Tuesday, April 26, 2022

Nazis In Ukraine

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has given American elites 
some white supremacists they can embrace.


When Vladimir Putin declared that a primary objective of Russia’s invasion was to “de-nazify” Ukraine, the political elites and their media went ballistic. Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia, said flatly, “There are no neo-Nazis in Ukraine.” The truth? The CIA has been organizing, funding, and training Nazis and developing fascist assets inside Ukraine for 75 years. Nazis are a powerful and growing presence. 

In 2014, the CIA and U.S. State Department engineered a coup that overthrew Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s democratically elected pro-Russian president. The United States replaced him with a pro-American, anti-Russian president—and the Nazification of Ukraine kicked into high gear. Well-funded, highly trained, and heavily armed neo-Nazi militias that had appeared almost overnight to stage the coup unleashed terror upon ethnic Russians and political opponents of the new regime. 

Since then, Democrats and Republicans have empowered and enabled neo-Nazis to infest all levels of Ukrainian government and society. Nazi influence has only grown stronger during the presidency of Volodymyr Zelenskyy. 

Ukrainian Nazism has deep historical roots. While 4.5 million Ukrainians fought in the Red Army to defeat the Nazis, many Ukrainian fascists and anti-Semites collaborated with the Germans in World War II. One in every four Jewish victims of the Holocaust—some 1.5 million people—was murdered in Ukraine. 

The celebration and glorification of Nazi collaborators and murderers of Jews pervade Ukraine today. Many cities have statues and streets named after them. The birthday of Stepan Bandera, Ukraine’s leading German collaborator of World War II and father of Ukrainian Nazism, is celebrated as a national holiday.

Ukraine is saturated with Nazi militias, organizations, and political parties. Desecration of Holocaust memorials and parades honoring World War II Nazi German dead are regular events. Children are taught to hate and kill ethnic Russians at indoctrination camps. 

There is an unbroken historical link between the original Ukrainian Nazis and today’s incarnations. 

The most notorious is the Azov Battalion. Azov’s ideology, symbols, and insignias are Hitlerian through and through. Its mission is to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade . . . against Semite-led Untermenschen [sub humans].”

After the 2014 coup, the Azov Battalion attacked ethnic Russians in the Donbas, committing numerous war crimes. In the recent battle in Mariupol, Azov Battalion soldiers prevented civilians from escaping the city and shot dead those attempting to flee. Azov troops have tortured and murdered Russian prisoners of war and then used their victim’s cellphones to call and taunt the Russian’s wives and parents and show them photos of their murdered loved ones. These atrocities have been hidden by the Western media.

The Azov Battalion received extensive training from both the American and Canadian military. Now part of Ukraine’s National Guard, the Azov Battalion is the only Nazi military formation in the world to be formally incorporated into a nation’s armed forces. The Azov street fighting wing has been incorporated into the National Police

Azov has built a worldwide network recruiting white supremacists to train and fight in Ukraine. This has included the American Rise Above Movement (RAM), members of which trained in Ukraine after their participation in the 2017 Charlottesville, Virginia “Unite the Right” riot. According to the FBI indictment of RAM members, the Azov Battalion “is believed to have participated in training and radicalizing United States-based white supremacy organizations.” 

For much of the last six years, leftist elites and their media have preached that the greatest threat to American democracy is white supremacist extremism—falsely accusing Republican patriots of racism. But now that they are all in with the Ukrainian war effort, the elites and their media have a problem. They are the ones supporting real white supremacists and Nazis in Ukraine. So, they are attempting to reinvent the narrative by whitewashing Ukrainian Nazis in a coordinated media campaign. The elites have finally found white supremacists they like.   

Where does Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy fit in? 

To deflect from the fact that Ukraine is the most ultra nationalist, white supremacist, Nazi-infested country in the world, the media loudly proclaims that Zelenskyy is Jewish. With this, any question about Nazis in Ukraine is supposed to stop right there. The simplistic reasoning goes like this. “Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Jewish. It is impossible for a president who is Jewish to tolerate Nazis in his government, military, and society. Therefore, there are no Nazis in Ukraine.” End of story. 

