Category Archives: Culture War

PETA made a sound again.

Leave a reply

Nobody really takes PETA seriously, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t occasionally pipe in an effort to remain relevant.

This time, it’s about Mario Kart World, specifically, the Cow character.

From their tone, it doesn’t seem as though they object to the character itself, just to it’s choice of accessory, as indicated in their recent letter to Nintendo president Shuntaro Furukawa:

Dear Mr. Furukawa:

Greetings! I’m writing on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). PETA entities have more than 10 million members and supporters globally. We herd there’s a new star in Mario Kart World: Cow! She is already winning hearts everywhere—including ours. But one detail has us hitting the brakes: The brass ring in Cow’s nose. Would you please show empathy towards bovines and remove the nose ring? Here’s why this is so important:

Nose rings are used by the meat and dairy industries to exploit, control, and even drag animals to their deaths. These brass rings are crudely stabbed through the sensitive septum of cows and bulls, which can cause lasting pain and discomfort. The dairy industry will also clip spiked nose rings on baby cows so that the comforting act of nursing from their mother causes her pain and the baby is rejected and kicked away. To control bulls, a chain might be fastened from the nose ring to the bull’s horn for even more pain-driven control.

The brass ring in Cow’s nose glosses over real world violence and cruelty to animals. That’s why we’re asking you to give this beloved bovine a small but meaningful upgrade: Remove the nose ring and let Cow race freely- without any painful reminders of the industries that treat animals like profit-making machines.

Every animal is someone. So leave the rings to Sonic and let Cow breathe free!

They also made a graphic:

While we’re banning nose rings, let’s ban having women wear nose rings, as well. I’m kidding. Women are free to make themselves as unattractive as they wish.

But on that note, has PETA considered the opinion of the Cow on this matter? Maybe the Cow wanted to wear a nose ring. Maybe it considers nose rings fashionable. Or maybe it likes them.

For that matter, has PETA considered that the Cow in MKW is just a made-up character, and therefore can’t actually suffer? Besides, the Cow looks like it’s having the time of it’s life, riding around on motorcycles with a big smile on its face.

Personally, I doubt that Furukawa will even see PETA’s letter. But if he did, it would probably come off to him as another attempt by someone outside of Japan to influence Japanese media. And I suspect that the Japanese are getting sick of this.

When it comes to PETA and groups like it, you can’t give, even a little bit. Because if you do, that’s just going to encourage them to keep going with this kind of stuff. What you do is ignore them.

Or you ridicule them. That would definitely be a correct way to answer them.

Another old Simpsons episode is now surprisingly relevant

Leave a reply

I know that cartoons like The Simpsons are only fiction, and that because of this, using it to illustrate a point isn’t always helpful. The person writing them can write in any lesson that they want, including those that may not work in reality, but can work in a fictional setting anyway, by nature of being a fictional work.

Still, an old cartoon can make a point that puts things into perspective, and that perspective might be much needed.

Also, using cartoons to illustrate a point is fun, and can hold the attention of those who grew up with the same cartoons.

You may remember an old episode of The Simpsons, titled Itchy and Scratchy and Marge. In the episode, an infant character Maggie strikes her father Homer with a mallet, leaving the child’s mother Marge perplexed as to why Maggie would do such a thing. Later, she sees an episode of a cartoon, Itchy and Scratchy.

Itchy and Scratchy is an in-universe parody of a real-life cartoon Tom and Jerry, but with a stronger emphasis on graphic violence, and airs as part of a program called Krusty the Clown, which is enjoyed by Marge’s other children, Bart and Lisa. Interestingly, while Lisa normally abhors violence, she adores Itchy and Scratchy with the same enthusiasm as Bart.

Having watched the cartoon for herself, and seeing little Maggie attempting to stab Homer with a pencil, Marge makes a mental connection, and decides to take action.

As the episode progresses, Marge eventually builds a coalition, which successfully convinces the writers of Itchy and Scratchy to write a non-violent episode. Predictably, this causes viewers of Krusty the Clown to lose interest, resulting in them playing outside, instead.

