Category Archives: Regressive Leftism

Hey Pennsylvania, What Is Wrong With You?

The midterms are mostly over. Votes are still being counted, and Democrats are acting as though they’ve won just because they didn’t lose as catastrophically as they deserve. Georgia is looking at a runoff, and we’re still awaiting some results. No surprise there. There wasn’t much expectation that it would all go smoothly.

But what I’d like to zoom in on now is Pennsylvania. Oh, Pennsylvania. What is wrong with you?

I do live in Pennsylvania, so it’s not like some criticism from the outside looking in. But just because I’m here, doesn’t mean I know what the people here are thinking. Especially those to the left.

It’s not as though I don’t hear what they’re saying. Every now and then, one of them meanders out of one of our three major cities, expresses wonder and awe at all the “unused space”, then proceeds to bloviate about what he thinks makes a successful society.

But what I don’t have an explanation for is why about 2.6 million of them became party to sending John Fetterman to the Senate.

I know that it’s usually inspirational for a person who suffered from an illness to succeed in spite of that. However, when the illness leaves a person less capable of performing a task where many people are counting on him, then the better choice is to have someone else do the job.

The poor guy suffered from a stroke. During his debate with Dr. Oz, he could barely string a sentence together, and frequently failed to form a coherent response.

Were the Democrats of Pennsylvania simply unaware of this? A lot hinges on the answer to this question. Either the Dems were unaware of the capacity of their own candidate and were therefore uninformed voters, or they were so vote-blue-no-matter-who that they’d be happy to hand a rubber stamp to a seat warmer.

It’s not as though they’ve done Fetterman any favors. Can you imagine the unintelligible internal monologue of someone who has not fully recovered from a stroke? Can you imagine how confused and disoriented such a person would be as they are ushered from one place to another and told what to say?

Considering that the current presidential administration is basically Weekend At Bernie’s, I think we can say that a pattern has been established.

But as bad as that is, it gets worse. Democrat Tony DeLuca won reelection. In spite of being dead.

You may be wondering how a dead man found his way on the ballot. His passing occurred last month, at which point, it was too late to remove him from the ballot. It’s been decided that a special election will be held.

While it’s possible that DeLuca’s reelection was on similar reasoning as Fetterman’s (ignorance or sheer tribalism), it may be that the people voted for DeLuca in an effort to force a special election, not wanting the victory to go to his opponent, who was a third-party candidate.

Third-party candidates sure do have it rough. Their run for office is usually little more than a cynic’s quest. Unless there’s some prize to be won for throwing tons of time and money into an endeavor that ends up going nowhere.

In any case, it’s refreshing to see the Democratic voting base so accurately represented.

Bulbagarden Founder Posits Theory That New Gym Leader Is Trans and Non-Binary, Gets Debunked Less Than 24 Hours Later

It seems like with every new major media release, someone from the questionable sexuality community will come forward with speculation (often stated as fact and foregone conclusion) that a character depicted represents their favorite flavor of sexuality.

As Bounding Into Comics points out, this time around, the speculator is Liam Pomfret, the founder of Bulbagarden, who posits his theory that the newly-revealed gym leader in Pokémon Scarlet and Violet, Iono, is non-binary and transgender.

Here is the promo video featuring Iono:

Upon what is Liam basing his theory? The initially ambiguous use of pronouns, and her choice of hair dye:

Image from Bounding Into Comics

One would expect the use of such flimsy inferences from an undiagnosed schizophrenic who believes that their TV is communicating secret messages specifically for them, not a Doctor of Philosophy. Our education system is fucked, isn’t it?

Because he was tripping over himself to find trans representation in a Japanese game marketed towards anyone in the family, he looked at the soft blue and pink hair (kinda looks lavender to me) and immediately thought of the trans kid flag, rather than the recurring red/blue coloration of Pokémon’s flagship games, Scarlet and Violet included.

Less than 24 hours later, Nintendo dropped supplemental promotional material concerning Iono. It’s the kind of thing that looks like it would have been released simultaneously with the promotional video that originally featured Iono, so maybe it was hastily thrown together after the fact.

The promo specifies Iono as having the feminine pronoun of “her”. Iono is female. Because we’ve already established that speculation is fun, maybe Nintendo threw this out there because they knew what Liam Pomfret was saying, and we’re all like “Nope. We’re not having that.”

If “Bulbagarden” sounds familiar, then you’ve been following along back when I pointed out how inappropriate it was that they used their Pokémon fan platform to soapbox about an immigration policy that they blamed on Trump (the problem was actually Obama’s fault, and Trump resolved the matter through an executive order).