But reality tells a much different story. 

Zelenskyy barely pays lip service to the expanding Nazi-collaborator glorification consuming Ukraine, and he is in full collaboration with neo-Nazi parties and organizations. One of his popular election promises was to achieve peace in Donbass through the implementation of the Minsk II peace agreement. But immediately upon election, Zelenskyy was bluntly instructed by the Azov Nazis that any negotiations would be unacceptable. Dmytro Yarosh, a co-founder of the fascist Right Sector, announced Zelenskyy’s fate if he negotiated—“He will hang on some tree on Khreshchatyk (Kiev’s main street).” Zelenskyy caved. He refused to negotiate or implement the peace agreement and escalated the conflict. 

In November, Zelenskyy made Yarosh an advisor to the commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces.

To further legitimize Nazi elements, Zelenskyy presented the “Hero of Ukraine” medal to a leader of Right Sector, another major neo-Nazi faction, in a formal ceremony before parliament. 

 In Ukraine, being Jewish and also supporting Nazis is not unique to Zelenskyy. Ihor Kolomoyskyi is a notoriously corrupt billionaire oligarch. He is not only Zelenskyy’s top financial backer but also the original financial sponsor of the Nazi Azov and Aidar Battalions, bankrolls several other neo-Nazi militias, and as owner of Burisma Holdings—was Hunter Biden’s boss. Kolomoyskyi is also Jewish. 

For Zelenskyy and Kolomoyskyi, when it comes to choosing whether to support Nazis, just being Jewish was not enough. You must have morality too.

Recently, during his continual world tour begging governments for a no-fly zone so the United States and Russia can start another world war, Zelenskyy fell morally short again. Jewish critics blasted him for his outrageous speech to the Israeli Knesset and his “distortions of the Holocaust.” Zelenskyy had denigrated the memories of Holocaust victims by equating the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany. He also recounted an imaginary history declaring that the Ukrainians’ significant war effort against the Germans was that “they rescued Jews.” If only they had.

Zelenskyy’s address to the Greek parliament may have been even worse. His performance highlighted video presentations by two Azov Battalion Nazis, one of Greek descent. Greece endured a brutal Nazi occupation during the war, so the reaction to Zelenskyy’s stunt wasn’t surprising—Greek lawmakers were outraged. Several walked out in disgust. 

For a politician who uses his Jewishness and memory of family members murdered by Germans to deflect accusations that Ukraine has a Nazi problem—Zelenskyy’s performances and his track record as president are deeply troubling. 

Why? Because it reveals that for Zelenskyy, fighting Nazism just isn’t that big of a deal. That’s why he can work intimately with Azov Battalion Nazis, highlight them on an international stage, place them in high-level government positions, honor Nazis with his nation’s highest award—while remaining virtually silent about the growing Nazism, increased incidents of anti-Semitism, and glorification of Nazi collaborators across Ukraine. 

short clip from a recent interview provides valuable insight into Zelenskyy’s mindset. Zelenskyy offers his opinion about Stepan Bandera, the premier Ukrainian Nazi, and collaborator responsible for countless atrocities against Jews, Poles, Russians, and Roma. To Ukrainians who believe Bandera was a “hero,” Zelenskyy says, “That’s cool.” He even praises the fascist anti-Semite for fighting for “freedom of Ukraine.” That really says it all. 

Volodymyr Zelenskyy exploits the memory of his murdered Jewish ancestors to deflect from the fact that he is collaborating with Nazis to run wild in Ukraine. Shame on him. 

The war has revealed Zelenskyy’s authoritarian impulses and demonstrated that his support of the Nazi movement inside Ukraine was not a passive enabling. He is actively increasing their power and influence. The ruling class media has perpetuated the myth of “Ukrainian democracy.” In framing the conflict, Joe Biden mouthed this theme—this is a “battle between democracy and autocracy.” A good propaganda line, but one not connected to reality. Ukraine and Zelenskyy have nothing to do with democracy. 