For Marge, this appears to be a victory. However, the episode doesn’t end there. The curators of a famous work of art were on a tour which would take them through Marge’s home town of Springfield.

Marge believed the work to be a masterpiece. However, the coalition she was previously a part of objected to it, by reason of it being a depiction of nudity. Thus, there was a new conflict driving the plot, as Marge contested the coalition she herself was instrumental in forming, while being criticized for her alleged hypocrisy for opposing the artistic depiction of violence, while defending an artistic depiction of nudity.

In the end, Marge won out again, and Marge and Homer got to see the statue for themselves at an exhibit, where they expressed a desire for their children to also see it for themselves, possibly through a school field trip.

There are numerous takeaways that a person could come away with after watching this episode. But the one I would like to focus on is the main theme, which concerns the freedom of expression in practice.

Due to the ironic nature of how the characters in The Simpsons are written, it can be difficult to determine whether the characters learn lessons which may be apparent to viewers.

Marge initially disregarded the principle of free expression, apparently taking a position which favored her own interests. Rather than properly instructing her own children, she opted for convenience, insisting on  entertainment media which she saw as having less potential for negative influence.

But when a work of art was to arrive in town which she regarded as a masterpiece, she defended it, against the objections of the cadre she had previously sided with.

The undertone of the episode illustrates to viewers that protecting free expression doesn’t just mean protecting expressions that one prefers, it also means tolerating the presence of expressions that may not appeal to one’s sensibilities. Otherwise, one risks being seen as hypocritical, as Marge did.

Also relevant to today, one can notice that the coalition that Marge helped form didn’t stop with the art she didn’t like, it continued with the art that she did like. That’s how it often goes with such collectivist groups, they can develop in ways that’s difficult to predict, and they often develop desires which are well beyond what they may have initially expressed.

Fake MAGA and the Weaponization of Bullplop

Leave a reply
If Fake MAGA lived eight decades ago.

It’s no secret that much of the internet is about influencing other people to do things. Because of this, it shouldn’t be a surprise that foreign actors can use social media to influence Joe and Jane Q. Public.

Now, the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) has determined that foreign actors are attempting to infiltrate the MAGA movement with the intent of dividing it against itself. The infiltraters have been aptly termed, “Fake MAGA”, and because these bots and fake accounts are sophisticated, they might not give the same kind of “hello fellow children” vibe as you might sense from your usual imposter.

It’s evident that leftists are also being infiltrated, but I’ll come back to that.

Because the report gets really specific and even names the names of some prominent figures in the fringe of the MAGA movement, the NCRI had better have been really careful in crossing its “i”s and dotting its “t”s (or however it’s supposed to go). Because if they muffed some things up, the NCRI might face some totes cereal defamation lawsuits.

The report alleges that foreign actors have created bot accounts on the social media platform we now know as X (formerly Twitter), creating accounts well in advance of events that they might comment on to give them the appearance of authenticity, and farming engagement for fringe MAGA personalities most likely to propagate messages sympathetic to Russia and Iran, increasing the likelihood that the greater MAGA movement will change their perspective given the peer pressure.

I strongly recommend reading the report for yourself. While some aspects can be questioned, it’s still an eye-opening report, and does a great job of explaining why we saw a recent spike in pro-Iranian MAGA chuds in recent days.

Among the names that were named in the report as carrying water for Fake MAGA are Nick Fuentes, Jake Shields, and Jackson Hinkle, as well as Draven Noctis, Megatron_Ron, and Adam eMedia. About half these names are ones I’ve heard of, and I’ve probably muted at least a couple because I got sick of their bullshit.

Among the allegations made by NCRI are that some of these personalities are in league with foreign actors, and benefitted from engagement farming.

From my perspective, Jake Shields and his ilk look like the kind of guys who would say anything if it were to net them engagement, and it’s hard to imagine them with any kind of sincere principle. As for me, if I were to wake up one morning next to five million dollars then discover that I got it by acting like Jake Shields, I’d probably set fire to the money, then jump into it.

