Category Archives: Regressive Leftism

Nintendo Stands Up to SJW Bullying

don't mess with nintendo.png

While SJWs claim victimhood all the time, it’s obvious at a glance that they’re the real bullies. They’re so boisterous that it’s difficult to stand up to them, and when they come in numbers, most people would prefer to look the other way and just let them wear themselves out to the point that they dismiss themselves to their mother’s basements.

Because of this, it’s refreshing to see a large media company decide to put their foot down and decide that they’re not going to put up with their horse-puckey. Today, the company that we have to thank for being brave is Nintendo.

I’ve always admired Nintendo. They’re one of my favorite companies, because they’re about the games and the entertainment, while other video game companies become obsessed with stuff like multimedia. Nintendo is one company that sticks to its guns, and that’s allowed it to stick around for a very long time.

Recently, someone decided that they’d use Super Smash Bros. Ultimate’s Stage Builder to make a political statement, which would then be disseminated through Nintendo’s network services. The stage in question contained an LGBT flag. Nintendo saw it, and was like “Nope, we’re not going to have that.” They then put the kibosh on the stage, and not only that, they banned the stage’s creator from the game’s network features for nine hours.

Bravo, bravo. Now, it would be great if they could do more about the user-contributed content of Splatoon 2, since many of its users think little of using a game primarily aimed at children to peddle a sexual deviancy.

Many of us are well-aware that SJWs don’t see their causes as being about politics, but about basic human rights and decency. I have views that I see as a matter of basic human rights and decency, but some people view those as political opinions. For example, I view it as an outrageous offense against decency that children as young as three have experimental treatments performed on them that are designed to stunt puberty. Some people have an opinion different from my own.

Unlike SJWs, most of us are aware that there are venues that are entirely inappropriate for spreading certain viewpoints. This is because we possess the capability to comprehend why those venues are inappropriate for spreading those views, and how wrongly exploiting those venues in such a fashion can result in the general population becoming less sympathetic to a cause. When SJWs use a video game primarily targeting children to promote a sexual deviancy, they’re going to think that SJWs are predators.

Media companies, Nintendo has set an example for you to live up to. What is intended as escapism should remain escapism and not another tone-deaf reminder of the problems that we watch movies and play video games for temporary relief from. If we wanted Star Wars to remind us of our problems, there’d be more demand for games about Poe Dameron paying his bills, or Han Solo doing the dishes. We don’t like doing the dishes, and we don’t want Splatoon to remind us that perverts are bullying themselves into control over the establishment.

Why Does the Left Have a Close Relationship With Islam?

It’s long been a difficult thing for those outside of leftism to understand: the political left of the western world has a close relationship with Islam. On the surface, it doesn’t appear to make any sense, as the left prides itself as being tolerant and free of mysticism, while at the same time championing what is easily the most mystical religion, and the religion that plays the least nicely with any of the other religions.

What explanation is there for the left’s close relationship with Islam?

Nearly any political ideology that exists today has an image to maintain. The political right is embodied by conservative principles and believes in limited government, among other things, and is usually represented by the Republican party. The Green party is characterized largely by environmental responsibility and various socialist principles. We’d be dealing in some pretty broad generalities in describing these political ideologies with such few words, but these descriptions are pretty accurate.

So then, what does the political left and liberalism in general have a reputation for? Helping the little guy. The left’s positive image hinges largely in helping the disadvantaged and downtrodden, which includes religious and racial minorities. Because Islam is a religious minority in the western world, they’re a natural choice for those looking for groups to stand up for to maintain a helping-the-little-guy image. What’s more, the left’s traditional political adversaries have a history of being critical of the actions of Muslims, the adherents of Islam. Because of this, it would be easier for the left to cast themselves as coming to the little guy’s defense.

Let’s be honest here: Anywhere that Islam is in establishment control, they are not about helping religious minorities. Under Sharia law, the law of the Islamic world, Christians and Jews are treated as second-class citizens or worse, other religious groups are treated poorly and sometimes singled out for death, atheists are nearly always singled out for death, and so are homosexuals, in spite of the fact that they are another group that the left champions.

This being the case, it would seem to make even less sense for the left to come to Islam’s defense. For the left to continue to defend Islam in spite of its abuse of non-Muslims, they would have to overlook not only these abuses, but also the fundamental tenets of Islam that call for these abuses.

That’s exactly what happens.

