The New York Times is up there with CNN as some of the most vile and disgusting fake news that there is in this country. Truly, the only difference between the two is that CNN is also a cable “news” organization. Seeing how utterly fascistic and communistic the general narrative that is found in the NYT is, it’s not at all surprising to see someone who does not fully support such ideals be bullied and pushed out of the company.
Bari Weiss had been writing for the NYT for the past few years, following the election of Donald Trump, supposedly, according to her, because the Times was so wrong about who would be elected that it clearly needed a better understanding of the country that it covers.
Of course, she herself HATES Trump and has outright alleged he was sympathetic to neo-Nazis (which we shall see is rather hilarious in a moment) and would likely cancel anyone who is pro-Trump were she to have the power (she advocated for censoring Alex Jones), however, due to her not adhering in full with the communistic rhetoric of the company, at least in everything she wanted to write, Weiss has decided to resign from the NYT. In her resignation letter, Weiss utterly crushed the company by exposing precisely who they are: elitist, communist bullies who are wholly intolerant while preaching “tolerance”.
And yes, she is a massive hypocrite, but she is ripping the NYT, so let’s hear her out for a second, while still keeping in mind the fact that she is just as despicable.
In her resignation letter, Weiss lambasts the Times for being a paper more concerned with getting clicks from people on Twitter than actually being remotely objective or journalistically proper. “Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions.”
In essence, Weiss is accusing the NYT of writing stories that will get them on Twitter’s “trending” list rather than writing stories of importance and significance to the vast majority of the country.
Later, Weiss takes note of some of the personal experiences she has had while working for the communist paper: “My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m ‘writing about the Jews again.’ Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly ‘inclusive’ one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.”
One, I told you that it was rather hilarious that she essentially called Trump a Nazi when she herself had been called that. Two, this is not at all unexpected behavior from communists. They HATE anyone who does not think like them and in this day and age when literal crime is hardly punished, such people feel comfortable showing their truly monstrous side. Communists are hateful bullies who somehow have deluded themselves into thinking they are angels doing God’s work. They are awful people, the embodiment of intolerance and hatred itself.
To me, it is EXTREMELY ironic that ANYONE at the New York Times would accuse someone just slightly right of Marx (and Weiss isn’t exactly Ronald Reagan) to be a Nazi when the publication itself has published the following article: “THE ART OF PROPAGANDA – By Adolf Hitler,” written June 22nd, 1941.
The New York Times published a piece by Adolf Hitler on the same day as Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi operation to invade the Soviet Union, and all-the-while the guy was killing Jews and other political opponents in concentration camps.
I don’t know what’s worse, the fact that the NYT chose to publish a piece by Adolf Hitler, or the following piece, written on November 21st, 1922:
Headline: “NEW POPULAR IDOL RISES IN BAVARIA; Hitler Credited With Extraordinary Powers of Swaying Crowds to His Will. FORMS GRAY-SHIRTED ARMY Armed With Blackjacks and Revolvers and Well Disciplined, They Obey Orders Implicitly. LEADER A REACTIONARY is Anti Red and Anti-Semitic, and Demands Strong Government for a United Germany.”
Yes, long headline, but this was a different time. At any rate, the piece later on said the following:
“But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic and inline for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.”
We often times rip “experts” and supposed, anonymous “sources” from people who act in bad faith, but I don’t think anyone could top “our sources say that Hitler is not as anti-Semitic or violent as people think he is.”
This is on record for The New York Times, and it’s not like featuring egregious personalities is anything new for them. They have, just in the last decade, allowed for op-eds from Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Vladimir Putin to be published on their paper. Hitler, Erdogan and Putin all enjoy or have enjoyed a great deal of liberty and even veneration from The New York Times.
So again, for anyone in the NYT to accuse anyone else of being a Nazi is EXTREMELY RICH (though for Weiss to play victim to such attacks is equally rich, considering she does the same to Trump).
Returning to Weiss’ resignation letter, she noted that “if a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.”