Zelenskyy has manipulated the war as a pretext to assume dictatorial powers and further empower Nazis. He has banned 11 opposition political parties, jailed political opponents, and prohibited dissident speech. Significantly, he didn’t touch any pro-Nazi parties and groups like the Azov National Corps, Svoboda, Right Sector, and C14. They remain free to organize, agitate, and expand. The key takeaway here is Zelenskyy doesn’t consider the Nazis to be opposition parties. They aren’t his opposition—they are his allies. 

Zelenskyy has seized control of the news media to contain information and prevent questions or criticism. To “tell the truth about the war,” he nationalized all privately owned television news broadcasting, combining all channels into a single 24-hour channel. 

Zelenskyy also ordered the arrest of Viktor Medvedchuk, his primary political rival. Medvedchuk was charged with treason even though his now banned Patriots for Life Party had condemned the Russian invasion. 

Ukraine’s internal security service, the SBU, is shot through with neo-Nazis and extremists and operates much like the Gestapo or KGB. Zelenskyy has unleashed the SBU, whose agents are kidnapping, torturing, and assassinating dissidents, political opponents, and even mayors who advocate local negotiations with the Russians. 

Zelenskyy is an actor. The elites and their media have cast him in the role of the hero—“a Churchill for our times.” By burying the truth, they have ensured that his performance has received only rave reviews so far. But the truth always comes out in the end. A man cannot support Nazis and be righteous. So, one thing we know for sure—Zelenskyy’s hero act is a fraud. Knowing that, we can be sure of more to come. 


X22, Christian Patriot News, and more-April 26

 



Fine time for Disqus to act bullish. Here's tonight's news:


Be On Your Guard: Watch Out For These 12 Dangerous Cults



The Bible tells us to be on our guard against people who preach a different gospel. Let them be accursed, Paul says. Wow, that's pretty savage, Paul! Here are twelve dangerous cults to watch out for:


1. CrossFit - One of the most popular fitness cults in the world. Don't drink the low-calorie, high-protein Kool-Aid!

2. Essential oils - These dangerous witches brew their Satanic concoctions from tiny bottles of dark magic. Many housewives are succumbing to their demonic wiles.

3. Doctor Who fandom - Stay far away.

4. Blue Oyster - Their main teaching is not to fear the reaper, which seems foolish. The reaper can kill you!

5. Climate change alarmists - These crazy wackos are always predicting the end of the world, shouting at passersby on street corners that the end is near. Loonies!

6. Reformed bros with beards and craft beer - Their theology may not be cultish, but any group wearing that much matching flannel is definitely sus.

7. Jordan Peterson fans - Characterized by eating lots of elk meat, cleaning their rooms religiously, and hosting back-alley lobster fights.

8. Toyota Tacoma drivers - It consumes their entire personality.

9. The weirdos still wearing masks - At least you can spot these cult members from a mile away so you can keep your distance.

10. People who main Jigglypuff in Smash Bros. - This cult is real and it's so destructive. Jigglypuuuuuuuuuuff!!!

11. Californians - Ugh. Californians.

12. People who believe this entire universe was created from nothing and all life magically came from sludge - No amount of reasoning can convince these zealots otherwise.


If any of these cults knocks on your door and asks if you have time to discuss their ideas, slam the door in their face!


Can You Spare $20 Million?

Can You Spare $20 Million? 

Iconic Painting 'Washington Crossing the Delaware' up for Auction

(AP Photo/Metropolitan Museum of Art)

It’s the most parodied piece of American art in history. The depiction of the future first president of the United States standing proudly on the prow of a Durham boat staring steadfastly across the Delaware River to the far shore while ice floated in the water and men struggled to make headway against an icy current has been depicted by everyone from Star Wars characters to the Muppets.

Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze’s “Washington Crossing the Delaware” has a deserved ranking as one of the most beloved pieces of art in American history. Originally there were three identical depictions of the event. The first replica was given to a museum in Bremen, Germany. It was destroyed by allied bombers in World War II.

A second depiction — a huge 12.4 x 21.25 feet — is the centerpiece of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s American Wing.

The third depiction is just 3 x 6 feet and hung in the White House for decades. It’s this replica that will go up for sale by Christie’s Auction House in May.

CNN:

“A German-born American immigrant, Leutze was also a staunch abolitionist and in ‘Washington crossing the Delaware’ he deliberately included a variety of the figures that make up the melting pot that formed the American nation,” said Kestenman.

She pointed out a Black soldier, another soldier wearing a Scottish bonnet, and moccasins and buckskin clothing suggesting the American West and Native Americans.

Only a left-wing, artsy-fartsy critic would take the painting to task for being “historically inaccurate.”

Most obviously, if Washington had been perched on the boat’s edge as depicted, he would have fallen into the icy water and could well have drowned. This is hardly a new revelation. An NPR report from 2002 by Ina Jaffe goes through some of Leutze’s historical flaws, and begins with this most glaring one. It’s not really the fact that Washington is standing up that is incorrect—it’s most likely that everyone would have been standing given that the boat would have been both flat and soaked with frigid water. Rather, it’s his precarious pose that is at issue. Also, while Washington appears as the aged, stately figure that many today imagine, at the time of the battle he was a spry 44, not the elderly, greying man Leutze captures.

The best art speaks to each of us individually. The painting speaks volumes about what was at stake and what the rebels were willing to do to win their independence.

Recall that the American army had been pushed around mercilessly by the British the previous summer. Booted out of New York and New Jersey, they escaped across the Delaware River where Washington’s army began to disintegrate.

To make matters worse, the enlistments of thousands of Continental soldiers were going to be up before the first of the year. Washington promised bonuses for any soldier who re-upped — an irony since most of them hadn’t been paid in the first place.

But he was persuasive enough to convince a few thousand veterans to re-enlist. They formed the basis for Washington’s strike force as they prepared to execute the most daring military plan in U.S. history.

The attack on Trenton was a no-brainer in the sense it that was the most isolated garrison in New Jersey, and Washington’s excellent intelligence network told him that the Hessians were contemptuous of the rebels and didn’t take proper precautions.

After that success, Washington turned his attention to Princeton.

Crossing the River again, he confronted General Cornwallis whose 1500 troops had occupied a position between Washington and Trenton. With darkness falling, Washington left 400 men to tend campfires, giving Conrwallis the impression he was staying put while taking the bulk of his army clear around Cornwallis to attack a garrison headquartered at Princeton.

At first, the battle went badly for the Continentals. As the British surged forward and threatened to rout Washington’s army, he spurred his horse forward, rallied his men, and with bullets flying all around him, led the troops to a decisive victory. Then, before Cornwallis could cut off his retreat, he led his force to Morristown where he went into winter quarters.

Quite a bit of soldiering for an “amateur.”

The historical inaccuracies in the painting don’t matter. What matters is the miracle Washington wrought at Trenton and Princeton with the war all but lost and American independence slipping away.

Anyone got a spare $20 million to give me so I can buy it?


The Ruling Class’ Pantheon of Lies

Barack Obama doesn’t want to prevent the flooding of the public square with raw sewage. He wants the exclusive ability to flood the public square with sewage and prevent its cleanup.


Barack Obama recently took to the stage at Stanford University to lecture an audience on the perils of disinformation. But it was Obama himself who used the occasion to spread lies and misinformation.

This shouldn’t come as any surprise. In 2013, PolitiFact awarded Obama its Lie of the Year award for repeatedly promising the American people that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” Obama made this false claim repeatedly as he promoted his signature piece of legislation: the “Affordable Care Act.”

After its passage, millions of Americans were sent cancellation letters from their insurance companies. 