But why? Why did the left get behind Islam to begin with if what Islam is about is diametrically opposed to the principles of western civilization?

Simply put, it’s because back when the left started to get behind Islam, the abuses of Sharia law were pretty much unknown to the western world, and as religious minorities, there was more incentive for Muslims to live in relative non-belligerence with the community around them as an alternative religion. As it appeared in the public eye, the Islamic religion was just another religious identity that was capable of living at peace with the people around them. Thus, they were “little guys”, and it would have been very easy to cast anyone who objected to them as religiously-intolerant oppressors.

But, that was then, this is now. Islam currently has a reputation for being a volatile ideology that doesn’t play well with the other religions, especially anywhere that they exist in sizable numbers. In fact, it would appear as though their belligerence is directly proportional with their representation in a population.

One would think that making the choice to prop up a violent ideology as an underdog was a mistake. This being the case, it would seem productive for the left to go back on it’s choice to do so. So, why aren’t they doing this? Why does the western political left so insist on continuing to defend the Islamic ideology?

The thing is, mistakes are not easy to admit having made. This especially holds true for political ideologies, which must maintain the image that they stand for, but also must maintain that they won’t make terrible mistakes against their own values, and in so doing, betray the trust of the people who view them as leaders. To this end, the left continues to insist that treating Islam as an underdog wasn’t a mistake.

Another aspect of this matter is that the left would otherwise be wanting for a religion associated with their image. This is very important, as most people in the western world are religious, and have historically been leery of those who do not identify as having a religious identity. This holds especially true in the United States, which is sometimes referred to as the most religious country in the world. Religious affiliation is so important to the electorate that, to this very day, there has not been a US president that has not professed Christianity.

Generally speaking, the western right has historically professed Christian values, a fact that makes Christians have a very easy time identifying with the right, and those on the right usually identify as being Christian. While those on the left do identify as being Christian, it’s hard to reconcile many of the values of Christianity with the liberalism that the left embraces. When the left expresses a religious identity, while it may be in many cases sincere, it’s often a nominal profession.

The left’s relationship with Islam is in large part due to the fact that, without an expressed acceptance for the practice of a religious ideology, they’d appear non-religious, which would alienate a population that is mostly religious.

So then, why Islam? When there are so many other religious identities out there, why does the left continue to defend what would be, if left to its own devices, the bully of the playground?

In a sense, it was the right that provoked it. While the right has good reason to be critical of the Islamic ideology, that criticism provokes a response from those who traditionally serve as their check. Because the left has an image of being the defender of the little guy, it’s easy to come to the defense of a minority group that appears misunderstood, especially when it’s one’s political opponents that are supplying the criticism.

But there’s more to it. The left doesn’t just defend Islam, it respects it. It respects it like it respects no other religion out there. The left could get behind Jews, and historically, they tried. But the right has a great deal of sympathy for the Jews by nature of their own Christian background and the theology that the two share. In the American south, Jewish job applicants have been trusted more than any other religious group. As for other religious groups such as Sikhs, Buddhists, and Hindus, they’re still relatively obscure in the western religious landscape, and the right doesn’t as largely criticize these groups in the same manner as they do Islam.

What is behind the left’s respect for Muslims and the Islamic religion?

Simple psychology tells us that people have more respect for other people when there is a connotation of consequence with upsetting them. Most religions teach principles like patience and forgiveness. This is especially true of Christianity. There isn’t much expectation of an immediate backlash for disappointing a person whose religion emphasizes mercy, patience and forgiveness. When one understands this, they have a pretty sound explanation for why Christians are singled out for mistreatment in many places where they’re a minority.

When it comes to Muslims, the expectation is far different. If someone is going to come at you in an angry fit because you put bacon in their chicken sandwich, you’d be more likely to keep the bacon far from their chicken sandwich. If someone wants you to keep alcohol away from your gathering because their religion forbids it, most would respect his request if his religion says it’s incumbent on believers to fight non-believers. If someone complains about your music and dancing because their religion forbids both, you’d wonder what’s wrong with their religion. But if that person can make you sorry that you decided to smart-mouth them, you’d be considerably less daring.

Again, people tend to have more respect for those with whom there is a connotation of consequence with upsetting them. This being the case, it’s easy to see why people are more reluctant to step on a Muslim’s toes than those of a Christian.