These people claim to be “tolerant” and “inclusive” but have an outright allergic reaction to a Republican Senator writing that we should use the military to defeat the riots. They claim to be tolerant people while not tolerating anyone’s opinion should said opinion dissent from the pre-approved one. If you even remotely do not share much hatred for Trump, you are compared to Hitler himself (again, an extremely rich thing for anyone at the paper to do).
Anyone right of Karl Marx is considered a danger, a Nazi, and less than human. These people go around calling other people bigots when there are no bigger bigots than them.
At any rate, Weiss continued by excoriating the paper, taking note that Tom Cotton’s op-ed cost two people their jobs, all-the-while the paper celebrates an interview with a disgusting anti-Semite and conspiracy theorist who, to Weiss’s words, “believes in lizard Illuminati.”
Of course, considering the paper is willing to have an op-ed from Adolf Hitler, it’s not really so surprising that they have such a high regard for known anti-Semites.
Furthermore, Weiss writes: “The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its ‘diversity’; the doxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.”
Considering the history revisionism that the Times is involved in with its “1619 project”, it’s not at all surprising that these people live in the land of Looney Tunes, and even then, I would assume Buggs Bunny has more of a sense of reason than the people most often featured on that communist publication. Time and time again, Buggs Bunny showed considerably more wit than any of the people I have seen write for the Times, if I’m honest. I wouldn’t be surprised if he could trick them by flipping a sign that says “commie season.”
They are people who adamantly hate this country and spend their lives and careers excoriating it. That they compare America and Nazi Germany for their “caste system” is no surprise to someone who expects such nonsensical and offensive crap from human garbage like the NYT.
Anyway, Weiss concludes with a few things, such as a “set of rules” for writing for the NYT, including “Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.”
One does not have free speech when writing for the New York Times. They either speak the way the Times wants them to speak, whether willingly or not, or they can find themselves in an unemployment office.
This, my friends, is communism. Not that I needed to remind you of that.
In the end, Weiss quotes Adolph Ochs, former owner of the NYT, in a famous statement he made in 1896: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”
Ochs wouldn’t even be allowed to write for the Times’ opinion piece nowadays with such a mentality, let alone be allowed to own the paper. Such an opinion runs contrary to the Left’s. The idea that people be allowed to have differing opinions and, worse yet, be allowed a platform through which to express such opinions is considered a threat to democracy itself in the minds of the politically insane.
Of course, Weiss herself has hypocritically gone against Ochs’ words in her trying to cancel Alex Jones, and I doubt she would be willing to have an honest debate with a pro-Trumper, but at least she gives us some ammo to use against the Times.
The NYT is garbage. Sane people are better off not reading it or contributing to it. While I do not exactly have much sympathy for Weiss, considering she herself has acted in that exact same manner, with the exact same attacks thrown at Trump and his supporters, I am at the very least glad that she attacked the NYT like she did on the way out.
Love it when the Left goes after its own.
“A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.”
I have often spoken about the sort of damage the Left has done to science itself in a number of ways, from obliterating biological truths about sex and gender to discarding scientific proof of life in the womb to making assertions of anthropogenic climate change that are not at all based on scientific evidence. The Left has made a joke of science, but even more than that, they have made a cult religion out of it to the point where questioning any part of it is seen as a cardinal offense.
No other time was that true than throughout the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, when we were told that if we had any sort of challenging questions regarding the data we were being presented with, we were on a malicious mission to kill people’s parents and grandparents (meanwhile, Gov. Cuomo essentially was doing that following his March 25th EO sending sick people to nursing and retirement homes). We were told that we had to listen to the “experts” because they had the “data” and the “science” behind them.
However, as Michael Fumento from Just the News recently pointed out, there were a number of instances when the “experts” were flat-out wrong about what they were saying regarding the virus, as well as the data they were presenting.
Before I actually get to those instances, of which there are ten, allow me to preface all of this by pointing out a simple, yet oft-forgotten aspect of science: it is SUPPOSED to be challenged.
