Imagine a world wherein Muslim students don’t want to take a class from an atheist who is critical of Islam. Islam is an identity and criticisms of it are offensive to those who identify as such. The teacher is an Islamophobe. He makes Muslims feel unsafe. The university needs to train faculty to affirm Islamic beliefs. Students should not be required to take a class from an Islamophobe. The teacher should only teach non-required classes.
“St. Sebastian,” 15th-century painted terra cotta sculpture by Matteo Civitali at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.
Now imagine that a fundamentalist Christian student learns his teacher is a Darwinist. The teacher believes men and women are evolved creatures. He doesn’t subscribe to creationist ideology—to intelligent design. He’s a Christophobe. He makes the student feel unsafe. How can the university allow a man who believe in natural historical explanations teach required classes? Students should not be required to take a class from a Christophobe. The teacher should only teach non-required classes.
The second example is difficult to imagine given the anti-Christian bias in today’s academy. Indeed, it sounds like a ridiculous example. But the first example is not that hard to imagine. In fact, it has already happened.
There are other examples like the first one that could be made that are even easier to imagine. You’ve already thought of one of them.
Gender is a social construct but in reality human beings experience it on a spectrum, and it’s bullying to demand that someone lives by your definition, rather than their own lived in experience. https://t.co/VXnhw6Mtsb
Eddie Marsan’s objection is nonsense. Sex and gender are synonyms. The man Kay Burley interrogates can’t tell you why they’re not because he’d have to be well-versed in the jargon of an anti-scientific ideology (“gender identity” and all that) to appear to differentiate them, and then he’d either be a cultist or a liar. As it is, his thinking is muddled because he’s heard they’re different.
What he actually means to say, I think, is that a man can pretend to be a woman. To be rational, he’d have to be mean this because gender is objective, unchangeable, and binary. Rishi Sunak says a man is not a woman. That’s a statement of fact. A woman is an adult female human. She can’t be a man. If the law denies this fact, then it is an irrational law and must be changed. But surely, at least, the man can have an opinion. How would he otherwise convey an intent to negotiate an irrational law?
'Trans people have had legal protection to change sex for 20 years and protections in the equality act for 13 years, but in the last three years trans rights have been up for debate again', says NUS Scotland president Ellie Gommersall.https://t.co/PAiZ4D1jU3
How on earth did it ever come to pass that a government in the civilized world allowed people to legally change their sex in the face of the material reality that people can’t? Somebody came back at me with “Except the materially can and do,” to which I responded: “No they can’t and don’t. You’re making an argument against natural history. This is an unscientific belief you’re advancing. Queer theory is a quasi-religious standpoint. You can’t expect rational people with integrity to go down an ideological road.”
You are who you are, not who you say you are.
Sex and gender are synonyms. Gender is binary and unchangeable in our species (all mammals, in fact). There is no spectrum. Gender identity, the spectrum, and all the rest of it are constructs of a pseudoscience designed by crackpots seeking to normalize paraphilia.
Is the Gender Recognition Act on borrowed time? I hope so—and that this experience provides a lesson in the importance of fact and reason in making law and the peril of trying to legislate ideology. ***
A man chimed in on X to scold me for my “quasi-religious” characterization of queer theory, saying that psychology, sociology, etc., have validated gender ideology.
I know. I have degrees in psychology and sociology and taught college for thirty years. I have watched in real time as these and other disciplines fell prey to ideological corruption. The university has become a cathedral and the professoriate and administration a clergy.
It all started with poststructuralism and postmodernism bringing radical sexology into the sciences. Today, academic and professional conferences, journals, and publishing houses strictly gate-keep with queer theory their guide to prevent science from appearing in order to manufacture the perception of hegemony.
It’s heartbreaking to see. We are entering Dark Ages 2.0 where people believe there are gendered souls inhabiting wrong bodies. It’s batshit crazy time in academia. If there isn’t a revolt by scientists with integrity soon, I fear we will lose one of the great institutions of Western civilization.
In England, a male patient raped a woman in a women’s hospital ward by pretending to be a woman. The hospital denied the woman’s complaint for over a year because the rapist was a trans woman. The rape was the direct result of a National Health Service policy known as Annex B, which orders hospitals to place patients in single-sex wards according to their preferred gender identity not their actual gender. By the terms of Annex B, if there is a male as a trans person in a female ward, and a female patient or anyone complains, they must be told that there is no male there. In other words, hospital staff is required to gaslight those under their care. The policy prioritizes the manufactured needs of trans women, i.e., men, over the organic interests of women.
Health and Social Care Secretary Steve Barclay
The correct policy change is coming: no more male patients in the women’s ward (see Julie Bindel’s “Misogynistic Trans Activist Have Suffered a Huge Defeat”). Steve Barclay, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, is set to announce proposals that would see trans women banned from female wards. Makes total sense. But the crazies are out, for example India Willoughby, arguing that, since law and regulation allow men who pretend to be women to be classified as women in England, that means that, by definition, there was no man on the ward and therefore the rape never happened.