Nonetheless, Obama, the decorated 2013 liar of the year, stood behind the podium at Stanford and admonished, “You just have to flood a country’s public square with enough raw sewage. You just have to raise enough questions, spread enough dirt, plant enough conspiracy theorizing, that citizens no longer know what to believe.” 

Obama was right, except that it’s Democrats like himself who have flooded our country’s public square with raw sewage. Just a few recent additions to the American ruling class’ pantheon of lies include Trump-Russia collusion, Trump quid pro quo, Trump incited an insurrection, the vaccines prevent the contraction and spread of COVID-19, and the Hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation.

Notably, while Obama railed against the planting of “conspiracy theorizing,” in his speech, he continued to peddle the debunked Democrat conspiracy theory of Trump-Russia collusion himself. 

“No one in my administration was surprised that Russia was attempting to meddle in our election,” Obama said in reference to the 2016 election.

Not only did the two-year, $32 million taxpayer-funded Mueller witch-hunt determine that there was no Trump-Russia collusion, but the ongoing Durham investigation has revealed that the Clinton campaign invented the conspiracy theory, funded its development, and colluded with countless Democrats, members of the intelligence community, and the media to flood the public square with that raw sewage. 

Obama’s concern is not that American citizens “no longer know what to believe,” as he claimed, but rather that American citizens no longer believe pathological liars like himself, other Democrats, and the propagandist media, which Obama and the Democratic Party rely upon to spread their dirt and conspiracy theories. 

Obama is deathly afraid that Americans may believe something that Obama and the Democrats don’t want them to believe—such as the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

Sixteen percent of Biden voters would have voted differently had the media and Big Tech not suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

Interestingly enough, Obama took aim at these very tech companies, which censored the Hunter Biden laptop story, in his Stanford speech. “These companies need to have some other north star other than just making money and increasing market share,” Obama said.

The “north star” to which Obama wants these tech companies to look is censorship. Yet Twitter, one of the companies at which Obama aimed, actually does value censorship over profit. Before reversing course on Monday, Twitter’s board of directors vowed to take a “poison pill” rather than accept Elon Musk’s $43 billion cash offer to buy the social media platform. Musk’s offer valued Twitter’s stock at $54.20 a share; a 38 percent premium to Twitter’s stock value before Musk disclosed his 9 percent stake.

The fact that companies like Twitter are “making money” isn’t what really upsets Obama, but rather the prospect of a free speech advocate like Musk—who has both the money and the willingness to use it in this way—purchasing a leftist, activist communications platform and neutralizing its use as a censorship tool of the ruling class.

Had Jeff Bezos, rather than Elon Musk, announced his intention to purchase Twitter, Obama would have been thrilled.

But Obama and other Democrats know their rapidly diminishing political power depends upon their control of media narratives. Now that billionaires like Musk and others are looking to interrupt their monopoly, Obama wants the government to regulate them.

The Left’s outrage at Musk’s attempt to free one Big Tech company (not even the biggest) from the Democrats’ chains of censorship is really a manifestation of their growing frustration that any platform or individual be allowed to question, challenge, or expose their agenda.

While Obama attacked Big Tech in his Stanford speech, he was really attacking every American who dares question and confront the Left’s lies—from Joe Rogan with his audience of millions to me, with a podcast audience of thousands. 

“One of the biggest reasons for the weakening of democracy is the profound change that’s taken place in how we communicate and consume information,” Obama said

What Obama meant was that one of the biggest reasons for the weakening of the Democratic Party has been the proliferation of free speech and alternative media sources.

Americans are no longer congregating in the Left’s pantheon of lies. Instead, they are seeking refuge in the abundant pantheons of truth. 

While new, heavily funded “mainstream” media services like CNN+ fail, alternative, right-wing podcasts with no funding like mine are flourishing.

Would-be totalitarians like Obama don’t want to prevent the flooding of the public square with raw sewage. They want the exclusive ability to flood the public square with sewage and prevent its cleanup.