Man is not perfect. This means that we are capable of erring. Various sciences are studied by people who err. People used to believe in geo-centricity, the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe, until it was discovered that it was not. It used to be “settled science” that the Sun revolved around the Earth, but because science is about challenging conventional wisdom, people sought to find if that was actually true or not and it was discovered that it was not.
Science isn’t science if it is not challenged and questions aren’t raised. This is the damage the Left makes to the practice, as they use its good name for the purposes of “settling facts” that benefit them politically. It’s why climatologists who dare challenge the idea of anthropogenic climate change, though they are doing their defined jobs as scientists, are blacklisted and fired because of their challenges. The Left, in owning the pillar of power of the sciences, can push out people who challenge what they want seen as scientific fact, even though the very purpose of science is to challenge conventional wisdom to weigh it against objective reality.
As with anthropogenic climate change, the Left has made it their mission to ensure that the “experts” were practically seen as Jesus’ apostles by the public when they talked about the “data” and the “science” regarding the Chinese coronavirus, all for the purposes of getting people so scared that they will comply with whatever the Left wanted (and it clearly worked, as we shut down our entire economy for a few months, leaving millions unemployed).
However, because man is capable of erring, it is no surprise that the data the “experts” brought in was incomplete and ripe for rebuke and revisitation.
Without further ado, let me share with you some of the times the “experts” were wrong that Fumento shared in his Just the News article (not all of the ten instances will be written here because I don’t want to make this article insanely long).
First, the threat level. Back on January 21st, the day of the first Chinese coronavirus case found in the U.S., Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared on Newsmax TV to talk about the virus and how much of a threat it posed to the American public. In that interview, he said: “Obviously, you need to take it seriously and do the kind of things the CDC and the Department of Homeland Security is doing. But this is not a major threat to the people of the United States, and this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.”
Of course, a few months later, that idea was entirely changed and the CDC director said that the virus was the “greatest public health crisis” to strike our nation “in more than 100 years.”
Now, I won’t be too harsh on Fauci here for the simple reason that the data was very much insufficient by that point to determine with any level of certainty if the virus was going to be a big deal. The virus originated in China and we all know that they are not a reliable or trustworthy bunch, and we now know they were hiding things from us for a very long time, to the point where some believe the virus was first found in Wuhan in AUGUST OF 2019. But regardless of whether or not China was lying to us, the fact remains that the data was incomplete and no one of sound mind would disagree with me here.
We didn’t know, back in late January, how bad it would get. And yet, we are supposed to take all the data given to us as 100% true and verified, even if it is changed and that new data is supposed to be taken as 100% true and verified.
It simply does not compute to operate like that.
Moving to another example, there was the masks debacle where the Surgeon General of the United States claimed masks were “NOT effective in preventing general public from catching” the Chinese coronavirus. Following that, the CDC said that you should wear a mask if you are sick or are going to be near someone who is sick, and now, the guideline is that people should wear masks regardless of their health when they are around others.
The third example is the asymptomatic transmission declaration by the WHO, when Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said that it was “very rare” for asymptomatic people to spread the disease, when that was one of the biggest worries surrounding the virus: that we would unknowingly and asymptomatically be carrying the virus and we could unwillingly be infecting our loved ones, particularly our elders. The data even went so far as to actually show that there hasn’t been a single documented case of asymptomatic carriers spreading the disease, so it’s more than just “very rare” – it’s outright unheard of.
Then there is also the mortality rate, which used to be 3.4% towards the beginning of the pandemic and now sits at around 0.26%. We used to think this was extremely deadly (by certain standards) and nothing like the flu, but now it’s not all too different from the flu in terms of mortality rate. Yes, it’s still higher than the flu’s mortality rate, but considering the fact that non-COVID deaths are being counted as COVID deaths, I’d wager to say that the mortality rate should actually be considerably lower than 0.26% and be closer to the flu, if not even lower than that.