ITV reporter Jonathan Willoughby, who now identifies as a woman, is leading the campaign to gaslight the public over a rape that occurred on a women’s ward in a British hospital.
Have you got it yet? The people who wish away gender can also wish away an event in which a woman was raped. How many rapes have been covered up this way? A reminder, then: by definition, a woman is an adult female human being. It is an exclusive category. The slogan “Trans women are women,” is the slogan of a misogynistic cult that has wormed its way in the institutions of West. They are demanding not only that everybody adopt this ridiculous Orwellian slogan, but that the law stands in back of their demands. But the truth is that trans women are men. And while not all men are abusers and racists, enough men are that girls and women have a natural right to sex-exclusive spaces where they can reasonably expect that they only men they will be around are those they choose to be around.
This interview is useful to understanding the current situation, but you have to think correctly to extract from the discussion its usefulness. As you watch this, right from the beginning, mentally substitute “progressive” for “liberal.” Carlson is performing the mainstream media trick of conflating the terms. They are in fact opposites. The actual liberals are Carlson and Hanson. Hansen is more accurate in his terminology, and once the interview gets underway the terminology aligns. However, they do not use the term progressive enough, and it is important to do so so the public understands more fully the situation.
President Joe Biden delivers a primetime speech at Independence National Historical Park September 1, 2022 in Philadelphia. He spoke on “the continued battle for the Soul of the Nation.”
Both are correct to say that the current situation is totalitarian—and that totalitarianism is known as woke progressivism. Moreover, and Hanson alludes to this, woke progressivism is highly similar to national socialism in its complete abandonment of truth and race essentialism. The ideology of the corporate state has become the worst sort of fascism. I wish Carlson (and Greenwald and others) wouldn’t make the error of treating liberal as a label for an ideology rather than an unchanging system of principles, as it makes our way out of this mess look like the cause of it, but they do (see The Democratic Party is Not the Party of Liberal Politics), and so we have to make the adjustment in our minds.
Ep. 27 Donald Trump appeared in court today, but it wasn’t a legal proceeding. It was a grotesque parody of the system our ancestors created. Victor Davis Hanson explains. pic.twitter.com/KhTHateWCZ
The fascism, albeit often offered in a soft and pleasant tone, is manifested right down to home visits by federal agents. Biden’s FBI is making unannounced home visits to Trump supporters nationwide. The visits are known as “knock and talks.” The FBI agents say, “You haven’t done anything wrong yet, we just want to talk.…” This is a form of voter intimidation. They will interview you for information identifying your friends, etc. If the FBI visit you, don’t answer the door. You don’t have to talk to them and it’s not safe to answer your door.
Milley, whom Trump essentially accused of high treason, said he’s been “faithful and loyal” to the Constitution throughout his career. The fact that he admitted he was willing to go behind the President’s back to warn Beijing of a pending US military attack proves that Milley’s opinion of himself is a false one. Trump’s implied accusation of high treason is not inaccurate.
The corporate state media is making much over Donald Trump’s suggestion that General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff under Trump, deserved to be executed. This is part of the push by the Party to defend the military-industrial complex and press warmongering into popular consciousness, key features of totalitarian systems. What the media are not telling the public is that, in a democratic republic founded on civilian control of the military, with the President designated by the Constitution to be the chief commander of the armed forces, for a general to go behind the President’s back to give the nation’s chief adversary, i.e., China, advanced warning of an attack on Beijing is an act of treason. Historically, treason has carried the death penalty. Denial of civilian control of the military by misinforming the public about the content of Trump’s remark is a clear indicator of the authoritarianism that pervades the corporate state media apparatus.
The ACLU is using the controversy over exposing children to sexualized performances to raise money for their organization. Lumping trans identifying people with gay and lesbian, the ACLU defends sexualized drag shows for children. The ACLU is determined to continually remind me why I resigned from that organizations after more than a decade of service as a board member. It’s not the same organization it used to be. It’s become a woke joke. (See Luring Children to the Edge: The Panic Over Lost Opportunities.)
This once venerable institution can’t be counted on to shoot straight anymore. What anti-drag legislation? I didn’t know that the free expression of drag queens was under assault—and I have been following this story closely. I didn’t know this because it isn’t. The ACLU is lying to ramp up fear and drive donations to their organization. The controversy has never been over drag queens per se. When drag comes on TV, if folks don’t like it, they change the channel. But clearly a lot of folks stick around and watch it because it’s on TV a lot. If drag was under assault we’d know about it. It is the opposite of suppressed—it’s promoted by the culture industry and in public instruction.
Ten years ago progressives would have condemned this because, you know, trailer trash. But throw a drag queen into a clutch of hyper-sexualized youth and it’s a social justice moment. Brave and beautiful.
Parents are not objecting to drag but to sexual displays in front of children and the sexualization of youth. That would be not only most parents but most adults. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 60 percent of American adults consider “Drag Queen Story Hour” inappropriate for children. Less than 30 percent think such programming is appropriate for children, with only 11 percent expressing enthusiasm for the practice. I don’t need to look at the age cohort cross tabs on that survey.