Can Social Media Combat Misinformation and Still Grow?

Can Social Media Combat Misinformation and Still Grow?

ANALYSIS Real ClearPolitics

Can Social Media Combat Misinformation and Still Grow?

As social media platforms increasingly emphasize content moderation, “healthy conversations,” and combatting misinformation, the question of how such efforts will affect growth has been largely overlooked. If these changes significantly reduce or restrain growth, do they represent a conflict with platforms’ fiduciary duties to their shareholders?

The timeline below shows the estimated total daily tweets and tweeting users over the past decade. Twitter’s growth peaked in mid-2013, declined through late 2015, then entered a period of stagnation. It was the COVID-19 pandemic that rejuvenated the platform, leading to a vertical surge in both posts and users, but then the platform gave up all its pandemic gains in a single day: Oct. 21, 2020. Two months later, on Dec. 17, it stopped declining, but was back where it was a decade ago in terms of size.

 These dates each have key significance in Twitter’s journey toward “healthy conversations” and combatting misinformation.

In March 2018, Twitter cofounder Jack Dorsey unveiled a company initiative around encouraging “more healthy debate, conversations, and critical thinking” on its platform. Two months later, the company announced early results from efforts to combat users who “distort the conversation.” Using AI-based filtering, the company tested silentlyreducing the visibility of selected tweets, which it claimed had resulted in a 4%-8% drop in abuse reports. This was followed in July by the release of a preliminary set of metrics, through which the company would assess the “health” of its platform, one of which was the degree to which the platform was an “echo chamber.”

Throughout 2018, Twitter emphasized its efforts to algorithmically reshape its platform to reduce abuse and make it more welcoming to more users. Twitter’s continued stagnation was described as the positiveoutcome of removing abusive and spam-like accounts.

Despite these efforts, little seems to have changed at a platform level. Daily tweets and tweeting users did not measurably increase, despite the reduction in abusive content. The percentage of tweets driven by verified users remained unchanged, while replies (seen below in blue) and mentions of other users (in gray) continued unchanged on their previous trajectories.

The only major change was that retweeting (seen above in orange), which had been growing linearly, leveled off in July 2018 and has remained unchanged, at just over half of all tweets. This is the same month that the company announced its emphasis on reducing echo chambers, and it occurred in a period of broader societal reckoning over the dangers of retweets. At the same time, if the company’s goal was to reduce echo chambers, one would expect to see a reduction rather than stabilization of retweets, especially of verified users.

The leveling off of retweets could alternatively reflect efforts to combat bot accounts. According to the company, during the 2016 presidential campaign, just 50,000 Russian bots accounted for more than 1% of all election-related activist tweets on the entire platform, retweeting Donald Trump alone more than 500,000 times. With retweeting a common method for bot-based amplification, the company’s culling of prolific bot accounts might explain this leveling off.

Lending support to this idea is the graph below, which traces the average (blue) and median (orange) account age – the length of time since the account was created, not the age of the user behind the account – of all Twitter accounts that posted each day. This increased linearly from 2012 through July 2018, suggesting an aging community of early adopters, with few new entrants. Yet, both median and average account ages leveled off in July 2018 at exactly the same time as retweets, suggesting a connection.

A flat median account age implies heavy churn: New users join, tweet for a period, then leave, in a steady and perfectly matched influx and outflux of users. The divergence with average account age over this same period suggests that Twitter bifurcated in 2018 into two communities: early adopters who have remained on the platform, and a constant stream of new users who leave at a relatively steady rate. This further supports the conclusion that this development was related to anti-bot efforts, in that bot accounts tend to retweet heavily. If Twitter were more aggressively deleting them, we should see a steady stream of new accounts being registered to replace them, with a net neutral effect on total tweet volume.