As for the alleged bot accounts, the report alleges that a high volume of them were started around two specific dates: April 26 and October 28, both in the year 2022. These dates are approximate to, but not precisely on, the initiation and completion of Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (April 14 and October 27th, respectively). To be fair, this would be about the time that many with sincerely-held right wing opinions may have started accounts, determining that the platform may become less hostile. However, the sudden influx in accounts would have made excellent cover for the influx of bots.

How does an ordinary user identify the bots? Before we get carried away and point to accounts created on those dates, remember that many sincere MAGA people were joining at around the dates mentioned above. The stronger giveaway is a sudden influx of so-called MAGA accounts posting sympathetically towards foreign adversaries.

Many of the accounts in question were so-called “groypers”, with heavily on-the-nose nationalistic sentiments, and they suspiciously drop “false flag” conspiracy theories in tandem with one another, particularly immediately after a significant event. Interestingly, many of these bots have had blue checkmarks purchased for them, adding to the illusion of authenticity.

When enough of these bots are acting in tandem, they can manipulate the algorithm to create the effect of a flood of their posts in the feeds of those on the right. The goal is to influence the opinions of right wingers through the illusion of peer pressure.

If you were on X immediately following the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities by US forces, then you’ve probably seen a flood of Fake MAGA bot posts. And they seem to have continued until about mid-day yesterday, as though someone noticed that something was amiss, and pulled the plug on them.

Interestingly, other social media platforms didn’t have the same bot problem. YouTube didn’t have to put up with any Fake MAGA crap. Even Minds seemed unaffected. It was basically just X which was targeted.

Until the time that the party was over, the community did find a few Fake MAGA accounts on their own. At least one of them, which was subsequently deleted, was found by CatTurd. Another was outed by Community Notes:

A Fake MAGA proclaiming that he won’t die for a foreign country conjures the mental image of an overweight groyper sitting on his couch being handed conscription papers.

No one expects him to die for a foreign country. No one expects him to die for his own country. It’s more realistic to expect him to die from complications related to his own diet.

If you’re wondering whether bots and other Fake MAGA accounts can participate in surveys, yes, they can. It’s not a new thing, but here’s a recent example:

The Twitter survey, and all its famous scientific accuracy.

If you’ve never heard of Felix Rex, he’s a somewhat obscure YouTuber who sounded insightful back in 2016, but has since taken to schizo-posting. It’s gotten to the point that he believes that red-haired people are the descendents of an ancient race of genetically engineered humans.

June is Men’s Mental Health Awareness Month, by the way.

While matters are relatively back to normal for the time being, there have been casualties in the recent bot insurgency. On the bright side, we now have a better idea of who the grifters are. In that sense, the Fake MAGA bots did us a favor.

But let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that it’s over. The fact is, America’s adversaries have found a new way to demoralize America, and it’s on us to remain true to ourselves, regardless of what an apparent majority may think. We saw what happens when a fake majority attempts to bandwagon Americans into thinking that Iran should be left to develop nukes.

I like to say, stand up for what’s right, even if you’re standing alone.

I said earlier that I’d come back to how leftists are probably handling it. Yes, leftists are being influenced by foreigners. And they don’t seem to have a defense. Stands to reason considering that they have an unhealthy amount of outgroup empathy, which the foreign adversaries can easily exploit.

I think the following cartoon illustrates how easily they can be influenced:

One way or another, the left is going to set cars on fire, throw molotov cocktails, and loot Apple stores. For what cause? Our foreign adversaries will decide.

Frieren: From Mortality To Morality

Leave a reply

I’ve been seeing Frieren come up from time to time. A friend recently recommended it to me, so I decided to make some time to watch the anime.

Two days and 22 episodes in, I think I can say I get the general premise, and can comment on the controversy surrounding it.

First thing to point out is that Frieren: Beyond Journey’s End is a work of fiction. Because I recognize it as such, it doesn’t inform my morality. If a work of fiction were to attempt to teach a moral lesson, it could teach any lesson that the author might want it to, and the scenario could be written to present it in a favorable light, regardless of what the reality of the matter might be if a person were to attempt to put it into practice.

