Friday, March 19, 2021

De Blasio Encourages NYPD To Confront Noncriminal Conduct They Deem Hateful



New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is encouraging the city’s law enforcement to police behavior they believe is hateful, even if it is not criminal.

“I assure you, if an NYPD officer calls you or shows up at your door to ask about something you did, that makes people think twice, and we need that,” de Blasio told reporters on Thursday.


De Blasio’s advice follows an Atlanta shooting that killed six women. While the shooter admitted that it was a “sex addiction” that drove him to kill, multiple politicians, corporate media outlets, and others have speculated if it was a targetted attack on Asian Americans. It was because of the narrative surrounding this shooting that de Blasio said the New York Police Department would make a point to investigate complaints and concerns over “anti-Asian sentiment and hate crimes.”

“Even if something is not a criminal case, a perpetrator being confronted by the city, whether it’s NYPD or another agency, and being told that what they’ve done was very hurtful to another person—and could, if ever repeated, lead to criminal charges—that’s another important piece of the puzzle,” de Blasio said.

Officers, de Blasio continued, should evaluate “if someone has done something wrong” even if it’s not illegal or criminal and take action from there.

“One of the things officers are trained to do is to give warnings,” de Blasio said. “If someone has done something wrong, but not rising to a criminal level, it’s perfectly appropriate for an NYPD officer to talk to them to say, ‘that was not appropriate, and if you did that on a higher level, that would be a crime.’ I think that has an educating impact on people.”

De Blasio previously expressed support for defunding the police and excused Black Lives Matter rioting in NYC as “a powerful, painful, historical moment” that did not need to adhere to his strict COVID lockdown mandates.

His recent comments sparked outrage on Twitter after some noted that the mayor was urging the use of police power to enforce an agenda even when there is no criminal activity involved.


Joe Biden Falls Three Times Attempting to Board Air-Force One


Concerns over the physical and mental stability of the installed current optical head of the White House continue to mount today as Joe Biden attempts to walk up stairs into Air-Force One.  Key word: “attempts

The leader of the United States government stumbles, falls, stumbles and falls again, three times, on the same day the leader of Russia challenges him to a public debate.   The White House will not take the challenge…. for obvious reasons.




 


House votes to pass Biden’s ‘Dream and Promise Act’ to give citizenship benefits to 3M illegal immigrants

 

OAN Newsroom

UPDATED 7:22 AM PT – Friday, March 19, 2021

House Democrats passed an immigration bill proposed by Joe Biden, which would provide a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

 

 In a 228-to-197 vote Thursday, the House passed the Dream and Promise Act in an effort to establish a pathway for U.S. citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants who were brought across the border as children. The bill would also protect other groups of illegal immigrants from deportation such as farm workers and their spouses.

 

 Analysts have said the bill may have a hard time going through the Senate, but Biden is eager to sign it into law. Meanwhile, the surge of illegal immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border has prompted the House GOP to call for a hearing on border security.

 

https://www.oann.com/house-votes-to-pass-bidens-dream-and-promise-act-to-give-citizenship-benefits-to-3m-illegal-immigrants/ 

 


 

The Culture Curators Want To Think For You

It isn't cancel culture. It is a cultural dictatorship because the suppression of dissenting speech is an instrument that only the most brutal dictators have used throughout civilization.


Sandor Mecs was a child when his family lived in the town of Szentendre, Hungary. Today, it is a picturesque town 20 miles north of Budapest that is lined with winding cobblestone streets, colorful centuries-old homes, cottages, and churches. It is a tourism center with its flourishing museums, charm, and proximity to the capital.

While the picturesque footprint was the same for Mecs and his family and thousands of other Hungarians 60 years ago, life in post-World War II Hungary was anything but ideal if you were a free thinker.

“At that time, we had become a Stalinized state of the Soviet Union, and Matyas Rakosi ruled the country for over seven years as a dictator who demanded no one strayed from the collective approved government thought,” he said.

If you did, you disappeared.

“Everything in government was militarized, and everything in our culture, the arts, the media, where you shopped, was all part of the government,” he explained.

There was no freedom of thought. You believed what the government and, by default, culture and new organizations told you to believe.

The government force was so oppressive that it established a secret police called the AVH, or the Allamvedelmi Hatosag, to make sure everyone thought the same and that no one dissented from whatever the government believed. Mecs explained, “My parents and family members lived in fear of people overhearing a conversation that might deviate from accepted thought.”