If adults feel that way about Drag Queen Story Hour, imagine how they feel about the practice of taking children to strip clubs and pushing them to stuff dollar bills in the g-strings of the entertainer there. Have you seen the faces of these children? They look terrified. Even some of the parents who show up to virtue signal are taken aback. (See Drag Queen Lap Dance at Forsyth Tech: Humiliating the Gullible; If All This Strikes You as Perverse, You’re Right. It is; )
There is no movement against exotic dancing in America today, either. But if exotic dancers were performing in front of children, I think a lot of Americans would object. I know they would. Wouldn’t the woke progressives complain about exposing children to the objectification of girls and women? But isn’t that what’s happening with drag performances?
Whatever you want to do as an adult, that’s fine. Sexual displays are fine. I like them, personally. And not a little. I’m a sex-positive feminist. But free expression like any expression is subject to time and place constraints and age appropriateness. The protection of minors is an important part of maintaining a safe and healthy environment for child development. The sexualization of children is neither safe nor healthy. You’d think after everything that we’ve learned about the life-course impact of trauma early in children’s lives that this would not be an issue. (See What is Grooming?Seeing and Admitting Grooming.)
Negative reinforcement involves punishing/disciplining a person until he acts and speaks in the correct way. The correct way is determined by the punisher/disciplinarian—the person who possesses power, the controller. For example, a DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) training program requires that an employee adopt the conclusions and the practices taught in the program. At least this is the metric of a successful reeducation program. The conclusions and practices advance the agenda and an ideology. The training program is unpleasant because it’s full of ideas that the individual does not share; he is moreover made to feel responsible for things he could not possibly have done; he is told he believes things that he doesn’t even know he believes. He’s gaslighted. The employee knows he will repeat the program until he complies. He may even be positively reinforced for adopting the punisher/disciplinarian’s standpoint. On the other hand, he may not get a raise if he doesn’t. He may be punished with a damning professional report in his permanent record. Worse, his employment may be terminated.
Today, employees are being punished/disciplined for believing and affirming such basic truths as, for example, that men cannot be women, i.e., an objective fact of the biological world. He may on this basis refuse to misgender colleagues, i.e., by refusing to use the preferred pronouns he knows are wrong. He may lose his career if he does not comply with demands that he believe, or at least says he believes, in a falsehood. He may be ordered to enroll in a specialized training program—a struggle session—to teach him how to address men as women and women as men or as both genders or as no genders at all, all of which are material falsehoods. He will taught not just how to use the wrong pronouns, but he will also learn about neopronouns. His superiors may encourage him to put his pronouns in his email signature. His speech will be compelled in a myriad of ways.
Authorities tell us that these struggle sessions are necessary to produce a more “inclusive” and “equitable” workplace, one that values “diversity.” The employees of an inclusive and equitable workplace are happy and thus more productive and the firm is more likely to retain them. This might alienate other employees, but if the estranged are white and cis gendered then their emotional and psychological experiences are rather unimportant (they’re privileged). What is important is diversity, and diversity means a workplace with ever fewer white and cis gendered people in it—with those remaining serving as allies to concrete personifications of abstract categories, some of whom are simulacra. To keep their jobs and avoid constant harassment and shaming by managers and other employees, white and cis gendered workers have to avoid saying true things; it’s almost guaranteed that there is an employee who believes something else is true, and his beliefs must be affirmed and everybody else required to suspend her or his disbelief. The individual who believes in true things will have to either convince himself that what is true is wrong, and that what is wrong is good—or he will at least have to act in bad faith.
Punishing/disciplining people for telling the truth, or punishing/disciplining them until they lie, is the beating heart of totalitarianism. Progressives are already, in the institutions they control, which are all the major institutions to some or near total degree (corporate firms, cultural and educational organizations, government, and media), significantly modifying behavior and belief by making truth telling a punishable offense or subject to discipline and punishment/discipline an acceptable means to compel lying. The younger generations are far more compliant in this regard because their educational experiences have been compromised of a comprehensive indoctrination program designed to condition them to be obedient to corporate control. Progressivism is an authoritarian praxis, and if the elders of western civilization don’t resist it soon, there may be no generations left who can.
I am reading that Trump has driven a wedge between voters. The wedge wasn’t created by Trump. He isn’t the divisive figure he’s made out to be. The wedge is a fundamental disagreement over whether we have, on the one hand, a republic where the ethics of individual liberty and popular democracy are upheld, or whether, on the other, we suffer the technocratic rule of a corporate state apparatus and its attendant administrative state run by executives, professional managers, and elite-picked experts.