Entertainment is supposed to be entertaining, and that’s all it has to do to justify its existence. The idea that entertainment must have a moral value is generally propagated by busybodies who don’t trust other people to think for themselves. If children are taught that entertainment is merely to entertain and not to inform moral perspectives, they could watch shows like South Park and Family Guy and still become a moral child (though those probably might not be your first entertainment choices for your child). It’s not a bad idea to instill the proper perspective to prepare them for the inevitability that they’ll come across these shows, or shows like them.

Otherwise, if your child comes across a cartoon that extols the virtues of pushing old people into mud instead of helping them across the street, there’s no telling how they’ll take it. There’s no substitute for proper parenting.

As obvious as this is, lazy parenting that failed to instill a proper perspective on entertainment has resulted in a new generation of busybodies that have become everyone else’s problem.

Based on this framing, you might guess that Frieren is Ren and Stimpy on PEDs. Nope. Frieren is about life, mortality, and friendship from the perspective of a person who, being an elf, would be likely to outlive the humans around her by many centuries. While the story takes place after another story has already concluded, it still succeeds in conveying a compelling and beautiful narrative, which is at times exciting.

So, what’s the problem?

The problem is, some people are taking issue with the portrayal of a fantastic race, called “demons”, as being evil.

For clarity, the demons in Frieren are not the mind manipulating spiritual beings that are often featured in religions, they’re more like the tieflings in Dungeons and Dragons in that they are humanoids with horns. But while the tieflings might be capable of morality on an individual by individual basis, the demons in Frieren are irredeemable psychopaths with no understanding of human desire for friendship or family, and have learned human language to the end of using it to manipulate. Which, concerning the abuse of language, makes them sound like the propagandists in the corporate mainstream information media.

I was aware of the controversy before watching Frieren. But what surprised me was just how little screen time was given to the topic of the morality of demons. The impression that I got was that demon morality was a contrivance designed to convey that Frieren’s original journey was strongly justified.

This is in addition to the antagonists being called demons, and the point was labored that they were incorrigibly wicked and that tragedy was the long-term consequence of any attempt to co-exist with them. Could the point have been more strongly conveyed?

However, for the busybodies, this is just the problem. Because as they see it, fantastic racism is still racism, and they can’t bring themselves to trust the rest of us to think for ourselves. But in coming to the defense of these fantastic psychopaths, these same busybodies are showing that they’re just the kind of people who, if they were to live in Frieren’s fantastic setting, would fall for the demon’s honeyed words.

At this point, you might have guessed that it’s primarily leftists who are raising an issue with Frieren. Yep. It’s leftists again.

And, right on brand, they want everything, including every form of entertainment, to bend the knee to their worldview, even anime and manga. Because when it comes to cultists, the usefulness of anything is measured by its utility for propagating the cult’s ideology.

But the problem isn’t just that the left seeks to subvert entertainment and transform it into a vehicle for their worldview. The left is also waging a long war against the traditional morality that derives its principles from natural law. To this end, they seek to undermine basic ethics in favor of a new set of values that is disconnected from reality and ignores the second order consequences of their own unwise behaviors.

It’s part of the reason why the left can’t meme. Memes are shortform communication delivered with an understanding of what’s considered normal, so that humor can be found in a variation from expectations, much like a punchline in a joke. Take the old cat meme, “I can has cheezburger?” For most viewers, the expectation is that a cat can’t employ language, but if it could, its syntax and spelling would likely be poor, as it is in the meme. However, if the meme were to have been presented by a vegan, and thus someone with a left-wing fringe ideology, they might include a disclaimer that they don’t condone the cat’s request, or they might object to even sharing the meme on principle.

Leftist memes tend to be wordy, and there’s a reason for that: the leftist meme is part of a deliberate attempt to redefine normalcy, and to this end, they don’t want there to be any possibility that the meme could be misinterpreted, especially in a way that may defeat their ideology.