Considering all this, it’s much easier to understand why the western political left is sympathetic to Muslims in spite of the fact that, if Muslims were to call the shots, their policies would stand in opposition to many, if not most, of the values of liberalism, and of western civilization.

Leftists are enabling a great danger to western civilization and the world at large. The sooner they understand this and take the necessary corrective actions, the better.

NHS Performs Unethical Experimental Treatments on Children, 5 Employees Quit


What is with the timeline we are in? I ask this because there is a clinic in the UK which has been performing experimental hormone therapy on children as young as three that is designed to prevent the onset of puberty.

An NHS clinic has been determining children to be “transgender”, then performing hormone therapy on them. Five employees of the NHS have called it quits over the experiments, with some of them saying that they felt pressured to prescribe the treatment against their better judgement, and that the transgender status of the children had not been properly ascertained.

No kidding.

At least one clinician stayed in their position by reason that they’d be in a position to protect children from inappropriate therapy. Here’s an idea: don’t diagnose children as transgender. They’re too young to know what’s going on, and are obviously being preyed upon by being introduced to terrible ideas, the full implications of which they don’t fully comprehend. And while you’re at it, don’t perform unethical human experiments of any sort. I know that there’s money involved, but giving yourself up is too high a cost.

Once the subjects reached the age of 16, they would then be put on a hormone regimen to help them develop the characteristics of the gender they have been deluded into identifying with by people they were supposed to be able to trust.

If you’ve wondered what things would look like when those who are more concerned with profit than your physical and mental well-being are put in establishment control, that’s where we’re at right now. This is the kind of thing that happens when we allow into positions of authority those who propagate obvious delusions to the detriment of even children.

And there’s likely a lot more going on that we don’t yet know about.

The UK Tries to Control Knife Crime With Knife Surrender Boxes. Criminals Stole the Knives.


There comes a time when you have to admit that good intentions aren’t what it takes to solve a problem. The UK’s intention was to solve the problem of knife crimes. The solution that they came up with? It was pretty much “We’ll just leave this box here, you put your knives in, and then things will be peachy-keen.”

How do you think that went?

No prize for guessing that criminals stole the knives. That was exactly what happened. If you have to be brought to the finish line, then let’s go over a couple points; go over them as slowly as you need to:

  • Criminals seldom surrender the implements they use to commit crimes,
  • Criminals steal things.

Therefore, the main people who deposited their knives into the boxes were those whose heartstrings were tugged by the good intentions of the deposit boxes, and they put them right where criminals could steal them, which they did. The end result is fewer knives in the hands of people who wouldn’t commit crimes with them, and more in the hands of those who would.

Here in the US, we got it right. We made guns legal for ordinary members of the population to possess, and it was so important to us that we made it the second amendment of our Bill of Rights. Because of this, criminals are terrified to commit crimes. Someone who thinks of threatening a random person on the street with a gun is hesitant on the chance that they might be carrying one, too.

One who has never been to the US might imagine that the US is riddled with gun violence. But, on the contrary, most Americans have never witnessed a shooting. There’s relatively little gun control, and gun violence is scarce. That pretty much demolishes the misconception that gun rights breed gun violence.

Anywhere that gun ownership is restricted, if someone manages to get their hands on a gun, they have an advantage over the rest of the population. Gangsters don’t give a care about a “criminal” moniker, and if there’s a possibility that they may be armed, the unarmed population is terrified to so much as gainsay them, and they can exercise control over entire neighborhoods, effectively becoming a form of underground government.

The obvious solution to knife violence is to give the general population license to fight back, as it has been with gun violence. However, the leftist ideal of weapon control is so dominated by fairyland happy thoughts that they actually believed that a surrender box would work. Again, the only people who would have surrendered their knives to these boxes would have been the ones whose heartstrings were tugged by the good intentions, which sadly would have contributed to a false sense of progress in the event that these boxes filled up.

From my observations, it appears as though a certain ideology is predisposed to encouraging acts of fanaticism with sharp objects. I know that correlation does not equal causation, but it’s interesting that Britain’s recent spike in knife crimes coincides with a recent increase in the ideology described. Wouldn’t it be far more productive to acknowledge and address the ideology that bears primary responsibility for the recent surge in armed crime?

The Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory Fizzled Out

russian-collusion-club.jpgNo silly, it’s “password“. Now try again.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, there was no collusion between the Russians and the Trump administration to win Trump the 2016 presidential race. This was the conclusion that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has arrived at after having spent two years and $30 million taxpayer dollars at the insistence of Democrats.