This was Bulbagarden’s forum header at the time:

Fucking creepy.

And a fantastic opportunity to warn parents out there that there are some predatory actors in fan communities who use their positions in their respective communities to pressure younger members. Oftentimes, their activities involve performing “favors” over video chat. Of course, there are many ways that bad people can take advantage of children online.

That PSA aside, it can also be pointed out that there is a certain obsession with pointing to Japan’s status as a relatively advanced, orderly, and peaceful society. Oftentimes, someone on the radical left will attempt to glom onto a form of Japanese media, in a sad attempt to make the case that the Japanese are actually just like them.

What these attempts overlook is how Japan as a society got to be as advanced as it is. Japan is a heavily structured and stratified society that favors family, career, merit, and respect. To further reduce that, Japan is conservative. In fact, it’s one of the most conservative societies in the world.

Sometimes, a weeaboo pops up who thinks of Japan as being their kind of society, probably because they got ideas as to what it’s like from anime and manga. The fact is, Japan is a society of norms. If you move to Japan, you’re expected to conform to the norms. If you don’t want to, then you don’t belong in Japan. It’s as simple as that.

Red light districts aside, Japan is an advanced, peaceful, and orderly society. If your thinking is different from theirs, that might have a lot to do with it.

Iono is pretty far from the first character from Japanese media to have gotten this kind of attention. It wasn’t long ago that Shiver from Splatoon 3 came under scrutiny as possibly non-binary, but it turned out she was female. Nanachi from Made In Abyss is a frequent target of this, because author Akihito Tsukushi prefers to leave Nanachi’s sex as unknown. Or, more famously, there’s Bridget from Guilty Gear, who is male.

That’s not to say that there are no “non-binary” characters in Japanese media. However, such characters are seldom portrayed as sympathetic. But why would they, when there is something obviously wrong with their thinking?

Iono is merely a character in a work of fiction. She’s just made up, therefore nothing about her has any bearing on the reality of any matter. It doesn’t matter whether she represents anything, except maybe in the deluded thinking of those who lack the ability to parse reality without the assistance of a fictional construct. If this describes you, then you need to seek help. And get over yourself, while you’re at it.

Microsoft Drops NPC Update With New Pride Flag (seizure warning)

Here it is, the new pride flag, according to Microstiff:

I can only imagine the headaches that this new design will cause. An ocular migraine doesn’t look this intense.

What’s more, this new flag looks like a logistical nightmare. Can you imagine all the colors that would have to be used to print these flags, which could end up outside the porches of homes that we tell our children to avoid all across America? Then there’s all the flags that would be rejected by reason of smudging the colors, which would have a high potential of occurring with all the different colors used.

The flag reminds me of Ancient Greece. Not just for the debauchery it represents, but for how similarly the Greeks handled idolatry. They wanted to ensure that they honored every god that they knew. And with how heavily pantheistic they were, they knew a lot of them. It got to the point that some of their cities were so packed with statues, that cities like Athens were said to have more gods than men.

Eventually, people just decided to set up pedestals with plaques that read, “To the unknown god”, in the hopes that, in so doing, they’d honor any god that they may have forgotten to build a statue for.

Perhaps we’re just months away from seeing a new pride flag that just says, “To the unknown sexuality”.

Webcomic Review: Momlife Comics

At first, I wasn’t going to comment on these. One-panel comics aren’t usually worth talking about, and these seemed little more than the meanderings of a woman who is bitter about one thing or another. Then these comics blew up, so I was like, “fine, I’ll acknowledge their existence and write up a review.”

For the setting, try to imagine a curious land in which most people don’t have to grow their own food, but meals are already fully prepared and delivered to peoples homes. Not only is rape illegal, there are no roving rape gangs on the prowl in rusty pickup trucks. What’s more, the homes are crisp and cool inside in the summer, and when there’s snow on the ground in the winter, the homes are warm inside, and glowing display screens deliver limitless free entertainment on demand.

But, there’s a catch: human nature remains mostly the same. The human adaptation to conflict that has been cultivated over the course of aeons still remains. Therefore, the people started questioning their idyllic peace and halcyon luxury. Then, grumblings came, acknowledging first world problems as though a prize awaited the cynics: “My coffee is too hot”, “thirty seconds is too long for an initial boot up”, “my delivery was delayed until tomorrow”.