The verbosity it would take to redefine expectations does not lend itself to shortform content. But it also reveals something about leftists: that their ideology is more important to them than whether you’re amused or entertained.

When you know this, it’s easy to see why leftists have a problem with Frieren. The rest of us have basic understandings about morality which don’t need continual reiterating. Among the points we consider axiomatic: Immorality is corrosive to families, communities, societies, and nations. Some cultures are incompatible with other cultures. There are people who make it difficult to live peacefully.

If you understand these things, then the way that Frieren handles the demons in its world shouldn’t challenge you. However, leftists feel threatened by Frieren, because the narrative of Frieren supposes a morality that hasn’t imbibed on a toxic dose of outgroup empathy.

Frieren has frequently been accused of saying that coexistence with certain people is impossible. The following panel is often pointed to, which is probably the most controversial in the manga:

It has often been said that Frieren said that you can’t live with certain people. The words she used are different in the panel above, but they carry the same implication.

For clarity, here’s the surrounding context (being manga, panels and word bubbles are ordered from right to left):

While Frieren might not have used the phrase “coexistence with certain people is impossible”, it’s plain to see that this is a sentiment that she would hold, and she illustrated this while addressing a demon who was okay with sacrificing lives in an attempt at coexistence, showing that those lives were less meaningful to him than his endeavor.

However noble the demon’s stated endeavor may have sounded, it’s undermined by his inability to comprehend the value of life. It’s the old “making an omelet by breaking a few eggs” line of reasoning.

But however one might interpret Frieren’s words, it remains that the Frieren manga and anime are works of fiction. Any lesson, moral, or social statement that they make, whether expedient or not, should be viewed in that light.

After all, the main point of entertainment is to be entertaining. If leftists had their way with it, entertainment would be turned into propaganda.

And that’s one of many reasons why they must be resisted.

Verizon leaves the sinking DEI ship of fools.

Leave a reply

It’s yet another bad day for the losing side. Verizon is now ending it’s DEI programs.

From Brendan Carr on X:

When he said “effective immediately”, he wasn’t kidding. Feast your eyes on the dessicated husk of their All of Us page:

I was gonna drink anyway, but now I can call it a celebration.

Human resources, training, everything down to hiring goals. It’s a complete gutting. And with no hesitation.

This is huge because Verizon is a major telecom company. People are more connected today than they’ve ever been, and smartphones are a major reason for this. Because Verizon is a major mobile service provider, they had a lot of potential to propagate the kind of woke ideology that’s permeated the West Coast, where much of the tech world is headquartered. Through the tech giants, much of Coastal Californian culture could be easily exported to the rest of the world, and it seemed to have even reached as far as to poison Europe’s political climate.

However, pushback has been increasing in recent years. And now, even tech giants such as Verizon are starting to see that something is wrong.

It’s obvious that Verizon has changed course due to the potential for pushback from the FCC. It’s a fact of life: people and corporations act based on incentive. It was venture capital and the perceived desires of investors, among other reasons, that motivated companies to embrace DEI, even though it’s not expedient to effectively running a company.

As apparent as it is now that DEI programs are toxic and discriminatory, remember that there are people out there who have incentivized it. And while it’s apparent that they’ve lost much of their ability to incentivize their bad ideas, diligence is needed to ensure that they don’t return to damage society again, especially considering how extensive the damage was that they had already done.

Watch out, here comes “dark woke”.

Leave a reply

Okay guys, we need to get our concerned faces on. The Democrats are up to something that they’ve totally never tried.

Thankfully, we have The New York Times, that bastion of journalistic integrity, to keep us informed.

Democrats are trying out a new attitude. It’s provocative, edgy and perilously toeing the line of not being too offensive.

Uh oh, are they painting their fingernails black and listening to The Cure?

There was a time last summer when the Democratic Party was cool.

Wrong.

Okay, I broke sarcasm there. But that was dead wrong.

Kamala Harris had just stepped in as the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in the waning days of Bratsummer. She went on the popular podcast ‘Call Her Daddy.’ Tim Walz’s outdoorsy drip led to a Chappell Roan-inspired camo trucker hat. The memes were flowing, and the party’s mood was high.