He said his father understood that after the doomed Hungarian Revolution of 1956 failed, it was time to flee the family’s home country.

“You have to understand when you leave, you leave everything behind, whether it is family members, belongings or the roof over your head,” he said. “A week after the revolution, my dad realized we’ve got to get out of here, and we literally snuck across the border with Austria in the dead of night.”

Back then, there were people who, for money, would get you safely across the border. “They were taking groups of maybe 20 people at a time and getting them past the barbed wire. One of the border guards actually caught the group that we were in when a very familiar face caught his eye,” he said.

It was the guard’s sister. “So he let us go,” he said.

Within a short period, over 200,000 men, women, and children escaped their homeland, much like the Mecs family did. It was an exodus and scattered much of the educated and intellectual class. The only people who could afford to leave managed to spread globally, with many of them going to the United States and the United Kingdom.

Many intellectuals in the United States frequently toss around the word “dictatorship” or “dictator” about political parties they don’t like, and with such abandon, it is now deemed normal in some circles to use the terms without irony, primarily when referring to the Republican Party.

In their zeal to dismantle conservatism, they miss the true dictator in our country. They are our cultural curators. The corporations, much of the media, the entertainment industry, major league sports organizations, academia and Silicon Valley all demand that we fall in line with how they think. They want to approve of how we speak, what books we read, what movies we watch, what words we use, who we support politically, how we educate our children and what parts of history are acceptable to teach.

Many of these entities have gone from trying to appeal to a wide range of customers based on the products they sell or services they offer to social justice organizations, far removed from their core missions and their consumers.

When one of them deems something unacceptable in its version of the world, many others follow suit, often crumbling to their younger employees’ demands. The latter has been given enough power in this age of corporate social justice to destroy the very place they work if that corporation does not bend to their demands.

The decision no longer to publish six Dr. Seuss books was made internally. So was Disney’s decision to prevent young viewers from watching “Dumbo,” “Peter Pan,” “Swiss Family Robinson” and “The Aristocats.”

Voice an opinion on social media about the practice of removing books and the result is usually ugly, even if you argue that offensive images should exist in the marketplace so that you can point out their offensiveness.

Last week, Winston Marshall, the banjo player for the band Mumford & Sons, tweeted his support for author Andy Ngo for his recent book “Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy.” Within moments, his life changed, thanks to the culture curators. The next day, he announced that he’s “taking time away from the band” to examine his “blind spots.”

His career and life may have been destroyed because his thoughts were outside the norms of what our cultural curators deem socially acceptable, and why? Ngo is conservative. Almost no one within our cultural curators is conservative, and if a person is, he or she remains silent.

One of the most significant reasons conservative populism began to rise in 2009 was that these people lacked a connection or commonality with our cultural curators. The people who run things in this country have little in common with the very people who use their products or watch their shows or attend their football or basketball games.

Part of that reason is the culture curator boardrooms have very little diversity—not only racial or by gender, but also in culture. Rarely does someone who attended a community college or state school have any input in how something is marketed. There is also a scarcity of gun owners or churchgoers in newsrooms getting dispatched to cover gun control, hunting, religious freedom, or the anti-abortion movement.

When you have little commonality with those you are marketing to or covering, you will often be blind to how they view the tone in an ad, tweet, or coverage.

But the more significant problem is that none of these cultural curators quite care if you don’t like the way they demand you think or if you are going to buy their product, because their people—the people who think the way they do—are the people who have the largest megaphone.

It isn’t cancel culture. It is a cultural dictatorship because the suppression of dissenting speech is an instrument that only the most brutal dictators have used throughout civilization.

Mecs said the right to free speech was one of the compelling reasons his family came here: “It is the very core of American exceptionalism and idealism, and it should be cherished and celebrated.”

In December 1860, Frederick Douglass declared in a speech in Boston that “liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist.”

His words in that speech emerged because of an incident that happened the week before, when a meeting in which he was scheduled to speak at on abolishing slavery was invaded by a mob that sought to silence him.

Those powerful words in Douglass’ speech were not directed at the mob’s disruption. Instead, they were directed at the mayor of Boston, who canceled the event rather than defended Douglass’ right to speak.

Private companies, industries, and organizations are not obligated to allow your viewpoints to be heard. Still, when they hold this much power in our culture and their sentiments are shared by the ruling party, we are heading down a road on which we may never be able to reverse course.