At the center of this maelstrom of abject ingratitude is one housewife and her adversarial relationship with her husband. That’s right, we’re reviewing Momlife Comics.

Momlife Comics was written by Mary Catherine Starr, who gives us the first hint of her politics by listing her pronouns in her bio. Because her pronouns apparently weren’t already evident from the fact that she’s a mom. She also made a BLM statement, so you know that she’s not racist.

Wow, how stunning and brave, considering the current political zeitgeist!

Mary’s IRL husband is aware of the comics, and is okay with them, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he did a Jack Murphy and wrote up an article touting the benefits of cuckolding.

Let’s start this review off with the most famous cartoon in the series so far:

Both are valid uses of the peach, and the one who gets to it first decides what happens to it. But notice that the build-up is the woman thinking about someone other than herself. How dare that man want to eat something that he paid for, from a table he paid for, in a house he also paid for!

Wow! Look how much more work that woman is doing! Patriarchy and such mushuggunah!

The missing context: the woman took all the bags, leaving the man to bring back just one. Was she aware that she could take multiple trips to the car? She’s likely to smoosh something if she tries carrying in that much at once.

Pattern established: Woman imagines some rule, but doesn’t tell man about it. Woman then gets angry at man for breaking the rule he didn’t know about.

Another pattern established: Woman gathers everything to herself, leaving nothing for the man to do. Woman then complains that she does everything.

Mary also does comics where she reverses the gender roles, which is supposed to be clever because she leaves us to determine the irony without beating us over the head with the obviousness of the point that she’s trying to make.

Get it? Because men are generally more career-focused, and women tend to be more family focused? Though it’s hard to say definitively whether Mary intended to throw shade on the fact that men and women are different, and that because of these differences they tend towards different life choices. It might be that she’d prefer a world where they made similar choices, even if that meant less excuse to hear the sound of her own voice, complaining.

I wouldn’t put it past her to complain about the rain as though she’s blaming someone for it.

Mary is such a victim in her own mind that she even sees herself at fault for bringing her own children fast food. Or are her children the only ones in the universe who would complain about fast food? Sure, it’s garbage, but kids don’t know that.

It was my intention to review this webcomic, but I instead feel tempted to psychoanalyze the author, as her comics have given a window into the soul of a troubled woman. It’s obvious that from an impressionable age, someone was able to sell her a victimhood narrative, and this resonated with her life in the hard streets of sheltered suburbia.

Since her webcomic got noticed, she produced this comic in an answer to the trolls:

Along with a notice that she’ll block trolls. Which is a mistake, because it’s a reaction that trolls look for, and they’ll take any that is any indication that they’re getting to someone. And the above comic accomplishes this masterfully.

As far as art quality goes, Mary is evidently of the opinion that if you only do one thing right, you’ve got a comic. In Mary’s case, that one thing is body proportions. Aside from that, everything is wrong. The thick, inconsistent line art, the lack of facial features, everything is just wrong. Maybe Mary can draw better than a toddler. But bring elementary school students into it, and she’s out of her league.

Okay then, let’s grade this pile. Momlife Comics gets a score of 2.6 out of 10.

Gentlemen, I know that the dating game is flawed. But tread carefully. Getting hitched to the wrong woman can be quite taxing.

One of the classic signs of an abusive relationship is joking at the expense of one’s spouse in public. These comics give ample cause for concern.

Jane’s Revenge Are Trolling Victims

Trolling got its name from the fishing technique that simulates movement. Illustration by Kanzaki Hiro.

Normally, when you think of a domestic terrorist, you think of someone who is only fit to be hung, drawn, and quartered. You don’t normally think of them as someone to be pitied. But when it comes to the typical foot soldier for the emergent terror group, Jane’s Revenge, there might actually be something there to be pitied.

If you don’t know who they are, Jane’s Revenge is a domestic terror group committed to attacking women’s support centers that offer services other than abortions. The terror group is sperging out over the Supreme Court’s decision to honor the tenth amendment of the Constitution by allowing states to decide for themselves the legality of abortion, which doesn’t change anything for the blue states where the majority of abortions are conducted. But Jane’s Revenge isn’t happy unless they are making everyone’s choices for them, all while complaining that anyone who disagrees with them are authoritarian. Except that they’re incapable of being happy, in any case.

Since the ruling, they’ve largely kept their bullshittery limited to vandalism, but they’ve also made explicit threats of harm, with phrases like, “If abortions aren’t safe, neither are you”. Incidentally, they still haven’t been officially designated as a domestic terror group, which goes to show that the designation has no meaning. Or that a group isn’t considered a domestic terrorist unless their ideology goes against the deep state and the establishment uniparty.