Which brings me to the cause of death, another example brought up by Fumento, since there has been outright proof of non-COVID deaths, such as gunshot wounds, being counted towards COVID deaths. There is also the fact that Dr. Birx said that they were counting people who died “with” the virus as people who died “to” the virus and the fact that Medicare began to provide a 20% bonus for naming the Chinese coronavirus as the main cause of death, which did nothing but give hospitals and morticians a financial incentive to count anything and everything as death to Chinese coronavirus.
Not to mention that the vast majority of deaths are from people 65 and older, with only 7% of COVID-19 deaths coming from people who did not have pre-existing conditions, meaning that 93% of those who died of the Chinese coronavirus (whether with it or from it) also had underlying conditions that could also have contributed to, or even be the main cause of, the actual death of a person.
Another aspect of the “data” the “experts” gave us, particularly early on, was the model that showed over 2,000,000 deaths in the U.S. and over 500,000 in the U.K., which served as the basis for locking things down and going into quarantine. It was found out not too long after that the model didn’t take into account any sort of action by the government and was based on literally nothing being done about the virus which was not a realistic scenario. People would have done something about it, from government officials to businesses themselves, in order to keep people from dying. Those figures were entirely unrealistic and yet were used as the basis and the reason for shutting everything down.
The funny thing is that the professor who made that model, Neil Ferguson, recently said that if the U.K. had locked down just a week earlier, half of the deaths wouldn’t have happened, though he never shared any data that would indicate such a thing. 2020 is the year of 20/20 hindsight, it seems.
And of course, my argument against Ferguson’s claim is that, even if he did actually bring data that would point to it, as I have already established: data is not to be taken as 100% fact 100% of the time. Everyone operated using the data available at the time – data that was not complete at the time, either.
We need to stop pretending like scientific data is equivalent to the Word of God in terms of validity and truth.
And this is why I say that the Left has made a cult religion out of science. Any sort of data presented today, even if it is refuted and cast aside tomorrow, is to be taken as 100% fact and anyone questioning it is an unscientific buffoon who can barely read. We are supposed to blindly trust these “experts” because of nothing apart from the fact that they have the label of “experts”, even as they are proven wrong time and time again.
We are supposed to blindly trust the word of people who likely have an agenda. I say this because doctors and nurses were mounting “counter-protests” against the lockdown protests, saying protesters were putting themselves and others at risk, yet have supported and in some cases JOINED the George Floyd protests featuring barely any of the safety guidelines detailed by the CDC regarding social distancing and wearing masks. And the people wearing masks were often Antifa rioters. Nevertheless, we are supposed to treat their word like the Gospel of Jesus Christ Himself.
We are supposed to accept what these people say as the absolute truth even if scientific evidence shows to be contrary to what they are saying (i.e. anthropogenic climate change).
The Left has turned the institution of science into a religious cult, where you are deemed as an outcast and a freak if you show any semblance of dissent or even reason. Actual scientists don’t have an agenda. Actual scientists review the evidence and data and try to challenge it to weigh it against objective truth. It’s how science has always operated and how we have made the discoveries that we have.
But actual scientists no longer get the spotlight. They no longer get their findings published by mainstream sources. They hardly even manage to keep their jobs wherever they might work if they show dissent to the established Leftist narrative surrounding their fields of study. Either agree with the Left and spread the narrative, even if it is not scientifically found, or be severely punished for doing the right thing and remaining objective.
It’s not even about politics, as the Left has destroyed climatologists who don’t like Trump at all just because they dared step outside of the collective Leftist thinktank. It’s about power for the Left and anyone who disagrees with them at any capacity is seen as a threat to said power. This is the case just about everywhere, not just the “scientific” community.
This is the damage the Left has done to science. They have perverted it to the point where it’s no different from a cult, where “prophets” like the teen climate puppet can emerge, not because they are backed by science, but because they are backed by George Soros and Bill Gates, as well as the Leftist mainstream media which carries the Leftist narratives.
As I have said countless times, the Left must be defeated in every way, in every pillar of power.
“There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.”