Wow, $30 million dollars? There have been times in the last couple years that I’ve been eating macaroni and cheese to get by, and wouldn’t have minded just a few dollars to go out and buy a hamburger. And all this money was wasted in an effort to give credence to a blasted fantasy?

Now that one conspiracy theory is debunked, a set of fresh new ones are likely to emerge, such as Mueller possibly being paid off. I doubt I was the first to call it, but by now we’re familiar with how the shills think.

We all know that the reason why the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory came to be was because it was the best that the left could come up with after the DNC’s email server was hacked, and oodles of their emails were circulated, including ones showing that they screwed over Bernie Sanders to favor Hillary Clinton, bypassing the will of voters from their own party. So they blamed the Russians, and claimed that they hacked their emails and were in league with the Trump campaign.

To say that the DNC’s emails were hacked is pretty generous. If one could have called it a hack-job, it would have been one of the simplest hack-jobs in history. All that happened was someone guessed their password. That’s it. A grade-schooler could have pulled that off.


What you just read in that blockquote was the DNC’s password for their emails. I kid you not. When I say “A grade-schooler could have pulled that off”, I wasn’t kidding. They invented the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory in an attempt to hide just how dim they are with cybersecurity.

I don’t know what the code for Hillary Clinton’s briefcase might be, but I suspect it’s 1-2-3-4-5.

So, what did we learn? For one thing, liars don’t prosper in the long run. Also, don’t set your password as “password”, especially if you’re hiding evidence of a conspiracy to subvert the will of the American electorate.

Twitter Sued for $250 Million Over Anti-Conservative Bias

twitter donkey bird.png

Twitter is being sued by Devin Nunes over the platform’s anti-conservative bias, and the platform’s failure to moderate content that impersonates his mother, and his cow.

If you were to read this story from traditional media outlets, you’d have to read between the lines of their scathing bias, which wouldn’t be much of anything new if you are among those that still pays attention to them. And, naturally, they’re focusing more on the false accounts that defame him, considering that this gives them opportunity to pass along the tweets that ridicule him, as Daily Mail is doing.

But if you’re up for some old-fashioned media not giving anyone to the right of Karl Marx a chance, check out what Mashable has to say about it. The following quotation in particular caught my eye:

“Sure, maybe his feelings are really hurt, but given the fact that Trump and others have brought up strengthening libel laws multiple times — the old “you can’t take what you dish out” syndrome — it could be setting up more nefarious actions to come.”

Yeah, “nefarious actions” like making sure that the corporate media isn’t getting away with libel, which it committed against the “MAGA kids” who were falsely branded as a hate mob.

I’ve had a number of social media accounts in the past. From what I remember, impersonating someone else and posting defamatory content was against the terms of service of most of them. I know that it’s grounds for a civil case, which leads us to the story being discussed, today.

As for whether there is an anti-conservative bias in social media and the tech industry, there’s pretty much no question that there is. Shadow-banning has been a weapon of choice to ensure that conservative voices aren’t heard. If you haven’t heard of shadow-banning, that’s when a person is allowed to post, but far fewer people see the poster’s content. It’s a way to silence someone without them knowing what’s going on. It’s one of the expressions of the left-wing establishment’s control over social media.

If you’re wondering what it’s like to be a conservative voice in social media, imagine that you’re playing a game of chess against a child. Imagine that in this game of chess, you’re not allowed to move your pieces to the other side of the board. Not only that, you’re not allowed to capture the opponent’s pieces. Worse yet, the child gets to change the rules of the game while the game is in progress. More disturbing still, the child is convinced that you’re a hateful, evil person who deserves to lose for disagreeing with them about anything.

You may have wisdom and know how the game is played, but the child owns the board and can set things up so that you don’t stand a chance.

One point of view on the matter is that Twitter is a private company, and if they wanted to, they could ban conservatives altogether. Whether that’s the case or not, I would expect an American-run company to conduct itself in a manner consistent with American values, including the principles of protecting free expression on a platform conductive to the free and open exchange of ideas.

In any case, I think the rest of us can appreciate that liberals are making this about an attempt to regulate social media, and that they were finally made to admit that regulating something would be a bad idea.

The next time you try comparing someone to Hitler…

just say no

If you’ve been compared to Adolf Hitler or called a Nazi at some point, you’re pretty far from alone. The first time I was compared to Hitler, it wasn’t while discussing politics in an online forum, it was in an IRL chat about video games.