The division in America is deep and objective. trump is calling attention to it. Trump is one of those making the choice obvious by speaking like an ordinary person and not condescending to the public. That’s why the establishment hates him so much. He’s a raiser of mutual knowledge through plain speak. He is the leader of a social movement that threatens entrenched power. So does RFK, Jr. The establishment hates him just as much. Maybe more. And for the same reason: populism.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., testifying before the House of Representatives’ Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
On October 9, Robert Kennedy will announce that he is running as an independent. Kennedy can’t win the Democratic primary the way Trump did in the much more democratic system Republicans (the original populist party) developed. The Democratic primary is rigged.
Some Republicans believe that Kennedy running as an independent is a strategy by Democrats to divide the Trump vote. But really it will divide the Democrat vote. Kennedy is the embodiment of what many Democrats used to believe—or at least said they believed. There are likely scores of rank-and-file Democrats who have been waiting their entire lives to vote for a Bobby Kennedy. I know I have. I know others.
This will be a contest between two populists—if they don’t jail (or worse) Trump or Kennedy. Biden will look as lost and alone as he does when Barack Obama shows up at the White House. Good luck to Democrats finding 81 million votes again. The corporate state apparatus can’t manufacture enough votes to stop the populist train. Democrats are in real trouble. And it’s glorious.
* * *
Jesse Montez Thorton II savagely beat a 63-year-old white man for asking for the seats he reserved for himself and his wife.
A Florida movie theater in Pompano Beach, Florida. A white dude, 63-year-old Marc Cohen, asked a black dude, 27-year-old Jesse Montez Thorton II, for his reserved seats, in which Thorton and a girl who was with him were sitting. He got some reparations for his trouble. The beating was savage. Cohen suffered several injuries to his head and face and was taken to a hospital for treatment. If this were in a woke state the charges would’ve be dismissed or reduced to a misdemeanor. Because it’s Florida, Thorton was arrested and faces one count of aggravated battery with great bodily harm. Still, it took a two-months-long investigation before police moved to arrest Thorton.
Here’s the video from the Broward County Sheriff’s Office: 11-2307-003641.mp4. Sorry to be so real about this, but I’m sick of the shit and spin. Anti-white and anti-Asian bigotry is a real problem in America and we know from where it comes and who’s feeding it: woke progressives with their antiracist gospel. You cannot preach that white-run society is racist and owes a debt to blacks and not expect that some black people will hear this as permission to take matters into their own hands. I’ve been writing about this for several years (see, e.g., Why are there so Many More White than Black Victims of Interracial Homicide?Race and Violent Death in America).
I wonder whether this incident will get the same level of attention a white congresswoman got for showing affection in a theater? That’s a rhetorical question. Of course it won’t.
Conservative activists and podcaster Charlie Kirk has been on the Internet today misrepresenting Georg Hegel’s views on the state. Yes, Hegel said, “The state is the march of God on earth.” However, Hegel did not mean by this that the state is a divine entity or that it should be worshipped as God. (Hegel’s views on religion are complicated, so I will leave them to one side for now.) Instead, Hegel is saying that the state is a historical manifestation of the rational will, a collective entity, which he believes plays a vital role in the development of human freedom and self-realization.
Georg Hegel, German philosopher who lived 1770-1831.
What Kirk and his fellow right-wingers don’t understand is that, in Hegel’s philosophy, the state represents the highest form of social organization, in which individual freedom and collective unity are reconciled via the dialectical process establishing a democratic process of working out oppositional desires. It’s through the state that individuals realize their full human potential by participating in a just and rational political system. Indeed, the state has a duty to protect the liberties and rights of citizens and to promote their well-being. This is the purpose of the modern nation-state.
So, while Hegel does attribute a significant role to the state in his philosophical system, and considers it a crucial aspect of human development, he does not equate the state with God or the closet thing to God on earth. Instead, he views it as a historical and rational institution that—if just and virtuous—contributes to human progress and the realization of individual and collective freedom. It is odd in light of Kirk’s rhetoric to make this accusation since his own side believes that the United States history is profoundly providential. Hegel’s argument is no different.
Karl Marx (1818-1883), who elaborates Hegel’s method in terms of scientific materialism
Right-wingers also misrepresent Karl Marx’s arguments concerning morality and the state. Marx is not seeking to clear out morality from politics. He does not argue that morality is a social construct in the way postmodernists do. He is rather asking us to consider the character of morality in politics. Is the prevailing morality that of the species-being or good for it—that morality of which we are alienated because of the oppressive and exploitative structures of modern society? Or is the prevailing morality that of the bourgeoisie—a morality used to justify those oppressive and exploitative structures.
Marx posits that economic structures and material conditions are the primary drivers of historical and social change and that these underpin the political-legal superstructure, a superstructure from which emerge ideology and consciousness. In this view, the prevailing morality is a reflection of the prevailing economic and social relations—that is, of those who control society. Marx argues that those who control the means of material production also control the means of ideological production. Thus, Marxists argue that moral values and norms are shaped by the interests and needs of the ruling class, and they evolve to maintain the status quo.