Why The Left Is Helping Make America Racist Again

 

Article by Nathanael Blake in The Federalist
 

Why The Left Is Helping Make America Racist Again

Self-styled anti-racists and social justice activists are seething with hate, but it is only upon love that we can move beyond racial tension and division.

One problem with telling people to “be themselves” is that they often don’t know who they are. Indeed, many people proclaiming this mantra seem intent on dismantling stable sources of identity, such as family, patriotism, and religion.

Instead of defining ourselves by relationships, place, and faith, we are encouraged to define ourselves by what we want — from sex to consumer goods to entertainment. This reduction of people to bundles of impulses makes them easy to market to, but it does not provide a stable source of identity.

It’s no wonder racial identity is making a comeback, and it’s no wonder critical race theory — which defines people by race and racial power structures — has taken over our culture’s leading institutions. Leftist-controlled schools and colleges are leading the way, and are more obsessed with race than ever, as is the legacy media and most of our nation’s leadership class.

In a world of unstable identities, race is an old certainty. In a world where identity is fluid and often up for sale, in which internet posing can become reality, race seems to have an authenticity that is hard to fake.

But the current focus on race is making our society more racially fraught. Instead of healing and authentic human flourishing, it brings bitterness and confusion.

The Resilience of Race

Racial identities have resisted the trends marking the decline of other sources of strong identities for several reasons. First, for many members of minority groups, there has been too little material and social improvement in recent years; a natural result of this is a persistence in the primacy of racial identification.

Second, race isn’t scorned the way traditional religious beliefs are. Nor has it been subjected to the deconstruction that sex and normative relations between the sexes have been, thereby destabilizing another solid source of self-understanding. In contrast, racial consciousness is encouraged by our cultural elites.

In part, this is because racial awareness bolsters their moral self-image. The civil rights movement is one of the main moral prisms through which they look at the world, and they believe themselves to be its heirs. Letting race recede would therefore undermine their moral authority.

Third, the continued importance of race legitimates the enormous civil rights bureaucracy that was established to squelch segregation and overt racial discrimination. This government power has found new targets in dissident bakers and florists, but its defenders still justify it by appealing to its origins in racial desegregation. They argue that if the baker can opt-out of creating custom cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies, then a return to Jim Crow can’t be far behind.

This argument is ridiculous, but it illuminates how race is indispensable to our leadership class. A post-racial society would require them to give up both a flattering self-understanding and a great deal of power. Thus, they have been easy marks for critical race theory. The rhetorical self-flagellation it sometimes demands is a small price to pay for the assurance that they are still better than the (mostly working-class and middle-class) whites who resist such gestures.

‘Whiteness’ vs. Everything Else

Leftists would prefer the populace to identify as isolated consumers, but if we are to have group identities, they would prefer race to class. This is why there has been so little concern over the racial essentialism that critical race theory encourages. The supposed anti-racism of critical race theory often masks the class interests of its proponents.

But despite their unconcern, critical race theory is toxic, encouraging racial obsession and enmity. In particular, it insists on a dichotomy between whites (always inherently guilty of oppression and of possessing “white privilege”) and everyone else (lumped together as “people of color,” who are all victimized by whiteness.

This binary encourages racial animosity even as it fails to capture the complexity of racial and ethnic groups, let alone of individuals who refuse to be reduced to a racial category. Thus, the race theory ideologues often vacillate between racial absolutism and sounding like there is an actual version of the racial draft sketch from Chappelle’s Show (really not safe for work viewing), only with whites drafting entire ethnic groups. For instance, the same academics who divide the world between whites and “people of color” treat Jews and Asians as “extra white” for admission purposes.

In politics, critical race theory encourages vicious attacks on minority conservatives, who are treated as race traitors who are guilty of “whiteness.” For example, a Washington Post article used a theory of “multiracial whiteness” to explain minority support for Donald Trump. The column concluded, “In the post-Trump era, the challenge will be to prevail over the extremism of Trump’s White majority while trying to prevent the politics of whiteness from becoming an increasingly multiracial affair.”

This mindset explains why Amazon marked Black History Month by canceling the Clarence Thomas documentary — erasing a black man who doesn’t toe the line. It also explains why California’s planned ethnic studies program will “teach millions of children in the state’s public schools to achieve liberation against the descendants of European colonists of 500 years ago by teaching them to chant to Aztec gods who required human sacrifice.” It’s what happens when people believe “whiteness” is the root of all evil, and seek to eradicate it.