People seem eager to compare those that they disagree with to either Hitler or the Nazi party, especially the closer they are to losing an argument. But do these people really know what Adolf Hitler or the Nazis were really about?

It seems like all that most people really know about them was that they didn’t like Jews. But that in itself doesn’t make for a political ideology or philosophy, especially considering the Jews’ relative lack of influence. That’s like someone asking you what your religion is, and you answering “I’m not Zoroastrian”. There has to be more to what you believe in than you just saying that you’re not a member of a minority group.

The general consensus is that Hitler was right-wing. Those on the right usually answer that by saying that Hitler supported gun control, which isn’t a very right-wing stance to take.

But what was Hitler and his Nazi party really about?

People talk about Nazis all the time, but the topic of the Volkish party rarely comes up, even though the ideology of the Volkish was Nazism in its embryonic form. The Volkish were a folkish movement (Volkish literally means “folkish”) characterized by a rejection of urbanization and an embrace of rural and natural living. They were heavily conservationist and rejected industrialization. They were largely naturalistic in their thinking, and some of them embraced naturism, with not a few of them being nudists. Many of them were vegetarians; Hitler’s professed vegetarianism was a consequence of him belonging to the movement, though as vegans point out, Hitler didn’t really stay true to his vegetarian diet.

So yeah, the Volkish that Hitler belonged to were largely hippies. They were the most hellish hippies in history. Their beef with the Jews largely stems from the fact that Jews embraced technology, urbanization, and were meat-eaters. It also didn’t help that many of the conspiracy theories about the Jews that persist to this day were around back then, too.

The Volkish switched gears once they seized significant political control of Germany and became rebranded as the Nazi party. At that point, they seized control of the military-industrial complex and turned Germany into a socialist state.

Don’t believe me? “Nazi” is shorthand for “National Socialist German Worker’s Party”.

Next time you try to malign someone by comparing them to a maniacal dictator, check to make sure that you yourself do not ideologically align with the very same dictator.

Covington student files defamation suit against CNN

dxuvqgzwsaet6_nThe smiling kid who may very well take down a corrupt media.

In one of the more refreshing recent news developments, one of the “MAGA kids” students is suing CNN for defamation after CNN had carelessly portrayed them as a hate mob.

As you may recall, back in January, the corporate news outlets have covered a story about a group of kids in a confrontation with a native American group, portraying them as hatefully throwing taunts at an elderly man. Since then, mainstream news outlets have backpedaled after full video of the confrontation had been posted online, which shows that the only hateful rhetoric thrown out came from “another organization”, which the corporate media seems to be too terrified to acknowledge by name.

The Black Hebrew Israelites.

As a result of CNN’s careless coverage, the Covington students that pretty much did nothing but stand there smiling have been repeatedly threatened by those naive enough to take the corporate media at face value. Therefore, the student at the center of the controversy has decided to sue CNN for $275 million for defamation.

There’s a lesson that the corporate mainstream information media needs to learn, and that’s that there are repercussions for carelessly handling information, even if you feel justified in how you’re portraying someone by reason of the narrative that you prefer to peddle. If people like the MAGA kids who have been victimized by the corporate media’s irresponsibility with their informational positions make it expensive for them to libel, that just may be what it takes for them to feel discouraged from doing so.

While we’re on the topic, there’s something that has had me concerned, and this is an opportunity to bring it up. It seems as though tech companies have an interest in making sure that the corporate media’s biggest mistakes don’t receive too much attention.

The reason why I bring this up is because I voiced my opinion on the MAGA kids incident back in January. Since posting my article, I’ve noticed a suspicious trend in the traffic to this site:

stats since 1-24.png

What’s pictured is this site’s traffic. As you could see, prior to the posting of the article, the traffic to this page was widely varied, and there have been days when the traffic was substantially higher than usual. But in the days after it was published, the traffic to this site was steady, and traffic seemed to approach a sort of “cap”.

Noticing this, I decided to perform an experiment by taking the article off this site by reverting it to draft. Afterwards, the traffic to this site returned.

stats 2.png

Something seems suspicious.

It’s not news that tech companies have long had a left-wing bias, but I suspect that search engines are now silently throttling traffic to pages that refuse to toe the line for the left wing narrative. This has apparently been going on for a long time. Back in 2017, I made an article criticizing the SJW movement for comparing itself to the Resistance from the Star Wars films.