This conclusion (which seems to be be the correct one) doesn’t mean that Marx’s didn’t have moral commitments. Marx advances an elaborate critique of alienation, where individuals under capitalism are estranged from the products of their labor, from the production process, and even from their own humanity. This is a moral criticism of capitalism, an indictment of a system that devalues human labor and damages the human psyche. Marx’s moral concerns are therefore tied to his critique of class exploitation. He believes that capitalism inherently leads to the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. From a moral standpoint, exploitation is condemned as unjust and unethical.
Marx is critical of the private ownership of the means of production and advocated for collective ownership and control. He argues that private property is a source of inequality and that the moral principle of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” should guide society. This principle sounds astonishingly similar to Acts 2:44-45 of the Christian testament: “All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.” Likewise, the ultimate goal of Marx’s political and economic vision was the establishment of a classless, communist society. He desired that the state and class divisions wither away. Individuals would then be guided by the principle of common ownership and cooperation.
From a moral standpoint, communism was a more just and equitable system. This was central ambition of Marx’s politics. The claim that Marx thought morality was mere epiphenomenon could not be further from the truth of the arguments the great man made.
“If you open the borders, my God, there’s a lot of poverty in this world, and you’re going to have people from all over the world.” —Donald Trump, 2019
“It’s not going to stop. Nor should we want it to stop. As a matter of fact, it’s one of the things I think we can be most proud of.” —Joe Biden, speaking about mass immigration in 2015
On Tuesday, President Biden stood alongside striking autoworkers in Michigan, agreeing with them that they deserve considerably more than their current compensation. The media is making much of the fact that his appearance marked the first time in modern history that a sitting US president joined striking workers (remember Barack Obama’s broken promise?). Biden’s stunt occurred just one day ahead of a visit to the state by Donald Trump, the leading Republican candidate for the Presidency, who gave a speech in Clinton Township on Wednesday, September 27. The media is reporting that these consecutive events underscore the significance of union support in the upcoming 2024 presidential election, even though labor unions represent only a small fraction of the American workforce. Today, union density is at most only around a tenth of American workers. This is in sharp contrast to union density before the 1970s, when it stood around 35-40 percent.
President Joe Biden speaking at an event organized by autoworkers in Michigan
Of course, President Biden has organized labor in his back pocket. This is a condition of American corporatism. Unions were pulled into the corporate state and defanged long ago. Biden is motivated to stand with workers for another reason: he needs to appear pro-labor while doing more than any American president in recent memory to undermine workers interests—their wages and benefits, their families, and their communities. More than this. Biden is in reality an agent of managed decline of the American Republic. Trump’s motivations are different and obvious: he believes in the American Creed and recognizes that working people are fundamental to the success of that project.
Democratic Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., another believer in the American Creed, held a press conference on immigration and the border crisis in Austin, Texas, September 22. The mayor of Eagle Pass, Texas, had just declared a state of emergency, that city’s health and safety services overwhelmed by a surge of thousands of migrants. It’s not just a crisis in the southwest of the nation, of course. Kennedy noted New York Mayor Eric Adams’ statement that the flood of immigrants is destroying his city. “Every city in this country has now become a border town,” Kennedy said. Indeed.
Democratic Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a the southern border of the United States
Kennedy noted Biden administration’s recent announcement of work permits for nearly half a million Venezuelan immigrants, saying “Giving 470,000 migrants work visas is a signal to the rest of the world that anyone who comes to this country is going to get a work visa. And that’s the last thing we want to signal at this point. Until the border is secure, we should not be talking about work visas for anybody.” Kennedy made the point after stressing that the border crisis is first and foremost a humanitarian crisis, in which migrants suffer from rapacious drug and human trafficking cartels, as well as unscrupulous employers once they arrive. “They can never make enough money to get off the street,” Kennedy said.
Actually, the border crisis is first and foremost an organized plan to destroy the American Republic. Here’s how it works: Flood the country with immigrants to burden the social welfare system and disorder national culture. Tell citizens that they have to give illegals work permits so the illegals can get jobs to unburden the system and become part of America. Work permits for illegals—and work under the table—displaces native born workers who then burden the welfare system. This makes more people dependent on the party whose strategy involves enlarging the proportion of the population who vote for a living (in contrast to working for a living). Meanwhile, wages are driven even lower and the corporate firms progressives represent make out like bandits. At the same time, the globalists are flooding the West with the bearers of primitivism to destroy enlightened civilization. In effect, they’ve thrown open the city gates and invited the barbarians in. The end will resemble the collapse of Rome. Only feudalism 2.0 will be be a high-tech Dark Ages.
“Since Biden was elected, 7 million immigrants have come across the border illegally,” Kennedy said in his speech. It’s a lot more than 7 million; more likely the number is in the neighborhood of 10-12 million since Biden was installed as president. This brings the number of illegal aliens residing in America to perhaps as many as 40 million. However, Kennedy is right that, during the same period, just over three million immigrants arrived in America legally. We can debate whether that’s too many (it is), but there is a big difference: they’re following the process.