So, you might be thinking, why pity them? And I admit, they sound just right for the wood chipper. But to get into why they can be pitied: I think they’re being trolled.

Think about it; domestic terror groups such as Antifa are about getting other people to do things. Their online communities are largely provocateurs that want something done, but they don’t want to face the consequences.

So, they put someone else up to it.

And, as it so happens, there is a seemingly-endless supply of stupid people who are easy to exploit. These useful idiots get pissed off that their political team ended up getting an “L”, so they meander over to a community for Antifa or Jane’s Revenge, where they can get their fill of intoxicating rhetoric from the influencers (who might not even live in the United States). These influencers tend to be quite patient, playing the long game as they groom their victims, who eventually reach the boiling point.

Then, all the provocateurs have to do is sit back and watch as someone else commits the crimes. And if that person gets punished for it, the provocateurs find entertainment in this, as well.

And the saddest part of it all is that the useful idiots sincerely believed that they were thinking for themselves, and that the ideas that the influencers fed to them were their own.

Sorry, it gets sadder. Fact is, there are many, many stupid people out there that can be exploited in this manner. So many, that they’re impossible to avoid. Think about all the people who live in cities who collect checks from the government, even though they don’t actually contribute anything of value to society, all while in a sad state of illusory superiority. Most people think of the Army as the place a person could turn to when all other prospects aren’t looking so great, but the Army rejects those with an IQ of less than 83, which is ten percent of the population. One-forth of Americans believe that the Apollo lunar landings were a hoax. One-third believe that the 9/11 terror attacks were an inside job.

See what I mean? Stupid people are everywhere. And for the influencers, that means plenty of chumps to exploit. And if all they get out of it is entertainment, and the knowledge of being the one that influenced a nutcase into actually killing someone, that’s something they wouldn’t lose sleep over.

At Antifa “protests”, it’s not the provocateurs that throw the explosives. Instead, they hand them out, so someone else will have to deal with the consequences that come with throwing them.

Can the chumps be pitied? Considering that they are likely only being used as tools, maybe. Are they still only fit to be hung, drawn, and quartered? I don’t know, but if someone is that gullible, it’s hard to imagine that they can turn their lives around and become someone that contributes value to society.

Diversity Works Better Without Top-Down Control

One of the talking-points that comes up in politics is diversity. Particularly, racial diversity (though, as my smarter readers are aware of, there is more to diversity than looking different). In this area, the left (particularly Democrats) love to boast that they’re the pro-diversity party, even going as far as to pretend that their rivals are opposed to diversity, as though they themselves were always diverse, all along.

However, that’s a misconception. But it’s a misconception that they’ll feed into, knowing that it benefits them.

The fact is, both sides of the American political climate are for diversity. The difference between them is in how diversity is achieved.

First, the right (usually represented by the likes of Republicans and Libertarians). The American political right believes that diversity should come about naturally, and to this end, a person’s race should not be considered in their endeavors.

Ideally, an employer should consider a candidate based on their merits. If this were the case, people of different races will be present in a large enough business by virtue of the fact that no race is being purposely excluded. Likewise, a college considering an applicant should consider the potential student based on the likelihood that they’d succeed in the environment, without regard to the applicant’s race. Under these conditions, diversity on campuses wouldn’t just be likely, they’d be expected.

Practices that discriminate based on race, such as racial steering and block-busting would be illegal, as they would exclude qualified candidates and applicants based on race.

The left, as exemplified largely by Democrats, has a different approach when it comes to diversity. Their difference in approach provides an excellent illustration in how their political philosophy as a whole differs from their opponents.

The left’s approach when it comes to diversity involves achieving diversity through top-down intervention.

Rather than allowing diversity to occur naturally, the left prefers to pressure employers and institutions to achieve diversity with quotas. As the left would have it, the representation of each individual race in each setting must be consistent with their own ideal of how each race should be represented. Whether this is through equal representation of each race, or consistent with each race’s representation in the general population, the left isn’t always clear.

When you understand the left’s tendency towards top-down controls, even on the societal level, you’ll have an easier time understanding why social engineers tend towards the left.

When you consider the left’s tendencies towards top-down societal controls, the implications should give you the chills, especially if you’re of the opinion that each individual should have the freedom and autonomy to determine for themselves how they live their lives.