Most of us, after the “war on Coronavirus” is over, will probably debate endlessly if the lockdowns imposed on the world population were needed. There are people out there who are genuinely concerned about their own well-being and that of their loved ones, who would much rather stay home for months on end, than risk going outside. No matter what science says, even told to us by the Coronavirus Task Force a few weeks back relative to how sunlight and heat exposure along with soap and detergent kill the virus, these folks are scared to death to go outside and help their immune system do its job.
But for most of us, the real concern is the people being affected by the lockdowns – suicide rates going up, no healthcare for patients that have not tested positive for Coronavirus, no income for the 33 million people who have lost their jobs or the millions who are in the process of losing their small businesses. To most of us, unless this virus was a coordinated attack against humanity, none of the lockdowns make any sense. From early on I have contended that we quarantine the sick, not the healthy. We’ve been doing this for millennia – you read about quarantining the sick in the Bible!
But rather than using common sense and tested medical procedures, we all, including our President, keep talking about the 1917 Spanish Flu pandemic, which claimed the lives of 50-100 million people world wide and compare that terrible pandemic to today’s Coronavirus. As we do this, we tend to think that the 1917 flu is the measure against which we must compare COVID-19. Up until now, I didn’t have a problem with this comparison, but that’s because I didn’t know that in 1969, when Woodstock took place, we were in the middle of a flu pandemic that was also quite significant, though not as deadly as the 1917 Spanish flu pandemic.
The 1968 flu pandemic, also known as Hong Kong Flu (way back when it wasn’t “racist” to call it that – you will still see it in Wikipedia called that way), began in Hong Kong and arrived in the US sometime in September 1968 and lasted through 1969-70. The estimated number of deaths, according to the CDC, was 1 million worldwide and 100,000 in the US. Most of those deaths were people 65 years and older.
Now, unless you’re over 60 years old chances are you have no memory or knowledge of this pandemic ever happening. And even if you’re over 60 years of age, you probably don’t remember much either. But shouldn’t you? After all, 100,000 deaths is a significant number, and considering that back then the population of the US was about 200 million with a life expectancy of 70 years old and without the problems of obesity we have today, if that number were extrapolated to today , we would be looking at about 250,000 deaths! If you lived through it, this must have been news all over the place!
Except that it probably wasn’t.
You see, there were no lockdowns, no millions upon millions of people losing their jobs or businesses, no media hysteria and Trump wasn’t the President.
Nathaniel Moir of National Interest writes:
“In 1968, the H3N2 pandemic killed more individuals in the U.S. than the combined total number of American fatalities during both the Vietnam and Korean Wars.”
So why is this Coronavirus such a big deal?
I know, I know – it’s an election year and the activists in the media and the Democrat Party want to hurt President Trump as much as they can to win the WH and the Senate back. And if hurting you, destroying your livelihood and your dreams is the path of least resistance for them, that’s what they’re going to do!
People in 1969 didn’t expect the government to run their lives, they expected physicians to take the primary responsibility to mitigate the disease. People didn’t end up in jail because they reopened their hair salons in Dallas, nor were they forced to wear masks to go to the grocery store. Government was not expected to dictate every detail of our lives – whether we can go to the beach or ride our bikes – without risking being arrested. It was assumed that doctors, not politicians, were the ones responsible for bringing medical solutions to medical problems.
Woodstock was a 3-day music festival that took place in August 1968 and attracted about 400,000 people – all while “people were dying!” of the Hong Kong flu. Today not only would you not be able to attend this concert, but you cannot even go to church!
This lockdown needs to end. It makes no sense. The SAFEST place is outside – 66% of new cases in NY are people who stayed at home! It’s not working! And it prevents “herd immunity” and prolongs the problem. It’s NOT designed to prevent coronavirus spread - it’s designed to hurt the American people if doing so hurts Trump.
We need to vote every Democrat out of office, particularly those governors who are imposing draconian measures imposed by these tyrants.
“Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey!”
CNN, the most laughable name in news, has recently been trending thanks to a viral clip of a segment showing CNN host Don Lemon, far-Left opinion writer Wajahat Ali and Never Trump traitor Rick Wilson mocking and insulting Trump supporters’ intelligence, education and even insinuating that we are illiterate.