“The Democrats who have been urging an open border policy need to look at the evidence now and rethink their positions,” Kennedy said, adding that “we need to quickly secure the borders. Then we can think about work permits or amnesty programs. But we can’t sell those to the American people until the borders are closed and the frontiers are secure.” Yes, we need to quickly secure the borders. But I like this bit about selling work permits and amnesty programs to the American people. These should not be on the table. We should instead be discussing mass deportations. We cannot reward the lawbreakers who illegally enter our country. And we cannot reward the lawmakers who encourage them to do so at the behest of corporate power.
Kennedy issued this statement after the rally, making his position more clearly: “As President, I will make the border impenetrable to illegal migrants, but we can’t afford to wait a year and a half for that to happen. That is why I am calling on Democratic and Republican leaders to unify on this issue. I’m asking Democrats in particular to reexamine their assumption that a loose border is somehow more compassionate. It is not. It has created a humanitarian crisis for the migrants that is now destroying our cities, crushing our social services, and harming the working poor by undercutting their wages.” Besides Kennedy and Trump, both of whom are demonized by the establishment, there are no prominent political figures in America with common sense positions on mass immigration. This is what a robust pro-worker politics looks like, especially Kennedy’s follow up statement.
Kennedy will likely not get the nomination of his party. Rumors have it that he has been in communication with the Libertarian Party. This is just as well, as the Democratic Party has become antithetical to Kennedy’s populism. Democrats are pursuing the neoliberal agenda to drive down the wages of native American workers. Neoliberalism is an economic-political philosophy that prioritizes the interests of corporations and the wealthy elite over the well-being of the general population. It’s characterized by corporate governance, which involves regulatory capture, effective privatization of public function, assets, and infrastructure, as well as increased corporate control over the liberties and rights of citizens, who are increasing transformed into consumers. Neoliberalism is associated with income inequality, financial instability, environmental degradation, erosion of workers rights, loss of national sovereignty, and the crisis of democracy.
Democrats talking about the crisis of democracy, but what they are expressing when they say this is their concern that the corporate state and its attendant technocratic apparatus is in danger of being deconstructed by actual democrats, i.e., the populist movement. Progressivism, populism’s polar opposite, is the ideological and policy projection of the corporate state/governance, which operates according to logic of neoliberalism. This is what workers in America have to grasp. Pro-labor policy cannot at the same time be open border and trans nationalist. Democrats are globalists. They are neoliberal. Immigration is a strategy to undermine democracy and national integrity. Mass immigration is a prong in a twin strategy of globalization, the other the offshoring of industry. 500 billion is transferred from the native working class to capitalist every year on the basis if immigration. Immigrants cost taxpayers 150 billion annually. Hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of jobs are lost to offshoring.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for citizenship for all illegal immigration in the United States
In November of 22, Senate Majority Leader Chuck said (emphasis mine), “We have a population that is not reproducing on its own with the same level that it used to. The only way we’re going to have a great future in America is if we welcome and embrace immigrants, the Dreamers and all of them, because our ultimate goal is to help the Dreamers but to get a path to citizenship for all 11 million or however many undocumented there are here.” Again, the number of illegal immigrants, even then, was much greater than 11 million. But whatever the number, the leader of the Senate is telling Americans that the plan is to make them all citizens, thus rewarding those who broke into the country with the greatest prize of all: citizenships. What is the expected effect of such a policy? Even more flooding across the border. And that is precisely what Democrats want.
In 2015, at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, with then Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas (now the Secretary) at his side, then Vice-President Biden said, “I’m proud of the American record on culture and economic integration of not only our Muslim communities but African communities, Asian communities, Hispanic communities,” Biden said. “And the wave still continues. It’s not going to stop. Nor should we want it to stop. As a matter of fact, it’s one of the things I think we can be most proud of.” “Nor should we want it to stop.” He celebrated the fact that, “[f]olks like me who are Caucasian of European descent—for the first time in 2017 we’ll be an absolute minority in the United States of America.” He is the one who made it about race. He then emphasized the point: “Absolute minority. Fewer than 50 percent of the people in America, from then and on, will be white European stock. That’s not a bad thing. That’s a source of our strength.” (See Protecting the Fatherland—Mayorkas and His Spooks.)
Whose strength? Not the nation’s strength. Mass immigration weakens the nation and undermines the security and success of American citizens in their own country. Mass immigration strains public services—education, healthcare, welfare systems—leading to longer wait times and decreased quality of services for native-born citizens. Immigrant strain infrastructure—housing, transportation, utilities—leading to congestion and increased demand for resources. Immigrants, especially low-skilled workers, compete with native-born workers for jobs. The flood of surplus labor causes displacement of native labor and wage suppression. Immigration compromises national security, especially if there are insufficient border controls or effective vetting processes; criminals, drug traffickers, and terrorists enter the United States. Immigrants not only face difficulties integrating into their new society, including cultural differences and language barriers, but with the shift from assimilation and integration to multiculturalism, immigrant groups are encouraged to remain apart from native populations. They are even taught to the United States as a racist colonialist nation that does not deserve the allegiance of immigrants. Immigration thus leads to tensions between population segments resulting in polarization and affecting the stability of a country. Immigration undermines the perpetuation of national identity and culture. Immigrants may dilute and erode the cultural values and traditions of the United States—values and tradition vital to preserving the American Creed.