And I would think that most people would prefer to make choices for themselves, such as which car to buy, without having the selection limited by a governing body they does not understand the nuances of an individual’s decisions. And, for that matter, an individual should have freedom of choice as to who their spouse would be, without having their selection limited based on race, provided their selection consents. And the couple should be free to produce the number of offspring that they choose, without external manipulation or intervention.

In fact, any form of external manipulation or intervention in any of these choices should absolutely not be tolerated.

However, the left is of a different mind. They are generally more favorable of the idea of top-down control on the part of the government, even as far as engineering society into the shape of their preference. This is in stark contrast with the right, which favors limited government, by principle.

The right tends more towards libertarianism, while the left tends more towards authoritarianism. As one examines their respective policy positions, this becomes evident. The moniker of liberal really doesn’t fit the left very well.

If we were to examine the American political right in good faith, it would be apparent that they desire diversity. Not only that, they have a far superior way of achieving it, which involves a stronger society, by reason of important roles going to the best qualified, rather than to diversity hires.

The left might try to paint this as a pretext for racial discrimination, but there wasn’t much expectation of an argument in good faith from those lacking moral absolutes. While that may sound like a cheap shot, it holds up with the observation that a larger representation of leftists are of the idea that human government is the highest level of authority, and that there’s no truth but power. But that’s an issue for another essay.

Study Finds That Testosterone Treatments Turn Democrats More Conservative

It’s not going to surprise a whole lot of people that the chemical that makes men more manly also makes men tend more towards conservatism. But now, we have a study to prove it.

The study, published by Professor Paul Zak of Claremont Graduate University, demonstrates a clear connection between testosterone levels and the political preferences of males. The 136 males participating in the study disclosed their political affiliations, then were either administered a synthetic form of testosterone or a placebo.

In an outcome as surprising as the setting of the sun, the Democrats participating in the study that took testosterone felt less warmly about their own party by 12 percent, but felt more warmly about Republicans by 45 percent.

Democrats happen to be the most compliant people, and compliance in males correlates with a lack of testosterone. I’m stating the obvious, of course. But maybe a study is already underway which will demonstrate the connection.

Come to think of it, it was mainly the Democrats that insisted on shutting down gyms and confining people to their homes during the Coronavirus Apocalypse. An apocalypse that I survived, by the way. And you probably did, too.

The study showed the strongest shift in Democrats that were weakly affiliated, and the effects waned among those with stronger Democrat leanings, and among weakly-affiliated Republicans.

Come to think of it, many of the Democratic policy positions tend to decrease the testosterone of those affected. When men pretend to be women, there isn’t much expectation that those men would have high testosterone. And of course, those men have a home in the Democratic party! When men become obese, their T-levels tend to crater. But they’d still find company among Democrats who tout the “healthy-at-any-weight” bullshit that actually kills people.

Also, consider the fact that Democrats are the ones actively trying to trick young boys into having themselves neutered. Could it be that Democrats are trying to castrate for themselves a set of lifelong loyalists?

Considering the role of the gonads in testosterone production, it would follow that the fastest way to turn a man Democrat is to have him de-balled and de-pricked. And who knows how many professing Democrats have already underwent the process?

Win: Netflix Adopting Anti-Censorship Policy, Encourages Woke Employees To Take a Hike

In a major culture war victory, Netflix is updating its “culture memo”. In addition to updating the title to “Netflix Culture: Seeking Excellence”, the company has announced a stronger freedom of expression stance, as noted in the document’s Artistic Expression section:

“Not everyone will like — or agree with — everything on our service,”

This nicely sets the tone for what’s to come. Free expression means there’s going to be a wide assortment of entertainment options on the table.

“While every title is different, we approach them based on the same set of principles: we support the artistic expression of the creators we choose to work with; we program for a diversity of audiences and tastes; and we let viewers decide what’s appropriate for them, versus having Netflix censor specific artists or voices.”

As I pointed out before, if there’s a work of artistic expression that’s not for you, you don’t have to consume it. You curate your own entertainment choices. Notice how Netflix stated their support of artistic expression, and are now allowing consumers to tailor their Netflix experience according to their own preferences? That’s in stark contrast to the woke position, which involves curating everyone’s experience for them according to the mentality of the vocal few.

While that already says plenty, the concluding paragraph of the section drives the point home:

“As employees we support the principle that Netflix offers a diversity of stories, even if we find some titles counter to our own personal values. Depending on your role, you may need to work on titles you perceive to be harmful. If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.”

While this is progress by reason of the fact that Netflix is now adopting a baseline free expression policy, this becomes a huge game-changer with that closing sentence:

“If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.”