As noted in an edit to the article itself, I performed searches for the article to try to find it on Google, but had difficulty in finding it. A Bing search showed the article as the first result of my first attempt at finding it. Today, a DuckDuckGo search similarly brought the page right up as the first result of my first attempt at finding it.

It would seem like something suspicious is going on with Google.

David statue Magnetricity Google censored

pioneer 1 magnetricity censored by google

100 francs eugene delacroix magnetricity censored by google

Today, the librarians of the digital age don’t have to go as far as to burn books, all it takes to silence someone is to omit them from search results. Now that Google has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, why trust them for informational purposes? It’s prime time to consider setting an alternative search engine as your default.

I’m interested in seeing whether mainstream news outlets change the way they handle information in the face of a public willing to fight back by making it expensive for them to commit libel. Perhaps the best way to stop the tide of defamation from news outlets is to ensure that they can’t afford it.

As for what we the public can do about tech companies that are making apparent attempts to censor us, perhaps the best thing we can do for the time being is use the services of their competitors.

TWAT News: The MAGA Kids and the Crime of Smiling

DxUVqgZWsAET6_n.jpgThe smile that drove millions of leftists insane.

There are still ongoing developments surrounding the MAGA kids incident, but the dust is beginning to settle, and what’s becoming apparent is a whopper of an indictment against corporate news outlets and leftist-controlled social media.

What it comes down to is that a group of kids showed up to a confrontation already in progress, and smiled at the ridiculousness that was taking place. Afterwards, the leftist elements of social media and the corporate mainstream information media went full-tilt to smear the children, because they hate Trump and the MAGA (Make America Great Again) hats that the children were wearing.

As the institutional leftist shills would have you believe, the kids were committing a hate crime by provoking a native American during a confrontation. If you’re interested in knowing what really happened, I did manage to find a full video of the incident. If you’re not up for watching it, that’s understandable, considering that the video is over an hour and 40 minutes long. But if you’re interested in seeing the involvement of the MAGA kids, skip to 1:12:00, as the video poster suggests.

The video starts with an argument between the Black Israelites and Native Americans concerning which of the two are the true Israelites. That last sentence is a doozy, so go ahead and read it again and allow it to sink in just what we’re dealing with.

If you’re wondering who the Black Israelites are, they’re a group of professing Jews that make a point of saying that the Israelites were actually black (while ignoring all the genetic information we have concerning who belongs to Israel and Judah). While I know that not everyone in the group is like the ones in the video, some of their most passionate members are among the most insufferable people in the religious landscape.

Somehow, I get the idea that throwing taunts at people in the street is not how you’re supposed to demonstrate that you’re a model nation. The moment that I saw that Black Israel was involved and taunting people in traditional garb, I strongly suspected that the video wasn’t going to show us the best of humanity.

But things got more interesting when a group of Catholic students happened to be nearby, and they were planning on attending an anti-abortion rally while wearing MAGA hats.

The Native Americans that were present attempted to de-escalate the situation by singing while beating on drums. That’s good on them. While this was going on, the MAGA kids (as they would come be known) just looked on and smiled, even as the Native Americans went right up to them.

And, that was it. They just smiled. Could anyone blame them? It had to have occurred to them just then the sheer ridiculousness of what was taking place. There was a group of Black Israelites proudly boasting of their professed heritage. There was also a group of singing and dancing Native Americans playing instruments. And they themselves were schoolkids in MAGA hats that just happened to be there on the way to an anti-abortion rally. Even in Washington DC, one would have a hard time finding a more ridiculous scene.

But apparently, something about school kids in MAGA hats with big, beaming smiles rubbed the leftist shills in social media the wrong way, because they went full-on cray-cray trying to smear them by (what else) accusing them of committing a hate crime.

Suddenly, the blue checkmark typicals joined forces and proceeded to dox a bunch of kids in an effort to threaten their school into expelling them and ruin their career prospects for just happening to be somewhere and not harm anyone. All because they didn’t like their hats.

Among those participating in the doxing was a former contributor to Vanity Fair, Kurt Eichenwald, who stated that the kids should be denied work “in perpetuity”, and in an effort to make it easy to identify (and harass) the kids, he shared photos of them on his Twitter account.

The thing about the leftist media is that they have something to prove. They face the ongoing threat of the internet and social media driving them into obsolescence. So, they dove right in and joined in the smear campaign.