Speaking about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his altercation with a Left-wing NPR reporter who lied to Pompeo and broke an off-the-record agreement the two of them had and he asked her to identify Ukraine on a map (she couldn’t), the three stooges made sure to back the Left-wing NPR reporter and lambast not only Pompeo, but Trump and everyone who supports him.
Covering the most relevant parts for this article, Rick Wilson eventually said: “[Pompeo] also knows deep in his heart that Donald Trump couldn’t find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter U and a picture of an actual physical crane next to it. He knows that this is, you know, an administration defined by ignorance of the world, and so that’s partly him playing to their base and playing to their audience, you know, credulous boomer demo that back Donald Trump, that wants to think that Donald Trump’s a smart one, and y’all – y’all elitists are dumb.”
Ali continued with the mockery: “You elitists with your geography and your maps and your spelling even though –“ and he was interrupted by Wilson continuing his own mockery: “Your math, your reading.”
Throughout all this, of course, Don Lemon is laughing his butt off, finding it extremely hilarious to mock people in a very elitist way (with zero sense of self-awareness of their elitist mockery).
Now, I am not the least bit surprised to see people with darkness filling their hearts mocking Trump and his administration and his supporters. These are people who, at the same time, will “call for unity” while lambasting the side that does not agree with everything they have to say. These are people who honestly believe the b.s. they sell to their audience and could not properly identify how many genders there are, all-the-while flaunting Harvard and Yale degrees like they are worthwhile treasures that only the best of the best are able to obtain and as though they should be revered as gods for having such “education” (even though college is more for indoctrination).
I am not surprised one bit by this, because this is far from the first time CNN has decided to show pure, unadulterated hatred for those whom they honestly despise and wish they could rid the world of. I’ve already written an entire article dedicated to how much of a hypocritical slime ball Don Lemon is for, in the same breath, calling for an end to “demonizing” others and proceeding to demonize others. I’ve also covered another segment in which Lemon and other guests on his show mocked Kanye West shortly after demonstrating he supported Trump by saying that “Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don’t read.”
Don Lemon has a long history of being a hypocritical, hateful idiot who either piles onto the hate or laughs at the face of it. I can guarantee that if a segment on Fox News had done this about Obama supporters in the Midwest, there would be a full nuclear meltdown about it, with everyone involved in that segment being forced to apologize, alongside the entire network, and with petitions to take Fox News off the air.
But because this is about them “dumb” Trump supporters who “can’t read, can’t spell, can’t find countries on maps” (btw, a Morning Consult poll back in the beginning of the year asked people to identify Iran on a map and only 27% of Democrats could find it, as opposed to 28% of Republicans and 31% of Independents, so who is it really that can’t find countries on maps?), “can’t do math, and are so intellectually-deficient as to subject themselves to vote for Trump”, it is perfectly acceptable to throw by the wayside any semblance of tolerance or love or compassion that they claim to have for others and it is perfectly acceptable that such people get this kind of treatment from a major news organization that really can’t afford to play so loosely with their ratings.
The people that profess tolerance display none of it. The people that claim to be professionals showcase their unprofessionalism. The people who swear they are bearers of truth spew lies and slander about others. The people who claim to want to “save America” show their true hatred for it and those who even might slightly dissent from their collective thought. The people that claim to hold valuable knowledge and superior intelligence will deny science and spout science fiction all for the sake of an agenda where the Democrat Party gets more and more power and these idiots somehow think they will have some share in that.
Again, I am not at all surprised that the network that ran the Russian hoax for two and a half years, still pretty much does, and continues to lie about Trump and Ukraine, would, once again, display their utter contempt for those that refuse to vote as they do. When hatred fills your heart, this is what you tend to do: display it for all to see. They just think there are enough people out there who absolutely agree with them and are laughing with them at Trump supporters that it’s perfectly okay to do this and they would suffer zero repercussions.