The obsession with diminishing the white proportion of the United States population reflected in Joe Biden’s remarks in 2015 are part of a much larger project of his administration—the project of exclusion that moves under cover of the Orwellian inversion “inclusion”—to diminish the presence and role of white people in America. This is not a racialist argument on my end, but an observation any objective person must make.
Consider the planned revisions to the ethnic and racial categories in the United States Census. Officials are moving to create a category redefining those of Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) descent, who are racially white, to a new nonwhite category. Since MENA population are predominantly Muslim, this is a way to create a race out of a religion: by producing a racialized category popularly referred to as “Muslim-American,” which gives more weight to the propaganda campaign portraying the critics of Islam and Islamization, i.e., the smear of Islamophobia, as racists. In other words, the Islamist project to portray a religious belief as an essential attribute, as if it were a skin color, or a sexual orientation, will be codified in the US Census, while at the same time the proportion of the population identifying as white will shrink. The Biden administration is moreover recommending moving the “Hispanic or Latino” category, which is an ethnicity, to the race category. Since two-thirds of Hispanics are white, this will reduce the proportion of whites in America by much more than a new MENA category.
It is beyond troubling that we have in Joe Biden a man who is actively working to diminish the number of white Europeans in a country built primarily by white Europeans with a culture, language, and political system of European origin. Imagine the Prime Minister of Japan telling the citizens of his country to celebrate the coming fact that, with the mass importation of Third World peoples, culture bearers bearing cultures antithetical to Japanese culture, the moral and normative foundation of the Japanese Republic, that ethnic Japanese will soon be in the absolute minority. Imagine that the Japanese are told that they cannot expect that these newcomers will become Japanese because assimilation and integration are racist and that the Japanese should emphasize instead cultural and ethnic pluralism. If this happened, how could Japan be said to be Japanese anymore?
This is not a racial argument. Japanese is an ethnicity. Of course, this is understood. I say it to ask, rhetorically, why then is cultural and national integrity celebrated for all other cultures and ethnicities but white European? Why does it become a racial argument when westerners defend their own cultural integrity? Look at Sweden or France and their situation with mass immigration and the explosion of crime (especially gang violence and rape). Why aren’t they seen in the same light as Japan? You will be told that it’s because white Europeans are devils, having colonized the world and enslaved its people, and so they owe others reparations, part of the justice of which is to give up their right to cultural and national integrity. But colonization and slavery are ancient practices that white Europeans abolished. Moreover, European civilization—including and especially the United States—are the most racially diverse civilizations on the planet, and in principle grant equality before the law irrespective of race category, while in practice privilege select non-white groups (the recent judicial curtailment of affirmative action notwithstanding).
Nationalism, which is a political and legal-juridical philosophy, depends upon ethnically homogeneity, i.e, a common language with shared meanings, shared and cherished values, a commitment to the foundational social customs and norms—civil liberties and rights, marriage, etc. Culturally, Americans carrying over English common law. It’s the foundation of the Constitution, written in English and conveying the principles and ethics of that culture, the Enlightenment values of liberalism and secularism. All of these things come from European culture and they have given the world the superior models of government and conduct.
Yet our leaders seek to to diminish the culture bearers that bear that culture. Not only do the new immigrants have values that don’t align with the European culture (this makes immigration since the 1960s radically different from the wave that was ended in the 1920s), but are antithetical to European culture. It is as obvious as anything can be is that the project of mass immigration is a globalist project to undermine the Enlightenment and the democratic-republic principles of the modern nation-state for the purposes of diminishing the West—the culture that brought to the world human rights and individualism. Why would our leaders want to do that? Because Democrats works for big corporations who seek a new world order based on transnational corporate control.
While you enjoy these scenes of police officers bringing Antifa to justice (I know I always enjoy seeing belligerent fascists being confronted by law enforcement), and realize that while states like Texas do the right thing many states don’t, I want you to see what Antifa actually is. Antifa, a concrete manifestation of anarchist philosophy, i.e., the embodiment of the “propaganda of the deed,” is a praxis rooted in the project to normalize pedophilia and other paraphilias. As you can see if look closely enough (but don’t get too close because they’re rabid), Antifa is composed of TRAs, the acronym for “trans-rights activists,” as well as furries, people who have created animal avatars as alternative identities. (See From Delusion to Illusion: Transitioning Disordered Personalities into Valid Identities.)
The AR15 trans patch
TRAs and furries are emotionally and psychologically disordered individuals, many suffering from cluster b type personality disorders, primarily antisocial, borderline, and narcissistic. Sometimes they’re supported by parents—who are eager to share their affinity in TikTok videos. But in many instances parents have lost control over their children and protect their own safety by leaning into the disorder. If you have ever known individuals with cluster b you will likely know what I am talking about. It’s some scary shit. Many parents are terrified by their own kids. So are clinical psychologists and clinical social workers and psychiatrists, who quickly move the disordered along to the gender clinics that put them on hormones to get these scary people out of their offices, as well, and then onto the streets where they terrorize those who remain courageous enough to stand up for truth and children. This is what your are seeing in this video.