One thing I’m not letting Democrats live down is that they thought that Kamala Harris was a viable candidate. Auto-complete finished that sentence for me, and I’m not ashamed of that. Even now, Democrats still don’t know why they lost, and they’re looking like they’re going back to the same strategy.

But now, it’s looking like that’s all about to change.

As liberals try to get their groove back, some party insiders say Democratic politicians have been encouraged to embrace a new form of combative rhetoric aimed at winning back voters who have responded to President Trump’s no-holds-barred version of politics.

Remember when Democrats abrasively criticized you and your virtues to a pulp? Well, watch out! Now the Dems are getting serious!

It’s an attempt to step outside the bounds of the political correctness that Republicans have accused Democrats of establishing. And it requires being crass but discerning, rude but only to a point.

Online, it has a name: ‘Dark woke.’

Okay, I’m going to go ahead and bust out the laughing anime girls for this one.

You might remember that the left already attempted a “dark” branding with this confidence-inspiring gentleman:

“Being able to use this strategy of being raw and unapologetic and unabashed about our beliefs is something our base really wants,” Mr. Ossé said. He referred to a quote by one of Mayor Eric Adams’s advisers, Ingrid Lewis-Martin, who said, “When they go low, you gotta dig for oil.”

I seem to remember that leftists called people who disagreed with them Nazis, and attempted to get them regarded as such. It’s one of many reasons why you can’t expect a leftist to argue in good faith.

I also remember that a leftist Disney director had called for students to be thrown into wood chippers for smiling while wearing MAGA hats.

I remember that it was leftists who called out “punch a Nazi” and “bash a fash”, while implying that their political opponents are fascists, advocating for violence against them.

And while I can continue with the long list of examples, for brevity, I can point out that if leftists want to try something new, they can start by shutting their mouths.

‘We can be bold, we can be petty, we can be punchy and still have a moral compass. We don’t have to replicate the right’s formula.’

That’s exactly what the right does. And for the right, it comes natural. That’s because the right are the cool kids, not the edgelords who are trying too hard.

It’s not resonating with everyone. For some, the universal truism that it can never be cool to try so hard applies here. Others, too, have criticized Democrats for seeming to place a premium on affect over policy.

To be fair, NYT does seem to have some introspection, here. The problem that they point to, that Democrats favor affect over policy, is intrinsic to the feminized nature of the political left, tending to prefer the subject to the object. Their focus is on optics more than problem-solving, and the nature of this political environment has made it way too easy to maintain positive optics while being intellectually dishonest.

Alex Peter, a lawyer and left-wing commentator who makes content under the handle LOLOverruled, said the Democrats’ new focus on viral ‘dark woke’ posts was just ‘a lot of hot air.’

‘Part of the problem with the mainstream Democratic Party is that it all kind of rings hollow,’ Mr. Peter, 33, said. ‘I don’t care about another clapback. People want concrete deliverables.’

That, and the fact that “dark woke” is really nothing new. I remember that the left were the principle agitators behind the “Summer of Love” and the George Floyd riots. And now they mean to tell us that they intend to start dressing in black and throwing chairs in the ring?

It sounds to me like they’re continuing with the same failed strategy while trying to trick whoever’s listening into thinking that they’re trying something new.

UN Human Rights Judge Found Guilty of Keeping Slave

Leave a reply

We’ve found a special one, and that’s her in the picture above. And considering that she belongs to the race that most persistently complains about slavery, one would think she would know better.

But, no. Lydia Mugambe, a UN human rights judge, has been found guilty of keeping a slave, which she had brought to her residence in the UK from Uganda.

Specifically, the charges were “conspiring to facilitate the commission of a breach of UK immigration law, facilitating travel with a view to exploitation, forcing someone to work, and conspiracy to intimidate a witness.”

During her arrest, Mugambe attempted to leverage her diplomatic immunity.

“I am a judge in my country, I even have immunity. I am not a criminal.” -Lydia Mugambe

Anyone else with a mental picture of Mugambe snapping her fingers while draped in sequins?