Netflix is now telling its staff that if any of them have the woke mind-virus, and it could interfere with their ability to do their job according to their updated principles of artistic expression, then those employees can take a hike.

Obviously, Netflix is making this move because they’re recognizing that siding with the woke is a bad idea. For one thing, Disney went woke to the point of becoming politically involved, and as a result, they ended up losing Reedy Creek. That was an important turning point, as companies looked on and saw that taking certain positions could result in consequences that might hurt their bottom line.

In fact, it was just days ago that PR firm Zeno advised clients, including Coca-Cola, Hershey, Starbucks, Salesforce, and Netflix themselves that it would be a better idea not to make a public statement on controversial topics, and to avoid discussing such sensitive topics with the press, if they were to seek comment.

This development also comes in light of Elon Musk’s planned purchase of Twitter, with Musk planning on restoring the platform to free speech principles, and restoring the accounts of political figures who were unfairly banned, such as Donald Trump.

Of course, the change is likely financially motivated, as in Q1, Netflix saw it’s first decline in subscribers in over a decade. Obviously, siding with the woke hasn’t been helping them, but neither is the fact that alternatives like Daily Wire have sprung up, determined to compete with the likes of Disney, considering that Disney is determined to present dubious sexual content directly to minors.

It was a few months back that I anticipated that institutions would turn against the woke, realizing that the woke ideology isn’t benefitting them. What I didn’t anticipate is that the change would begin to come about so soon!

A PR Firm Is Reportedly Telling Major Corporations to Play It Safe And Not Take a Political Position

We’ve been saying “Get Woke, Go Broke” for a long time. Now, it seems like “Get Woke, Go Broke” is intensifying, as PR firm Zeno is reportedly advising major corporations not to publicly take a position regarding the Roe v Wade draft leak.

Among Zeno’s clients includes Coca-Cola, Salesforce, Hershey’s, Netflix, and Starbucks.

The following was included in “a template email to share with client contacts”, as it was worded by Zeno’s Executive Vice President for Media Strategy, Katie Cwayna:

Do not take a stance you cannot reverse, especially when the decision is not final. This topic is a textbook “50/50” issue. Subjects that divide the country can sometimes be no-win situations for companies because regardless of what they do they will alienate at least 15 to 30 percent of their stakeholders… Do not assume that all of your employees, customers or investors share your view.

Finally, major corporations are starting to use their heads! They are starting to figure out that if you take a public position on a controversial topic, you risk alienating a significant portion of your customers, resulting in your company becoming less profitable. They’re finally figuring it out!

I like how Cwayna says “Do not take a stance you cannot reverse”, as if to acknowledge that there is a lot of pride on the line. Sure, the implication is that once a company issues a statement, the dominoes begin to fall, and the losses continue from there. But we all know that CEOs are proud, not willing to admit that they made a wrong call. After all, if they admit to making a wrong call, people might lose confidence in them.

By the way, the popular.info article claims that 72% of Americans oppose overturning Roe v Wade, which wouldn’t make it a “50/50” issue. Putting aside for a moment the deceptive framing it takes to arrive at that percentage, it should be known that Supreme Court rulings are not intended to pander to the majority, they’re supposed to consider constitutionality. Remember, one of the intents of the U.S. Constitution is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority!

The email template adds,

Avoid media “fishing.” Often during controversy, media will make general inquiries to multiple peer organizations, in which the first one to “raise its hand” becomes the lead.  In a case like this, being at the center is not advisable so be judicious if/how general inquiries are managed.

Don’t become the first corporation to issue a public statement, if you do so at all. After all, the first one to raise their hand and start speaking has the potential to become the most notorious, and therefore become more likely to be the target of focused boycotts.

Steer clear of breaking news networks/outlets. We anticipate the story will dominate newsfeeds for the rest of the week as more details unfold, so avoid pitching reporters and outlets that focus on breaking news.

What your company shares on social media does matter. Even that much can be construed as taking a position that could end up costing your company money. That may not be what Cwayna expressly stated, but we know it’s true. Closer to the intent of Cwayna’s message, it should be understood that media outlets may pressure a company into taking a position, and that it would be advisable to avoid them.

Do not engage with direct questions about your company’s position. Whether in direct messages or public-facing posts, do not respond to questions about where your company stands on this issue.

Play it safe: Keep your mouth shut. Do not take a position, even if you’re pressured into taking one. The SJW NPCs and the mass media have been pressuring major corporations to take a position, and now Zeno is saying, “don’t cave in”.