The New Religion

For some people, racism and whiteness have become free-floating substitutes for older ideas such as the Christian doctrine of original sin. As John McWhorter has been arguing in a series of essays, the current iteration of anti-racism is functionally a religion.

A substitute religion is taking over our culture because of self-serving and cowardly adults who are protecting their status. As Bari Weiss observes, “Power in America now comes from speaking woke, a highly complex and ever-evolving language.”

As her reporting on critical race theory’s conquest of elite education illustrates, not only children but also many parents and teachers are afraid of challenging the new orthodoxy, lest they imperil their social standing and prospects. They too have forsaken the roots of strong identities that would provide courage. As it is, no one wants to be the first to stand up to our self-appointed commissars for social justice and anti-racism.

Today’s leftists go along, and even cheer, as race is treated as a foundational identity, and as we are told that it is racist to strive for a post-racial society. Yet almost none of their multitude of symbolic gestures of anti-racism address the real problems of race in this country, or the harms caused by the decline of traditional religious, familial, and community sources of identity. Each theatrical bit of anti-racism is just a self-serving justification for an elite that has failed in its responsibilities to poor and working-class Americans, especially racial minorities.

For example, many who loudly support the current anti-racist cause have presided over the catastrophically extended shutdowns of public schools that are disproportionately attended by minority children — and these schools were often incompetent even at their best.

An Approach of Despair

Removing a few Dr. Seuss books from the official catalog doesn’t help poor black children learn to read, but it does give a lot of (mostly white) leftists and hangers-on a chance to preen. Dumping the Redskins name, to which most Native Americans did not object, likewise does nothing about the scandalous conditions on many reservations.

Thus, despite the religious fervor of many anti-racism activists, they are exacerbating racial tensions. They do so directly, by encouraging racial identification and acrimony, and indirectly, by waging a symbolic crusade that does not address genuine racial injustices and inequalities. And they have prepared the ground for strong racial identities by denigrating other loyalties and attachments.

Their approach is one of despair. They have abandoned hope in a shared humanity that can move past the mistaken racial categories of our forefathers — there is recrimination and posturing, but no hope of real justice or peace.

Their greatest failure is of love. The current crop of self-styled anti-racists and social justice activists are seething with hate, but it is only upon strong love that we can build identities capable of moving beyond racial essentialism and division. The tribalism of race, and the historical baggage it drags behind it, can only be surpassed by love for something, or Someone, greater than tribe or tongue or nation.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/18/why-the-left-is-helping-make-america-racist-again/ 



Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Aaugh! A Brief List Of Official Russia Claims That Proved To Be Bogus

The Director of National Intelligence releases a report, 

and the press rushes to kick the football again.



The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has released a much-hyped, much-cited new report on “Foreign Threats to the 2020 Elections.” The key conclusion:

We assess that Russian President Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, [and] undermining public confidence in the electoral process…

The report added Ukrainian legislator Andrey Derkach, described as having “ties” to “Russia’s intelligence services,” and Konstantin Kilimnik, a “Russian influence agent” (whatever that means), used “prominent U.S. persons” and “media conduits” to “launder their narratives” to American audiences. The “narratives” included “misleading or unsubstantiated allegations against President Biden” (note they didn’t use the word “false”). They added a small caveat at the end: “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”

As Glenn Greenwald already pointed out, the “launder their narratives” passage was wolfed down by our intelligence services’ own “media conduits” here at home, and regurgitated as proof that the “Hunter Biden laptop story came from the Kremlin,” even though the report didn’t mention the laptop story at all. Exactly one prominent reporter, Chris Hayes, had the decency to admit this after advancing the claim initially.

With regard to the broader assessment: how many times are we going to do this? We’ve spent the last five years watching as anonymous officials make major Russia-related claims, only to have those evidence-free claims fizzle.

From the much-ballyhooed “changed RNC platform” story (Robert Mueller found no evidence the changed Republican platform was “undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia”), to the notion that Julian Assange was engaged in a conspiracy with the Russians (Mueller found no evidence for this either), to Michael Cohen’s alleged secret meetings in Prague with Russian conspirators (“not true,” the FBI flatly concluded) to the story that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress (“not accurate,” said Mueller), to wild stories about Paul Manafort meeting Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, to a “bombshell” tale about Trump foreknowledge of Wikileaks releases that blew up in CNN’s face in spectacular fashion, reporters for years chased unsubstantiated claims instead of waiting to see what they were based upon.