In case you’re wondering, Mugambe’s diplomatic immunity has been waived by the UN Secretary General.

According to the prosecutor in the case: “Lydia Mugambe has exploited and abused [her alleged victim], taking advantage of her lack of understanding of her rights to properly paid employment and deceiving her as to the purpose of her coming to the UK.”

The UK, by the way, was among the first countries in the world to ban slavery. Their national anthem stated that they shall not be enslaved, and they decided that it would be great if that applied to everyone. They determined that no slave shall breathe a breath of air in Britain. They were so determined about it that they declared that any slave that set foot in Britain would immediately become free.

To get right down to it, for a slave owner to bring a slave to the UK is a mistake.

Mugambe had apparently been getting away with it for a while, since she arranged for the slave to come to the UK while she was still studying for a law PhD at Oxford.

If there’s a PhD law student who doesn’t know that slavery is illegal, it should be easy to be skeptical of the post-secondary education system.

While the civilized world has outlawed slavery, it’s still a huge problem in the world today. There are more slaves today than there have ever been in human history.

The main reason is Islam. According to Islamic law, Sharia, a person cannot make illegal something that Muhammad allowed. And not only did Muhammad allow slaves, he had some. Because of this, slavery is still commonplace in the Islamic world.

Winning wars against Muslims is generally easy for those in the civil world. After all, the Islamic religion gives Muslims a reason to die, not a reason to live. But you really, really do not want to lose a war against them. As far as their cruelty is concerned, nothing is off the table. The usual outcome for women who are captured is that they become sex slaves.

While slavery may be illegal in the civilized world, the war against slavery is not over. Not by a long shot. And if Europe’s culture continues to shift, it might make a comeback.

The Leftist Pro-DEI Boycott Results Are In.

Leave a reply

Say what? There was a leftist boycott? Since when? And it concerned DEI? When did that happen?

Oh yeah, I remember now! I made fun of that!

Back in February, the crayon munchers decided to have a one-day boycott over the decisions of companies and retailers to drop DEI programs. The intention was to show these companies “who really holds the power”.

Well now, we finally get to see just what impact their little boycott may have had on the bottom lines of these companies. Let’s check it out (the data was from Not The Bee):

Amazon: 9% growth

Nestlé: 2.8% growth

Target: 1.5% growth

Walmart: 6% growth

General Mills -1% growth

When a boycott is successful, the expected outcome is that a company loses growth.

The boycott rolled a zero. Critical miss.

It seems these businesses generally benefitted a lot more from ditching DEI than they might have lost from the boycott. It also seems as though regular people with real American values have more power in the American marketplace than a bunch of leftists with their stupid boycotts.

The one example of negative growth can easily be attributed to the MAHA movement, which advocates for healthier foods. The left could’ve tried to spite the MAHA movement by buying their processed, seed oil heavy foods. But even where they could’ve screwed up to muster a marginal victory, they still failed. But, to be fair, what happened with General Mills could be attributable to typical fluctuation.

I expected the boycott to fail. I did not expect it to fail so hard. But as companies are starting to align more closely with American values, it does stand to reason that Americans are going to feel more comfortable shopping with them.

That is, unless Americans are secretly okay with retailers pushing pseudo-diverse victimhood narratives on them and their children, in spite of having proven differently with their money. Which is probably one of the fantasies that the left is nurturing at this point.

As for what the left can do to become relevant again, I don’t know. But considering that they sincerely believed that Kamala Harris was a viable candidate, I wouldn’t expect them to understand what resonates with the American public.

They can go right on having fun pretending to be the resistance. They are rebels without a cause. Or an effect.

We have lost against the surveillance state.

Leave a reply

A few years ago, I pointed to an old Simpsons “Treehouse of Horror” episode to give a hint concerning where I believed society was headed. The episode was titled, Nightmare Cafeteria, and was a parody of the film, Soylent Green.