The TRAs agenda is not hidden. Look at the patches. They’re pride and trans insignia. I’ve been blogging about this for a while now. Look at the animal ears on top of the helmets. They’re announcing what they are: TRAs and furries. The gear they’re wearing is for them fetish gear. They get off sexually on appearing this way, on intimidating and perpetrating violence on others. Sadism is always hanging close by the disordered. This is what Antifa is. This is what BLM is, as well. Although BLM wiped their web page of the ideological specifics when people like me exposed them, they were very clear about what they stood for: gender ideology and the destruction of the nuclear family and western civilization. BLM tried to claim they were “neo-marxist.” Yet another lie to suck in other leftists and confuse conservatives. All of this is street-level fascism.
The name “Antifa” is an Orwellian inversion to (poorly) cover what are actually blackshirts for corporate state power, defended and enabled by the mass media and culture industry. Antifa and the corporate state depend on people not knowing the signs of fascism. This is why the media doesn’t cover scenes like this. When the media covered the 2020 riots, they knew but never explained this to viewers. In fact, they told you that Antifa was an idea not an organization or movement at all. Officials of the administrative state testified to Congress under oath that Antifa was “just an idea.” An Orwellian inversion is a propaganda technique to record some thing or idea as its opposite ( “War is peace,” etc.) in order to move under the cover of false legitimacy. (See Anarchists and Corrupting the Three Arrows.)
Note the patches.
True anti-fascism has a name: liberalism. The same is true for actual antiracism. But, today, antifascism and antiracism are expression of the illiberalism of today’s fascism, with its anti-white and anti-Asian sentiment category substitutions. These facts are easily demonstrated by reviewing what Antifa opposes: Antifa opposes freedom of speech and conscience. Antifa openly announces that those whose views they disagree with are justifiably shut down by force. Where they cannot directly perpetrate intimidation and violence against those with whom they disagree, Antifa makes an individual’s life hell by harassing them in their work life, their home life, etc.
Antifa is assisted in this by institutional power in the private and public realms. This is what diversity, equity, and inclusivity (DEI) training is about. DEI content elevates Antifa/BLM/TRAs ideology to the institutional level. Another way of putting this is that Antifa/BLM/TRAs ideology is a street-level manifestation of DEI. As such it is illiberal and reactionary. These are some of the ways to corporate state divides and controls us. Antifa opposes reason and science. The central tenet of gender ideology is that men can be women, as fundamental a falsehood as exists in a world of falsehoods, but which is permeates not only Antifa ideology but the progressive ideology currently driving institutional policy. Even the medical-industrial complex advances this lie—and does so while making billions from it.
Antifa opposes child protective action. The occasion that brings Antifa out in this video are people protesting the sexualization of children. Again, pedophilia lies at the heart of anarchism and its expression in gender ideology. If you have studied the history of queer theory, then you know this. Most people haven’t studied this history, however, and since few people are going to tell you about it, most people won’t know this. This is why it is so important to bring into disrepute those who do know this reality. This is the smear of “trans phobia.”
Antifa/BLM/trans is only the street-level manifestation of the New Fascism that’s sweeping western institutions. Just as Antifa wears Pride and trans patches, public schools display Pride and TRA patches, BLM placards, anti-American, anti-white, and anti-science literature. Queer propaganda is everywhere—and that’s not by accident. The fascist strain of anarchism is the root politics of postmodernism, queer theory, critical race theory, and other ideologies currently shaping mass consciousness. This why the corporate news media tells you that Antifa is nothing remarkable. The truth is that understanding what Antifa really is key to understanding what’s really going on.
* * *
Mayo Clinic tells us why it is important to introduce children to the idea that they may not be the gender they are at an early age: “Most children typically develop the ability to recognize and label stereotypical gender groups, such as girl, woman and feminine, and boy, man and masculine, between ages 18 and 24 months. Most also categorize their own gender by age 3 years. However, because gender stereotypes are reinforced, some children learn to behave in ways that bring them the most reward, despite their authentic gender identity. At ages 5 to 6 years, most children are rigid about gender stereotypes and preferences. These feelings typically become more flexible with age.” Note the concept “authentic gender identity.” You need to start the process of conversion before age of five so that in that period of rigidity the child is early on convinced that are the gender they are not. The Mayo clinic bizarrely treats culturally-specific and transitory gender norms as innate. “Diversity in gender expressions and behaviors might include: Certain bathroom behavior, such as a girl insisting on standing up to urinate; An aversion to wearing the bathing suit of the child’s birth sex; A preference for underwear typically worn by the opposite sex; A strong desire to play with toys typically assigned to the opposite sex.”
freedom and reason 