Now, why would we expect something like investigative journalism from an outdated media outlet that mainly caters to old people and kids that don’t know any better?

Nathan Phillips was one of the Native Americans in the video shown playing the drum in one kid’s face. The corporate media made sure we knew that he was a Marine Corps veteran. According to Phillips, the kids were repeatedly chanting, “Build that wall, build that wall.”

That’s interesting, because we have video of the confrontation above, and that didn’t happen. Oops. Now, it’s coming to light that Nathan Phillips has misrepresented his military service, as reported by the Washington Post.

So, a bunch of kids in MAGA hats are being smeared and threatened and libeled all over the place, and all anyone has to go on are the claims of a proven liar?

nathan phillips marine corps vet.png

Watching old media backpeddle in real time is quite refreshing. In fact, an article on Yahoo News courtesy of The Wrap pretty much admitted that the students did nothing but stand there and offer no disrespect. The Native Americans didn’t do any harm, either. If anything, they were attempting to defuse a situation. It’s evident that the real bad guys were the Black Israelites, who themselves were the ones throwing out the racist rhetoric.

In fact, if you want to see who the real violent and hateful people in the confrontation were, go to 11:55 in the video (link goes right there). That’s a sampling of their threats and verbal abuse. What kind of religious language is that?

I don’t own a MAGA hat. But you know something? I’m actually considering getting one.


It’s become an expression of solidarity with those who have been slandered on social media and libeled by the press. Institutional leftism has gone full-on to try to shame a bunch of kids just for wearing these hats, and the outcome is that the hats themselves look far more attractive.

Apparently, smiling while wearing one of these hats is what it takes to get a Disney producer to threaten you with a wood chipper. A Disney producer. Complete with an image of someone being stuffed into a wood chipper. Congrats to these kids for being able to draw that out of a producer who works for a company that makes family entertainment.

I really don’t know how to follow that up. Seems like an interesting place to end the article. I know that 2019 is just getting started, but leftism is going to have to work pretty hard to outdo themselves.

New Ghostbusters Film May Indicate that the Film Industry is Coming Out of the Intersectional Muck

The teaser for the upcoming Ghostbusters sequel doesn’t tell us a lot about the movie, other than the fact that there will be a new one. It’s pretty a much a minute of zooming up on the Hearse:

So, they’re making a new one. We also learned that it will be directed by Jason Reitman, the son of Ivan Reitman, who directed the original two. Here is what he has to say about it:

I’ve always thought of myself as the first Ghostbusters fan, when I was a 6-year-old visiting the set. I wanted to make a movie for all the other fans. This is the next chapter in the original franchise. It is not a reboot. What happened in the ’80s happened in the ’80s, and this is set in the present day.

Fans are thrilled about this, because they’re returning to the story in the continuity of the original two films. They’re also anticipating that this means that the 2016 reboot with the all-female team of Ghostbusters will be rendered non-canon, and strictly ignored.

Not everyone is happy about what’s going on, particularly Leslie Jones, who went on a Twitter rant that somehow brought Trump into this:

leslie jones twidurr.png

I had no idea that the President of the United States could decide what movies were made or who to cast in them. I’d have imagined that it would have been more difficult for a Republican to have pull over the film industry, considering the institution’s history as a left-wing vehicle. In fact, the entertainment industry in general has picked on Trump at every opportunity, so it’s hard to imagine that they’re being sympathetic towards him only just now.

The film industry is a business. Like any business, they make money by making products that people actually want. As the film industry found out the hard way in 2016, people don’t want a movie where the only joke told over and over again is “girls rule, boys drool”. Generally speaking, an on-the-nose political statement doesn’t go over well, but it’s mush worse when an established franchise that had little if anything to do with feminism gets turned into yet another tool on the intersectional workbench.

The film, comic, and the rest of the entertainment industry would do well to remember that they make products in order to sell them. Ham-fisted political statements don’t usually go over very well. Get woke, go broke.

get woke go broke

The upcoming Ghostbusters film might be a sign that the film industry is starting to come up out of the intersectional muck. As they do so, we shouldn’t be surprised to see the usual shills banging on pots and pans as they seek out every opportunity to be offended. But because we already know what their opinions are, why even ask them? And if their opinions drag movies down, why should they even be considered?

The answers seem obvious to the rest of us, but we’ve been waiting for the film industry to catch up and come to the obvious conclusion.