After posting their article reporting on this, Popular Information received a response from Zeno’s CEO, Barby Seigel:

The email you reference does not accurately reflect Zeno’s position or the range of counsel that we are providing to clients.

It was meant to advise clients within the first 24 hours of breaking news, and its intent was to counsel clients to be measured in their immediate response to a complex developing story.

We take seriously our responsibility to help clients proactively navigate complex societal issues, consider the actions they may take, and the accompanying communications, internally and externally.

We know and understand that companies are increasingly expected to take a stand on major issues, and we believe it’s right to do so when it is authentic to the organization, and consistent with their values and actions.

At Zeno, we believe in equal access to healthcare for all, and a woman’s right to make decisions about her healthcare. At the same time, we live in a world with different opinions and different views, and we respect those differences.

This response was written tactfully, in a manner consistent with the company’s advice, but at the same time, providing just enough apparent virtue-signaling to keep the SJWs off of them. Particularly, it’s a response to Popular Information’s stance that their advice “contrasts with Zeno’s public facing communications, which emphasize the importance of standing up for women’s rights.”

On Twitter, Zeno Group claimed that they are “proud to support #InternationalWomensDay.”

It was a low-risk, low-cost virtue signal, as all but a fringe minority of western society is for women’s rights, and the idea of “support” has been reduced to a mere sentiment with no cost. You can say you “support” something like cancer research by sharing links on Twitter, but that’s not the same as supporting cancer research with substantial grants to cancer researchers.

There is one part of the CEO’s reply that I’d like to zero in on:

We know and understand that companies are increasingly expected to take a stand on major issues, and we believe it’s right to do so when it is authentic to the organization, and consistent with their values and actions.

I’ll decode this for you: Don’t go taking a political position, even if you’re expected to, unless politics is intrinsic to the overall aims of your company. For example, if you’re Hershey’s, your deal is chocolate, not politics, so keep your nose out of politics.

I know that the left likes to say “it’s not political, but a matter of basic decency”, and similar platitudes. Don’t fall for it, because there’s still the potential for divisiveness. If you run a company whose product or service is not intrinsically political, you should answer along the lines of,

This isn’t a political company. But if it’s something that’s expected of anyone anyway, why not assume that we’re decent people? In any case, we don’t need any recruiters prowling about.

Or, if you want to be less wordy,

We make products in order to sell them, so back off.

When it comes down to it, what the political left wants is to have power over you. Whether it’s you, your home, your business, your job, your education, or so on, the left wants to have power over you, and they’ll use any platitude, any rhetorical device, any pressure, just about anything that they possibly can. They themselves are fond of saying “by any means necessary”.

Finally, large corporations are realizing that they can play it safe by not issuing a public position! Leftism has long turned major corporations into their own weapons. But now, it looks like they’re losing them!

The Supreme Court is Poised to Strike Down Roe v Wade, and Leftists Are Melting Down.

It’s been a day since a leak of the draft statement from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court about the tentative overturning of Roe v Wade. It’s already to the point that I doubt that I can say much about it that hasn’t already been said. But I can still offer my opinion, so here goes, for whatever that’s worth.

For one thing, finding the person who leaked the statement should be pretty simple. Just look for the guy who’s sweating bullets. Jokes aside, it’s going to seriously suck for the guy if he were to get caught. We know that it’s a bad idea to piss off a lawyer, but at least five Justices on the Supreme Court? When they catch him, his cheeks are going to be spread from sea to shining sea!

But as for the ruling itself, it bears pointing out that it hasn’t officially been made. The papers themselves pertained to a tentative ruling, but it would be an expected ruling if the court were to vote on the issue, considering how the Supreme Court is currently composed. Having said that, I doubt that Chief Justice John Roberts would have written up 70 pages taking on an iron man version of the Roe v Wade ruling’s philosophy just for kicks.

Much of the reasoning behind the statement is based on the principle of the 10th amendment, which doesn’t get a lot of attention, and is unfortunately ignored quite a bit. It reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It’s because of this that the original Roe v Wade ruling overstepped the boundaries provided by the Constitution, as the Constitution doesn’t say a word about abortion. Therefore, the federal government cannot issue a nationwide mandate regarding it, and it would be up to each of the individual states to rule for themselves.

There are those who point out that having to carry a child to term and then care for it has the potential to interfere with the expecting mother’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Putting aside for a moment how repugnant it is to reduce a developing life to a mere inconvenience, proponents of abortion neglect to realize that the developing child is, in fact, an individual human life, possessing genetic markers that identify the child.