The latest report’s chief conclusions are assessments about Derkach and Kilimnik, information that the whole world knew before this report was released. Hell, even Rudy Giuliani, whose meeting with Derkach is supposedly the big scandal here, admitted there was a “50/50 chance” the guy was a Russian spy. Kilimnik meanwhile has now been characterized as having “ties” to Russian intelligence (Mueller), and as a “Russian intelligence officer” (Senate Intelligence Committee), and is now back to being a mere “influence agent.” If he is Russian intelligence, then John McCain’s International Republican Institute (where Kilimnik worked), as well as embassies in Kiev and Moscow (where Kilimnik regularly gave information, according to the New York Times), have a lot of explaining to do.

No matter what, the clear aim of this report is to cast certain stories about Joe or Hunter Biden as misinformation, when the evidence more likely shows that material like the Hunter Biden emails is real, just delivered from a disreputable source. That makes such stories just like, say, the Joe Biden-Petro Poroshenko tapes, which were also pushed by Derkach and reported on uncontroversially by major media outlets like the Washington Postbefore it became fashionable to denounce those reporting such leaks as Russian “proxies” and “conduits.”

never thought the Hunter Biden laptop story was anywhere near as big of a deal as the efforts by platforms like Facebook and Twitter to block access to it, which seemed a historic and dangerous precedent. This new effort to cast the reporting of “allegations against President Biden” as participation in a foreign intelligence campaign is nearly as ominous. Even worse is the degree to which press figures are devouring the message. Will any bother to point out the huge quantity of recent official takes on the Russia story that went pear-shaped? A very, very brief sample:

  1. All 17 U.S. intelligence agencies backed an assessment that cyberattacks in 2016 came from the “highest levels of the Kremlin.” That was later corrected in congressional testimony to four (it was actually three):

  1. The Trump organization was communicating with Russia via a mysterious server tied to Russia’s Alfa Bank. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz noted the FBI concluded “by early February 2017 that there were no such links,” yet stories pegged to anonymous intel officials persisted for years after that.

  2. Russia “hacked a Vermont utility,” according to U.S. officials! Except, the next day:

  3. Four “current and former American officials,” citing a “trove of information the FBI is sifting through,” said the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials.” Months later:

  1. A “senior U.S. government official” characterized the ex-spy who claimed Russia had been cultivating Donald Trump for at least five years, and could “blackmail him,” was “a credible source with a proven record of providing reliable, sensitive, and important information to the US government.” But Christopher Steele was subsequently dismissed as an FBI source for his “completely untrustworthy” decision to talk to the media, and Horowitz not only discovered that both the FBI and the CIA (who dismissed his reports as “internet rumor”) had many reservations about his credibility, but that his famed “blackmail” claims about pee and prostitutes had been made in “jest,” over “beers.”

  1. Former Trump adviser Carter Page was a “catalyst” for the FBI investigation into connections between Donald Trump and Russia, according to “current and former law enforcement and counterintelligence officials.” Similarly, the New York Times cited court documents in describing George Papadopoulos: “Trump Campaign Adviser Met With Russian to Discuss ‘Dirt’ on Clinton.”

    But Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified that as early as August of 2016, Page became the focus of secret surveillance because Papadopoulos had been deemed a dead end. This scarcely reported detail only rendered the entire predicate for the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation absurd:

  1. Jeff Sessions did not disclose contacts with a Russian ambassador in a security clearance formJustice Department sources told multiple outlets, in what became a major, front-page scandal. Except it came out later he didn’t have to make those disclosures, and as for the contacts themselves? “Brief, public, and non-substantive,” said Robert Mueller.