In the episode, the elementary school staff decided to punish students by processing them into food, which the faculty then developed a taste for. This led up to a scene that I focused on, which depicted the few students who were left being monitored intently for even the slightest infraction, over which they would be sent off to satisfy the appetites of the demented faculty.

As things are, it can be said that society has reached a similar point, by reason of the surveillance state.

When discussing the surveillance state, there are people who frequently express the sentiment that if someone doesn’t do something wrong, they have no reason to worry. The point that needs to be impressed upon them is that a person who is monitored at all times can be accused at any time.

Suppose you came to a complete stop at an intersection, just as a squad car was approaching. Then, you advance. A completely legal and lawful advance. But, unbeknownst to you, the approaching officer was power-tripping and bitter about whatever, so he decided to use footage of your lawful driving to accuse you of a rolling stop. And you don’t find out until you get a citation in the mail, days later.

What would you do? Or, perhaps the better question is, what can you do?

The fine amount was low enough that you’d probably just pay it to avoid further trouble, even though the footage you can view online plainly shows your innocence, but substantial in value to the point of being considered the theft that it is, perhaps roughly equivalent to two days of work by a man who actually produces value.

The state has found a new way to extract value, and this can be accomplished by the surveillance apparatus. And even someone who is innocent can be victimized by it. Thus the point: a person who is monitored at all times can be accused at any time.

And while the accusation may be refuted, the accusation itself can have consequences. If you got a fine that was the equivalent to a day’s work by a skilled tradesman, would you contest it if it meant losing a day’s work to attend a hearing? Or would you just pay, knowing that you’d end up losing value, either way?

For a long time, it was taxation. Now, it seems the state has found yet another way to steal. Theft has evolved.

The Activist-to-Authoritarian Pipeline, Explained

Leave a reply

You might have noticed that many on the activist left tend towards authoritarianism on occasions when they find themselves in positions of power. Not surprisingly, they’ll then advocate for more activism, knowing that it serves them.

But what is a mystery is why activists, when they take hold of power, suddenly tend towards authoritarianism. This is the case whether we’re talking about elected officials or even just low-level government employees. It’s vexing because the public image of the activist is that of a libertarian, one fighting for freedoms, whether or not this image is consistent with the policies that they’re actually advocating for.

To one outside looking in, it can be a conundrum why an activist, when they finally have their hands on the levers of power, go full authoritarian. The reason this happens comes down to a simple failure to instill sincerely-held values.

Activism appeals to a sense of youthful restlessness. To one in their teens and early-twenties, it seems like a pretty sweet deal; they get to blow off some steam, do some naughty stuff, and they get to come away from it saying that they furthered a positive cause, whether or not it was really positive, at all.

And through it all, what’s idealized for them is to “effect change”. What change would that be? Really, just about any change might appeal to a person’s sense of accomplishment, especially when they lack the wisdom to recognize the knock-on consequences of a large-scale implementation of their causes. And, in many cases, they don’t look much into it.

What matters to them is that they “effect change”.

So, what happens when an activist without sincere values effects change so hard that they catch the attention of someone in a position of power who becomes interested in elevating them?

It’s easy to guess: someone who can effect change pulling the levers of power, who feels justified in laying the boot on their opposition, whom they may view as enemies rather than countrymen.

Thus, the activist-to-authoritarian pipeline.

The United States has been living in the consequences of this process, which has been occurring over the course of decades. It’s the reason why you see riots where perpetrators who commit violent crimes get off scot-free, enabled by left-wing politicians and prosecutors, with news anchors turning a blind eye to the crimes. Many such public figures were once violent agitators themselves, and whats more, it doesn’t directly serve their interests to deter someone who is furthering their causes.

This could have been prevented with a proper instilling of real values. Which is the job of the child’s parents, as is the case when it comes to much of their upbringing. It’s not the job of the school system, it’s the job of the parents.

Yet, so many keep failing. Are people afraid to instruct their own children, or something?

When it comes down to it, the individual is not just an elementary building block of society, they are also an elementary agent of a culture. If someone is not taught from a young age to see the value of a culture, it’s no surprise that they would feel nothing as they act to destroy it.