In contrast, one of Twitter’s signature efforts to reduce misinformation had an existential impact on the platform’s growth. On Oct. 20, 2020, Twitter announced that it was adding “friction” to retweeting in the hopes that doing so would reduce the spread of election-related falsehoods. The impact was immediate, leading to a 20% reduction in retweeting, forcing the company to roll back the move just two months later, on Dec. 16 – but the damage was done and the platform gave up all of its pandemic growth.

Given the ad-supported nature of today’s social media platforms (89% of Twitter’s revenue comes from ads), growth must be weighed against the demands of advertisers. Though efforts to combat abuse and falsehoods appear to have a negligible or even negative impact on growth, they might make advertisers feel more comfortable and thus be crucial for monetization. After all, in 2020, more than 1,000 advertisers boycottedFacebook in protest of abusive content on its platform. However, that boycott occurred against the backdrop of an economic collapse in which most companies were already significantly reducing their ad buys; as the economy began to recover, most of those companies quietly returned to Facebook, suggesting that advertisers are willing to look past abusive content on social platforms to reach their customers.

In the end, it appears that Twitter’s “healthy conversation” efforts have had no major impact on the platform’s growth, despite repeated assertions that they would greatly improve growth by opening the platform to new communities. Its signature election-misinformation effort backfired spectacularly, reverting the company to where it was a decade ago. This raises serious questions about the degree to which misinformation and moderation efforts affect platform growth and, in turn, how compatible they are with platforms’ fiduciary duties to their shareholders as publicly traded companies. To answer these questions, we need far more transparency with regard to the social media platforms’ inner workings.

RealClear Media Fellow Kalev Leetaru is a senior fellow at the George Washington University Center for Cyber & Homeland Security. His past roles include fellow in residence at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on the Future of Government.


Libs Throw Tantrum Because No More Pride, BLM Flags Çan Be Displayed at ExxonMobil HQ

Libs Throw Tantrum Because No More Pride, BLM Flags Can Be Displayed at ExxonMobil HQ

(AP Photo/Matthew Brown, File)

The Walt Disney Company has reportedly lost $50 billion since it decided to go to war with Florida by opposing parental rights and brazenly supporting the LGBTQ indoctrination of kids. As Donald Trump said, “Everything woke turns to s—.”

Well, it seems at least one corporation has learned a valuable lesson from Disney’s troubles and has chosen to ban “external position flags” from being displayed outside its offices in order to “maintain neutrality.”

“Exxon updated company guidance on what flags can be displayed outside its offices, banning ‘external position flags’ such as PRIDE and Black Lives Matter,” reports Bloomberg News.

But members of Exxon’s PRIDE Houston Chapter are throwing a tantrum over the policy and are saying they won’t represent the company during Houston’s Pride celebration (ugh, that’s a thing?) in June.

Apparently, they aren’t satisfied with being treated equally and fairly in the company; they want special status.

“The updated flag protocol is intended to clarify the use of the ExxonMobil branded company flag and not intended to diminish our commitment to diversity and support for employee resource groups,” explains Tracey Gunnlaugsson, vice president of human resources. “We’re committed to keeping an open, honest, and inclusive workplace for all of our employees, and we’re saddened that any employee would think otherwise.”

Houston Exxon PRIDE isn’t buying it.

“It is difficult to reconcile how ExxonMobil recognizes the value of promoting our corporation as supportive of the LGBTQ+ community externally (e.g. advertisements, Pride parades, social media posts) but now believes it inappropriate to visibly show support for our LGBTQ+ employees at the workplace,” the group said in a statement.

Do you think maybe there’s something wrong when a group is having a hissy fit because they can’t display a Pride flag in a place where it doesn’t even belong? Does supporting a particular group necessitate flying its flag? Are they really so self-absorbed as to realize that if you allow one group to do so, then any group is entitled to the same courtesy?

The LGBT community needs to accept the fact they aren’t special. Given what’s happened to Disney, ExxonMobil’s move is actually a ridiculously small step toward staying out of the fray. If LGBT employees so desperately want to fly their flag at their place of employment, I guess they can start their own oil company.