  1. “Senior FBI and national intelligence officials” told the White House and major news outlets that releasing the name of an “informant” in the Trump-Russia investigation could “risk lives,” one of many such stories (we heard similar warnings before the release of the name of Christopher Steele, his source Igor Danchenko, the “exfiltrated spy” Oleg Smolenkov, the “anonymous” New York Times editorialist, the Ukraine “whistleblower,” and others). The “informant” Haspel warned about, Stefan Halper, turned out to have been a professor outed by name as an intelligence source in the New York Times all the way back in 1983:

  1. Current and former intelligence officers” told the New York Times that CIA director Gina Haspel showed Donald Trump pictures of British children sickened, as well as ducks killed, by a Russian assassination in England using the deadly nerve agent Novichok. It turns out there were no such sick children or dead ducks, and Haspel didn’t show such pictures, an error the Times chalked up to lack of research time:

  1. According to “officials briefed on the matter,” New York Times reported, and the Washington Post “confirmed,” that “a Russian military spy unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition forces in Afghanistan.” Two months later, an on-the-record military official was less certain:

One could go on and on with this list, from the bogus claims about Maria Butina that ended up as Times headlines (“Suspected Secret Agent Used Sex in Covert Plan”), to overhype of the Cambridge Analytica story (which turned out to have nothing to do with Brexit), to the bass-ackwards denunciations of the so-called “Nunes memo” (validated almost entirely by Horowitz), and on, and on.

Does this mean the Russians don’t meddle? Of course not. But we have to learn to separate real stories about foreign intelligence operations with posturing used to target domestic actors while suppressing criticism of domestic politicians. It’s only happened about a hundred times in the last five years — maybe it’s time to start asking for proof in these episodes?

Can Liberalism Survive Science?


Article by John Conlin in The American Thinker
 

Can Liberalism Survive Science?

So, you believe in science, eh? Excellent, so do I. At the core of this science-thinking is the acceptance of the fact that there is reality. Thus, there are a finite number of things which are true and an infinite number of things which aren’t -- and our beliefs, opinions, and desires have no impact on this.

All “science-folks” accept these as rather self-evident truths -- yet many of these same people also profess to holding liberal views -- even though modern progressivism is premised on many things which simple aren’t true -- which contradict reality.

This isn’t a political or philosophical issue but rather a reality issue. 

Let start with their insistence on classifying and grouping individuals -- the only real unit of humanity -- based on a handful of traits or behaviors and acting as though these groups -- their own creation -- are actually real in some physical sense. 

Black, white, people of color, rich, poor, Hispanic, Latino, Latinx, conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, gay, straight, Trump-supporters, Trump-haters, left-handed, right-handed -- these groupings of individuals are almost endless.

They then “give” these imaginary groups motives, emotions, beliefs, action, and life. If the creators “like” the group, these all will be framed in a positive light. If the groups are “bad,” they will be framed in a negative light.

In effect they act as little gods who have the ability to shape reality. Where they obtained this power is never revealed.

At is core though, the basis for all these groups is rooted in circular logic where the only consistent fact for every member is that they are part of this group. Blacks are black because they are black. Whites are white because they are white. And on and on it goes.

And speaking of their seemingly never-ending focus on race -- it too is a false concept. The science on this is clear, there is no such thing as human "races" -- black, white, Asian -- all an illusion based on a failed and disproven scientific theory from hundreds of years ago.

There are only individuals and they aren’t defined by a handful of visible physical features or where their most recent ancestors came from. Built into this sick thinking is a return to the disgusting racist belief that “it’s in the blood” and even “collective guilt.” 

What is in the blood is never determined -- although if they like you it will be positive traits, if not it will be negative. It must be nice to be a god and to have the power to do this. 

Their latest assault on human reality is their strange fascination -- bordering on obsession -- with the mental disorder of gender dysphoria, or as it is more commonly called, transgenderism. Yet the science on this is clear: there is no such thing as a transgendered person. They don’t and can’t exist. This is a mental issue, not a physical one.

This progressive assault on reality -- all while shouting “I believe in science” -- is a wonder to behold. 

Conservatives and libertarians -- let’s end the charade and stop treating these made-up groups as if they are real. When we do a great deal of liberal thinking falls apart. Ridding liberalism of their god-like abilities turns many -- most? -- of their beliefs into the childish rantings of an immature mind.

Conservatives, please stop participating in this unseemly game. Let us embrace the beauty of the individual -- in all of our varied shapes, sizes, colors, behaviors, and beliefs -- and stop the madness of arguing as though these various made-up groups are real, living things. They aren’t.

Yes, I know most conservatives already believe this but until we stop speaking with liberals as if these groups do exist, we will continue to lose.

I truly do “believe in science” and it is far past time to demand all participants in the debate do the same. Otherwise, we are playing a fool’s game that is certain to end poorly for us all.






Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage