Sunday, May 7, 2023

Republicans Can Break the Corporate Media This Cycle

No more limp excuses. The GOP now knows it can defang the power of the media in a general election—if it wants to.


It will take a lot of backbone—Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis-level backbone—but Republicans can break the still-too-powerful influence of the legacy corporate media. It’s a gamble, but one worth taking. Fact is, most Republicans do not need the mainstream media to win elections. For many of them, the media offers more downside than upside.

First we should recognize that legacy media are Democratic operatives, and therefore we have to treat reporters, nationally and locally, as the opposition. Republicans should simply decline to participate in their partisan attacks. How many times do Republicans need to be burned and voters lied to before realizing they need to ignore the media to neuter it? At some point, it’s Charlie Brown’s fault for playing with Lucy.

Nationally, there are friendly media outlets that Republicans can talk to, leak information to, and create reporter relationships with. This both helps Republican candidates avoid the opposition media and builds up an alternative mediasphere. If Republicans prove they can win with this formula, the corporate media, in a few election cycles, becomes relegated to just leftists for political coverage.

It will be impossible for people to not take notice. But is it possible to do

Yes, in a general election. And we know it: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is essentially following this path and taking the risk alone. He has spent more than four years completely icing out the Florida media—to their delightful shrieks and howls. Even now, in the midst of a rapidly heating up GOP primary, he continues to ignore the media.

DeSantis has already proven the worth of this strategy in Florida, the third-largest, most diverse state in the union with still powerful media outlets in Miami, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville and elsewhere. After telling legacy media to pound sand for four years, he went from a 2018 gubernatorial win of a fraction of a percent, to winning by 19 points four years later in a state with roughly equal voter registration. No media needed.

Unfortunately, old-school consultants, many conservative talking heads, and far too many fearful Republicans still don’t see this. They need to catch up.

As I wrote in American Greatness recently

The old-school, former mainstream media has been completely unmasked as the propagandist arm of the Democratic Party and allied statist interests . . . GOP candidates still trying to play nice and grant interviews to CNN, ABC/CBS/NBC, NPR, the New York TimesWashington Post, or the rest of the compendium of nefarious outlets are just out of touch with the new rules. They will be screwed by those outlets, and more importantly, they don’t need them.

Here’s what I tell my political clients: Whenever possible, ignore the legacy media in editable situations—those dealing with newspapers, online written content and all TV that is pre-produced. Those situations allow reporters to pick and choose out-of-context comments and paint a negative picture. A short written statement often works, as long as that is all that is provided. 

The only time to engage the corporate media is in live, uneditable situations where the candidate’s team is also taping the entire interview for later use. If that’s the option the candidate chooses, often in a press conference-type scenario, he had better be prepared because the interviewer is almost assuredly voting for the Democrat. This is a strong route in a General Election, and I think the concept is now a slam dunk for most candidates in most jurisdictions.

But what about primaries, when it’s Republican versus Republican? If we look at the GOP presidential primary as essentially a two-man race—and even setting polls aside, there really are only two candidates who have proven willing to fight the status quo and special interests on behalf of the people—then we also have a litmus test for whether this can work in a primary.

DeSantis has remained largely quiet during the Florida legislative session, which has undoubtedly hurt him in the polls. That session ends this week and DeSantis will then announce his exploratory committee in a few weeks. Knowing him and his tight, loyal team, I do not expect anything to change regarding the media. 

However, while President Trump routinely and rightly bashes the opposition media, he also grants them a lot of interviews and even leaks through them. (Think of his love-hate relationship with the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman.) He has been repeatedly burned in those interviews but will continue using them. The media hate both men, but their ratings soar with Trump, and DeSantis essentially tells them they are irrelevant. They will do everything possible to see DeSantis defeated and prove him wrong.

The coming months will be telling. DeSantis is obviously the underdog in many ways. But if he can make up the distance and at least turn the primary into a close race, it would be a data point that, even in GOP primaries, stiff-arming the media can work.

If other Republicans follow this route in their general election in 2024, they might finally show that they don’t need the opposition corporate media to get elected. The implications are huge, not least of which by allowing the nation to get a fairer view of Republican candidates without the partisan media hacking every narrative for the Democrats.




X22, Christian Patriot News, and more- May 7

 




The end begins tonight with the 1st of 3 final NCIS LA episodes airing tonight. It's the long awaited full circle episode that will hopefully once and for all clear Hetty's name of all that Subject 17 BS!! (If I'm up to it, I'll write and post a review tomorrow)

Here's tonight's news:

DEROY MURDOCK: This Might Be The Worst Idea Joe Biden’s Ever Had

 

Ukrainian servicemen  take part in a welcome ceremony for the first plane from the United States with non-lethal aid


This Might Be The Worst Idea Joe Biden’s Ever Had

Opinion by Deroy Murdock in the Daily Caller

America’s Commander-in-Chief just laid another egg.

President Joe Biden wants all Pentagon vehicles to be electric by 2030 – in just six years and seven months. America’s fearless leader previewed this policy on Earth Day 2022.

“We’re going to start the process where every vehicle in the United States military, every vehicle, is going to be climate-friendly — every vehicle,” Biden said in Seattle that April 22. “I mean it.” 

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm just reiterated this objective.

Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) asked Granholm at an April 26 Armed Services Committee hearing, “Do you support the military adopting that EV fleet by 2030?”

I do, and I think we can get there,” Granholm replied.

Those who have worn America’s uniform find this jaw-droppingly stupid.

“Anyone who has even a little experience in military logistics recognizes Joe Biden’s E.V. mandate as a political farce,” House Armed Services Committee member Jim Banks (R-Indiana) told me. The Navy Reserve officer and Senate candidate added: “As an Afghanistan war veteran, I wish Biden DoD’s top brass had the courage to put our national security before Green New Deal fantasies and call out this harmful and ridiculous order.”

​“I encountered a lot of IEDs on dirt roads in Afghanistan, but no charging stations,” said Matt Pottinger, who served three combat deployments as a Marine and later as Deputy National Security Advisor. “We rely on China for most of our EV supply chain, and that trend is worsening. It was hard enough when we depended on Middle Eastern allies for our energy needs. To put those needs — even for our military — in the hands of our chief adversary is, to use a technical term, pretty dumb.”

Biden’s pretty dumb political farce raises numerous unintentionally hilarious questions:

Where exactly would one plug in a Jeep, truck, tank, or armored personnel carrier in a blistering desert or steamy jungle?

If such charging stations existed, wouldn’t the enemy neutralize them, to hobble US armed forces?

If American GIs discovered functioning charging stations, would they halt their advance for, say, 30 to 45 minutes to recharge – at least once or twice daily?

Would US soldiers bring travel adapters to plug their EVs into overseas charging stations?

“Imagine going to war, you’re in an all-electric Humvee, your batteries are low, and it’s time for a charge, but you’re behind enemy lines,” one Louisianan hypothesized via Twitter. “You pull up to the nearest charging station controlled by the enemy. They let you charge before starting battle. The war continues.”

How would the Allied march from D-Day to Berlin have looked if George S. Patton, Maxwell Taylor, Bernard Law Montgomery, and other commanders had relied on electric vehicles? Would Adolf Hitler have left charging stations conveniently connected to the grid and ready for the Third Army to refresh their Sherman tanks en route to the Battle of the Bulge? Or, more likely, would der Führer have ordered SS saboteurs to dynamite every one of those damn things as the Nazis retreated, from Burgundy to Bastogne?

Alternatively, Patton and his men could have hauled mobile, solar-powered charging stations, so tanks and other vehicles could boost their voltage while dodging incoming Wehrmacht artillery.

Allied troops also would have confronted, in Monty Python’s words, “a teensy problemette.”

The skies above the Battle of the Bulge were notoriously cold, dark, and overcast in December 1944. The clouds were so thick that Allied pilots could not parachute supplies to friendly forces who were invisible beneath the dense gray.

Theoretically, had Patton roared into Nazi-occupied Belgium under an EV mandate, tapping into a woke, solar-powered grid would have been useless. There and then, particularly around the winter solstice, sun rays were as scarce as synagogues.

Obviously, 2023 is not 1944. That said, relying on the enemy’s green infrastructure or schlepping solar- and wind-power generators would cripple US troops as they attacked hostile combatants.

“This is more lunacy from the jet-setting climate grifters with zero basis in science or common sense,” said John Ullyot, a US Marine Corps veteran and former spokesman for the National Security Council. “EVs have no place on the battlefield unless it’s aiding the enemy. They would slow us down, crimp our tactical options, and make our forces easy targets against the weakest of adversaries. If Biden steers us into this woke cul-de-sac, taxpayers should insist that every military EV be delivered with a ‘Coexist’ bumper sticker already pasted on the back.”

So, what’s next from the geniuses at Joe Biden’s Green New Pentagon and the Department of Energy, the guardians of America’s nuclear arsenal?

Why not an electric-ship mandate?

US Navy aircraft carriers could stop every two days in mid-ocean, plug into solar-powered buoys, wait 12 hours, and then proceed on their merry way.

Why?

Climate!

DEROY MURDOCK: This Might Be The Worst Idea Joe Biden’s Ever Had (msn.com)





Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Black Grievance Politics Is Destroying Civilization

Without security, there is anarchy. And where there is anarchy, the state can command neither legitimacy nor respect.


Arguably, the greatest indictment of leftism is its preference for the vagrant and the criminal over the law-abiding citizen and victim. In politics, there are all kinds of disagreements about the role and scope of the state, but the one thing the state must do is protect the innocent.

Without security, there is anarchy. And where there is anarchy, the state can command neither legitimacy nor respect. Yet racial idolaters on the Left have pushed society to forgo basic expectations of public order and civilized conduct. Demanding anything more than day-to-day chaos would be cruel to “marginalized” people like deranged homeless black men on the subway.

The Left has a warped infatuation with society’s most entitled, recalcitrant, and destructive elements. Their latest martyr is a lunatic named Jordan Neely, who was killed while threatening commuters in Manhattan on Monday morning. The man, portrayed by sympathetic media as a “Michael Jackson impersonator,” was throwing garbage at people and making vaguely threatening statements about his willingness to go to prison for life. A reasonable person would feel afraid in this situation, as passengers doubtless did. A heroic vigilante intervened and put Neely in a chokehold. Two other men helped restrain Neely, who later died. 

Seldom is the line between civilization and savagery drawn so clearly as it was in Jordan Neely’s subway car. The Left has demonized the vigilante for his “barbaric” supposed “lynching,” but this gets it precisely backward. Barbarism on the subway is a daily occurrence; it is part of the atmosphere. Barbarism is forcing commuters to fear for their lives and property on a Monday morning. It’s what you call it when vagrants shove people to their deaths in front of moving trains, and all the state can do is shrug.

In places like New York City, criminals are a protected class. Just days ago, a homeless man stabbed a commuter with an ice pick. Jordan Neely himself had 42 prior arrests and an open warrant for assaulting a 67-year-old woman at the time of his death. He is widely reported to have been a menace to the safety of others, in short, a net negative on society.

Jordan Neely had no business being on the street. Only a deranged society would treat such a man like an equal.

But rather than permit the “injustice” of locking up violent blacks, governments in places like New York empower criminals to terrorize innocents. This is called “social justice,” and it’s happening everywhere. 

Roving caravans of “youths” in Chicago regularly riot and loot with impunity. The city wrings its hands over a lack of “resources” in the hood and stages ineffectual “awareness” campaigns. Civilized society is extorted, literally and morally. Philadelphia recently paid off rioters who were tear-gassed while blocking highways during the George Floyd riots.

No matter how bad it gets, no matter how many people get hurt, it will never be enough to satisfy the Left. They will always find a way to justify the criminals and blame the real victims, whose cries for justice are drowned out by the endless wailing of black entitlement. We are often told that the politics of “white grievance” is transforming America into some kind of authoritarian state, but the opposite is true. We are racing into the ghetto.

It is impossible to have civilization when it is a crime to hold members of a protected class accountable for their conduct. In Manhattan on Monday, justice momentarily took the reins away from “social justice.” The normal course of state-sanctioned disorder was disrupted by a brave onlooker, who very well could have ignored the threat, like most commuters have been conditioned to do. Instead, he chose to act at great risk to his safety, reputation, and freedom. It would be surprising if he is not hanged, drawn, and quartered for doing the right thing. He is a fool if he does not expect it.



Geraldo Claims Appearances on 'The Five' Were Canceled, Raising Questions About His Future

Geraldo Claims Appearances on 'The Five' Were Canceled, Raising Questions About His Future

Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

We’ve seen some major media upheaval of late, particularly with the “parting of the ways” between Fox and their biggest star, Tucker Carlson. It’s not clear yet where Carlson is going to land, although as we noted he’s got a good offer out there, and is likely to have a lot more once he’s free of his Fox contract.

But one of the people that I can’t imagine a lot of Fox fans would have Fox “parting ways” with is Geraldo Rivera.

He’s more than a little embarrassing with some of the things that he has said. His comment about AR-15s — saying that the AR stood for “automatic rifle” — has to rank up there as one of the most ridiculous for an alleged “news” personality because it was so ignorant.

“My appearances today and tomorrow on The Five have been canceled,” Geraldo claimed. “I’m sure there’s a good reason. Never fear, I’ll be back week after next. Stay safe and happy. Thanks 🙏”

Saying “I’m sure there’s a good reason” would suggest that if this is true, then they haven’t told him the reason. It doesn’t sound like it’s good for Rivera. Geraldo is one of the rotating “liberals” that they put on the show including Jessica Tarlov and former Democrat congressman Harold Ford Jr. I think they rotate them because you can only take any of them in small doses, without pulling your hair out at how ridiculous they can be. Rivera does say, however, that he will be back “week after next.” Rivera hasn’t been on the show since April 21.

The three liberals replaced Juan Williams, who had his own “parting of the ways” from Fox. Some speculated that Rivera’s absence was related to Greg Gutfeld, whom Williams regularly battled.

Gutfeld has lost patience with Rivera in the past, most recently after Rivera took a cheap shot at Tucker Carlson.

Gutfeld — who has been a defender of Tucker Carlson — was not going to let that shot go by.

There was also this further embarassing tweet from Rivera this week, saying he couldn’t imagine Biden being involved in a bribery scheme, as the alleged whistleblower told GOP.

Geraldo obviously hasn’t looked at Joe Biden’s past or what’s on the Hunter Biden laptop. He hasn’t bothered to investigate, which is part of the problem. That’s just remarkably silly for anyone who pretends to be a news person. It means he can’t be bothered to know the first thing about the facts or Biden, apart that he’s the likely Democratic nominee; therefore he, Geraldo, should find excuses for him, and he certainly does that.

But is any of that a factor here? Some are suggesting that Geraldo, who is often wrong, is wrong here again. Other speculation suggested Gutfeld might have been involved in it.

One Fox News insider speculated to The Daily Beast that Gutfeld may have played a role in Rivera’s alleged removal.

Other sources within the network claimed however that Rivera was never on the show’s calendar to begin with and that it was always supposed to just be Tarlov and Ford in the ‘liberal’ seat this week.

We’ll have to see what happens. I think it’s fair to say that no one would miss Geraldo if he was booted, unlike Tucker Carlson.



Arizona school board reversed course, SETTLES discrimination lawsuit…

 In early March, when this event took place, there was a thread on the topic. It was implied by our atheists members that the contract should have been cancelled to prevent these “student teachers” from imposing their Faith beliefs on students. Of course, there was ZERO evidence that that had occurred during the past 11 years. That fact meant ZERO to said atheists. 


As of yesterday, the school system had to rescind their religious discrimination. 


VICTORY: Arizona school board reverses course, SETTLES discrimination lawsuit with Christian university

Way back in early March we reported on a school board in Arizona that was terminating an 11-year student teacher partnership with Arizona Christian University because of the school’s Christian beliefs. This was led by a member of the school board with rabbit ears who refers to herself as a “bilingual, disabled, neurodivergent Queer Black Latina.”

The school board voted unanimously to terminate the contract they had with ACU because they were committed to creating “a safe place for our LGBTQ+ students, staff, and community.” And they felt they couldn’t do that any longer by receiving student teachers from a Christian university whose website stated that they are “committed to Jesus Christ, accomplishing his will and advancements on earth as in Heaven.”

Because of this, ACU sued the school board for religious discrimination and won. The school board just settled the lawsuit:

An Arizona School District settled a religious discrimination case Thursday two months after it was accused of illegally terminating a contract while its members blasted the Christian “Jesus” values of a university. 

On Wednesday evening, the board restored a contract with the university. A settlement agreement also likely will include that the district will be responsible for thousands in legal fees. 

Alliance Defending Freedom, who represented the university, said the school board “showed blatant hostility to ACU’s beliefs” when it questioned how one could “be committed to Jesus Christ” and yet, at the same time, respect LGBTQ students and board members.