Making the left’s position more difficult is that all signs point to the fact that a human life begins at the point of conception. The left attempts to make the point that human life begins at the point of birth, even though they have no scientific grounding for their stance. The fact is, when it’s pointed out that life begins at conception, the left loses any foundation for it’s position on abortion.

Now, if you were to look at the arguments above that I’ve made against abortion, you may have noticed that my arguments were based either on observed science, or on the basic underlying philosophy of this republic’s government at the time of its founding. I bring this up to highlight the fact that leftists love to make the pro-life position out to be a religious position, with the premise being that any appearance of mysticism would diminish the validity of any related moral viewpoint. The left does this because they feel less inclined to take religion seriously, portraying their opponents who do as being fundamentalist zealots and pharisaical busybodies.

The reason they do so is apparent when you consider that they (like many on the right) attempt to court the low-Q vote, and among the left’s main weapons for doing so are reductive statements.

As you can see, I’ve waged my points and counterpoints in this article based on facts that are known and observable. But if we were to bring religion into it, it would be plain to see that abortion is offensive when compared to the superordinate principles of nearly every major religion in the world today.

While these reasons play a role in my decision to oppose abortion today, these weren’t the initial reasons I decided I was against the barbaric practice. In fact, as I developed my opinion on the issue, it actually became the issue that turned me against the Democratic party. The reason for this was because the Democratic party’s insistence on abortion revealed something about them.

And that something was that the Democratic party has a shitty life-culture.

It was when I was in high school that I had more Democrat leanings. One might expect this, considering the sheer load of indoctrination that comes from the education system. But shortly after graduating, I started thinking for myself. As is typically the case when one does so, I began resisting the indoctrination. The matter of abortion and the Democrat’s insistence on it was what turned me against them. It was because of their insistence on abortion that I came to see that the Democrats and the political left has a shitty life-culture.

And the more I examined the left for what they believed in, the more apparent it became how bad their life-culture was. They view human beings as inconvenient, especially when they must be cared for and provided for. They view human beings as being part of the problem, as they view us in terms of our impact on the environment, especially when they start talking about overpopulation.

It’s obvious that the left tends more towards a hatred of human life. They view humans in terms of the waste they make, and they even seek to limit their numbers.

This contrasts heavily with the right, which views human beings as each partaking in humanity’s marvelous potential. Humans that live today can celebrate life like no other point in history up until now, and the right wants everyone to have the opportunity to do so, complete with the freedoms that beautify life in the modern world.

The reality is, everyone is entitled to a chance at life, regardless of what their initial outlook may be.

A compromise with abortion was proposed with the reasoning of “safe, legal, and rare”. In other words, abortions were supposed to be rare. But when you see the fact that some women are wearing T-shirts that brag about the number of abortions that they’ve had, it’s obvious that the intent of this compromise was not being honored.

Having said all this, I think it’s pretty evident that a significant shift in American culture is underway. This is signified in the many cultural victories that we’ve been seeing in recent months. For one thing, there are legal victories, including the Rittenhouse trial, which signified the right to defend one’s self from attackers. The Jussie Smollet trial showed us just how poorly the left-controlled information media can call it. CNN+ was an enormous failure, which might have even made it clear to the leftist outlet that people just aren’t interested in them anymore. Ron DeSantis stood up to Disney as Disney was poised to deliver sexual perversion directly to children, and got Disneyland’s special privileges revoked. Elon Musk’s pending purchase of Twitter to turn Twitter into a privately-owned platform would result in the platform actually becoming a free and open marketplace of ideas, a fact that made leftists panic because they’ve grown accustomed to the establishment censoring their opponents.

And now it seems like Roe v Wade is going to be overturned. Could this be the beginning of the age of the Republican party that actually does things?

How is the left reacting? By going ballistic. And you know what? I say, let them. This is how we win. Because the left only knows how to respond to being challenged by overplaying their hands, I say, let’s just keep challenging them. They’ll either wear themselves out and realize that they’re going nowhere, or they’ll make it evident to everyone looking on that they’re insane, and therefore cannot be looked to for sound ideas on how to run a society.

And considering what they’ve done to American society when given the chance during the lockdowns, they deserve every last defeat that gets served to them. And after this happens, every child that shall come afterwards shall enter into a world that is better for the fact that the world will no longer be run by leftists.

And they’ll have the fact that they were born to be thankful for.