killer was ‘a far-right terrorist’. Quite reasonably. It is obviously legitimate, indeed important, to identify the worldview motivating acts of political violence. The problem is that those, like Starmer, who are quickest to invoke ideology in some cases consistently refuse to do so in others. Specifically, when the ideology in question is Islamist in nature. After another MP, Sir David Amess, was murdered by an Islamist fanatic in 2021, Starmer did not describe the killer in the same ideological terms, instead speaking about the ‘poison of extremism’ more broadly. In another post on the anniversary of Amess’s death he made no reference whatsoever to the worldview motivating the murder. Instead, he stated, in far vaguer terms, that ‘violence and threats to our democracy will never prevail’. Note the difference in the language used: ‘far-right terrorist’ versus generalised, abstract ‘violence’. These are, obviously, deliberate choices. There has, admittedly, been some change in the past few months, with Starmer and his fellow Labour politicians at long last begrudgingly using terms like ‘Islamist’ and ‘jihadist’ on rare occasions. But this is not some voluntary embrace of honesty. Following the deadly attack on Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester (by a man literally called ‘Jihad’), for instance, Starmer condemned anti-Semitism and terrorism while carefully avoiding any discussion of the attacker’s religious background or the theological factors involved. It was only after mounting criticism, and following a series of high-profile anti-Jewish attacks that made the usual evasions increasingly untenable, that he changed tack. It’s worth making clear at this point that Starmer is not an outlier here. He exemplifies a broader tendency in elite discourse. Across Britain, and indeed the West more broadly, liberal politicians, journalists and public figures have spent years engaging in the same rhetorical sleight of hand. When confronted with far-right extremists, they speak with little hesitation about the ideas in question, often seeking to draw wider conclusions about the guilt or complicity of the broader conservative movement. Progressives throw terms like ‘far right’ around with remarkable abandon, and often incorrectly, as a political weapon with which to smear opponents and delegitimise populist-right positions that enjoy a substantial degree of popular support. When confronted with Islamism, however, the pattern is very different. They obfuscate, deflect, and retreat into vague terminology which leaves the uninformed listener none the wiser as to the nature of the brutality in question. This habit is widespread. Sadiq Khan routinely warns about the dangers of the ‘far right’. He speaks of ‘far-right violence’, ‘far-right extremism’ and ‘far-right misinformation’. Yet when confronted with attacks carried out in the name of Islam, we suddenly hear about ‘hatred’, ‘extremism’, ‘division’ and ‘radicalisation’; rarely about the specific belief system involved. In 2019, in the aftermath of a spate of mass casualty jihadist atrocities in Britain, the Labour party released a manifesto that referred to the far right by name but failed to directly mention Islamic extremism. This is not a distinctively British phenomenon, either. Following an Isis-inspired attack on a Hanukkah event near Bondi Beach that claimed 15 lives, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was criticised for carefully structuring his remarks to avoid any mention of ‘Muslims’, ‘Islam’ or ‘Islamic extremism’, while nevertheless invoking the spectre of ‘right-wing extremist groups’ more than once. This sort of deflection, obfuscation and selective outrage is not merely cowardly, it amounts to gaslighting on a grand scale. It asks people to accept a partial and misleading characterisation of crimes explicitly directed against the core values and institutions of democratic life. Jihadism remains, by some distance, the most significant terrorist threat facing Western societies. Yet the underlying motivations behind that violence are, in certain influential quarters, discussed less openly than those of movements that are vastly less deadly. The result is not greater social cohesion or public trust. It is the opposite. People can observe the double standard for themselves. They can see that some ideologies are named immediately while others are obscured behind layers of euphemism and abstraction. And once people conclude that they are being misled about something so obvious, they inevitably begin to wonder what else they are not being told."