According to AZ Central, those legal fees were $25,000:

Without comment, the board voted 4-1 to resume using ACU student teachers and to pay $25,000 in ACU’s legal fees, according to terms of the settlement laid out by ACU’s attorneys.

Wow, a nearly unanimous vote to completely backtrack on this blatant Christian discrimination. I guess they knew they were going to lose big time if they continued with this.

The interesting thing is that the issue had nothing to do with the student teachers themselves. In fact the school district had gone on to hire some of these student teachers:

Arizona Christian has provided student teachers to Washington Elementary schools for 11 years.

The contract renewal was a routine item, put on a February consent agenda with a recommendation from the administration that it be renewed.

Every board member voted to terminate the contract. This, even though no one could point to so much as a single complaint about any ACU student teacher.

In fact, Washington Elementary has had 25 student teachers from ACU in the last 11 years, every one of whom had to sign a document agreeing to abide by the district’s non-discrimination policies.

The district has hired 17 ACU graduates, according to ACU’s lawyers at the Alliance Defending Freedom.

This never was about the teachers or even the good of the school district. This was all about the leftist hatred of Christianity. But at the end of the day they did the right thing and we can only hope they learned a valuable lesson in the process.


Conservatives Won The Word ‘Woke.’ Now It’s Time To Reclaim Accurate Language Everywhere

By describing woke ideologies and their fruits at face value, conservatives felled the left’s self-conferred monopoly on how, when, and where the term could be used.



The Associated Press Stylebook, a once-respected linguistic guide for journalists, conceded the definition of the word “woke” to conservatives on Thursday, in an update instructing writers to “use quotes around the slang term.”

“Woke” was originally popularized by left-wing proponents of identity politics to flatteringly refer to their own “enlightenment or awakening about issues of racial and other forms of social justice,” as the AP explains. Conservatives have used it to describe those same people and their ideas.

Those ideas more often than not, demand revolutionary social changes that prejudge people based on their secondary physical characteristics. If, like the vast majority of America until about five seconds ago, you think such identitarian prejudices are a bad thing, you might use the word “woke” in a less than fawning manner. Apparently, the AP’s staff can’t handle that.

AP’s concession of the word is hilariously thin-skinned, but it’s also a rare win for conservatives in the war of words. Just by describing woke behavior as such, we’ve held a bit of ground against the unhinged language police who are mad that the right is using their terminology against them. Unintentionally, it seems we’ve ended up with command of the word altogether, if left-wing outlets like the AP are henceforth refusing to use it.

While there are times individual ideologies require a more specific description — queer theory, or socialism, for example — “woke” is a completely fair and often helpful term to use when speaking generally about the coalition of people on the left who want to see meritocracy replaced by identity politics. As my colleague Samuel Mangold-Lenett noted recently in these pages, “what other slogany-sounding word really works as a catch-all for what leftism has become?”

“They lost complete control of the English language,” he added, “and the word they used to indicate their radicalism to one another is being used to expose that radicalism to the rest of the world.”

The apparatus of left-wing media outlets, cultural celebrities, and tech platforms that drives our modern discourse has a majority share in defining the language we use. From headlines to search engines to literal dictionaries, activists manipulate the tools of debate. In any debate, the first step is defining your terms — if your definitions are off, you’ve already lost.

That’s why it’s incumbent upon conservatives to be intentional, honest, and straightforward with the words we use. That includes defending the legitimacy of disfavored-but-accurate terms (like “woke,” or “woman”) and refusing to use inaccurate language.

Take the nonsense phrase “gender-affirming care,” for example. The diction dictators have effectively standardized the term, to the point where even people who disapprove of such procedures will glibly repeat it. But nothing about the phrase is tethered to reality.

The whole idea that people have “genders” beyond their natural sex is pseudo-science crafted to further an ideology. Procedures that attempt to inhibit or reverse the physical realities of a person’s sex are not “affirming” that sex, but actively rejecting it. And deformative surgeries that involve amputating healthy body parts and creating Frankenstein-esque “penises” and “vaginas” with scraps of carved-up skin are certainly not “care.”

To use the phrase “gender-affirming care” is to give up the entire argument before it’s even begun. Or, as George Orwell put it, such nonsense terms “construct your thoughts for you,” and “perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself.”

The same goes for using improper pronouns to describe sexually confused people: calling a man “she” or a woman “he.” Doing so indulges a delusion. Having physical reality on your side does little good if you concede it away by the very words you use.

The list of nonsense words that woke ideologues are injecting into common parlance is long. For starters, here’s a list of “10 Politically Correct But Factually False Words And Phrases To Stop Using Immediately,” and a follow-up list of eight more.

Concurrent with the effort to mainstream invented euphemisms such as “gender-affirming care” is an effort to cannibalize established English vocabulary. Other victims of the AP Stylebook’s recent crusades include “riot,” “mistress,” “crazy,” and “pro-life.” Proper grammar is also a victim, with the redefinition of the plural pronoun “they” to refer to individuals who are in denial of their natural sex.

Tech monopolies such as Google instruct their employees to avoid terms like “man hours” and “blacklist.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has nixed “criminal” and “foreigner.” From journalism to medicine, terms such as “mother” and “woman” are replaced by dehumanizing lingo like “birthing parent” and “person who menstruates.” Merriam-Webster has redefined “anti-vaxxer,” “sexual preference,” and “assault rifle” to further the editors’ ideological ends.

By describing woke ideologies and their fruits at face value, conservatives felled the left’s self-conferred monopoly on how, when, and where the term could be used. But the same people policing the word “woke” are appointing themselves the arbiters of the rest of the English language, too.

For those of us who prefer our words to reflect reality, there is nothing to be gained by good-naturedly going along with linguistic charades. On the other hand, there is the entire discourse to be lost.



The Curious Case of Racial Shifting (Or, When Being White Isn't Enough)


If you’re like me, you might have found yourself asking: What’s up with all these white women pretending to be racial minorities?

Every now and again, we see news stories about white women getting caught masquerading as a black, Hispanic, or Native American woman. These bizarre tales are typically good for a laugh. But I think there might be an underlying issue prompting these people to try to change their ethnicity.

So far, there have been several notable examples over the years.

The latest is a professor of environmental science at the University of California, Berkeley, named Elizabeth Hoover. She recently issued an apology for falsely identifying as Native American. Her apology comes after she accepted family stories about her Native American ancestry without proper research. She expressed deep remorse for the harm caused to the Native American community and the trust that was broken as a result of her misrepresentation. She joins a list of white women who have misrepresented their racial or ethnic backgrounds, often to take advantage of affirmative action or gain social status.

The trend of pretending to belong to a different ethnic group has faced scrutiny in recent years. One of the most well-known examples include Rachel Dolezal, who presented herself as a black woman but was revealed to have white parents, and Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic senator who claimed Cherokee ancestry but later apologized after a DNA test showed little Native American heritage.

Another instance involves Hilaria Baldwin, the wife of actor Alec Baldwin, who adopted a Spanish accent and claimed Spain as her native country before it was discovered that she was actually from Boston. Carrie Bourassa, a professor in Canada, resigned after it was revealed that she likely had no indigenous ancestry despite claiming to be a member of various indigenous groups.

But there are plenty of other examples that don’t make the news. A couple of years ago, I wrote about a study analyzing the seemingly impossible growth of the Native American population.

The Native American population in the United States has experienced an astonishing 86.5% growth between 2010 and 2020, according to the U.S. Census. Demographers argue that such a rate of increase is impossible to achieve through natural birth rates alone, leading to the conclusion that individuals who previously identified as white are now claiming to be Native American.

This phenomenon, referred to as “racial shifting” or “pretendian,” reflects a growing movement where people are fleeing their white identities rather than facing political or social persecution. In essence, a significant number of white folks have begun identifying as Native Americans over the past few decades largely as a way to abandon their white identity and identify with a marginalized group.

Yes, it sounds insane, but it is not surprising considering the cultural environment that has been shaped by the hard left, which has encouraged the type of white guilt that leads to this type of behavior. So-called progressives have continually pushed the message that white folks living today are guilty for the abuses of America’s past.

But even further, the hard left has cultivated a milieu in which perceived victimhood carries a level of currency that can be quite beneficial in society. Those who can claim they are part of a marginalized or oppressed group are often viewed in a more sympathetic light. In progressive circles, their voices are amplified and given more credence because not doing so means being bigoted. In reality, it is yet another way for white progressives to signal their virtue.

Unfortunately, this means that many white folks are pressured to feel guilt or shame because of their identity. On the other hand, racial minorities are pressured to feel helplessness and victimhood because of their identity. This is the sickness the hard left has wrought.