They hate Donald Trump, they hate you, they hate what you stand for and, in all likelihood, even if they never admit it, would agree with the Bernie supporters in the Project Veritas videos about sending Trump supporters off to “re-education camps”. Their viewpoints are so fragile that they cannot stand that there are those who disagree and display that contempt with mockery and open hatred, with some honestly wishing in their hearts that we would get sent to concentration camps to be “re-educated” or killed if we do not comply.
This, alongside many other reasons (primarily abortion) is why I say the Left is satanic and the Democrat Party is the party of Satan. The hate that they foster in their hearts comes from Lucifer himself and they do his bidding happily. Any notion that Jesus might be able to save them is met with an allergic reaction from these people, coupled with even more mockery.
The good news for them is that if Saul of Tarsus, who went around looking for Christians to persecute and execute, can be saved, then there is a possibility that these people might as well. I often note the doctrine of predestination (which some Christians do not believe in, but I assure you, there is plenty about it in the Bible) and how God chooses to save some. That doctrine, I believe, is very much sound and applicable, but God is the only one who knows whom He will save and whom He will not save. He is the only one who decides on whom His mercy will be shown and on whom it will not.
This is why I do not necessarily say that any one of these Leftists, on an individual basis, is destined for Hell. They are, currently in their unsaved states, Hell-bound, but God chooses whom He will save and He might save one or two or all three of them at one point or another. Is it likely? Not from what I can tell, but it definitely is possible with God. Again, Saul of Tarsus, who was essentially an elitist like these people in his own time (possibly the most highly educated person of his time) went around in search of Christians to arrest and prosecute, which would often lead to death and the Lord Jesus came to him and saved his soul, later becoming an extremely important apostle (having written almost half of the books in the New Testament) and changing his name to Paul.
If one were to make comparisons, that would be like Jesus converting a Nazi brownshirt in search of Jews (sort of). If Saul could be saved, just about anyone could be as well. That doesn’t mean that they will be saved, as again, God is the one to make that decision and is not going to leave people’s salvation up to chance (which, as I have said many times in the past, is nothing more than mathematical probability and does not have any inherent power), but it does mean that they might be.
Right now, of course, as far as Don Lemon, Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali go, I cannot tell what is in their hearts (apart from hatred) or what lays for them in the future. However, I do hope and pray that they will be saved by the Lord and they will turn from their hatred. I pray this, not because they deserve the Lord’s forgiveness, grace or mercy, because they do not, but because it would be better for them to turn to God than continue down the path they are on. It can be hard to love your enemies (and this is something I often have trouble with), but we are still commanded to do so. We are to love our neighbors and our enemies, praying for them that they might turn to the Lord for their salvation.
This does not take away from the unprofessionalism and the vile display of hatred that they showed on live television. That should be totally rebuked and excoriated and I believe Trump will make a campaign ad out of it (at least, he should) to remind everyone what the elitist Left thinks of us. But beyond anything else, we should at least pray for their souls to be saved and for their hearts to be turned to the Lord, away from the hatred of Satan and towards the love of God. Will it happen? Only God knows and only God decides.
“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”
This Is Why No One Likes The Media: MSM Tries To Defame Cadets Playing “Circle Game” As White Supremacists
According to a recent Gallup poll, only 41% of Americans trust the Mass Media (newspapers, TV, radio, etc.). And over the weekend, a prime example of exactly why came up.
On Saturday, the football teams for America’s Army and Navy met to play one another in an intense rivalry game; a game that was notably visited by our Commander-in-Chief President Donald J. Trump, who was met with loud cheers. But one of the biggest takeaways from the game, at least in the mind of the media, is the actions of cadets, who, upon realizing that a TV camera was pointing his way, made the “Circle Game” gesture on the shoulder of another cadet, who briefly looked at it and then looked away, sort of awkwardly grinning afterwards because he knew exactly what that gesture was and why he needed to avert his gaze (other cadets also made the gesture at different times).
However, many Leftist activists and the fake news media are seemingly completely unaware of the game (or act like it, at least) and thought the gesture was not the “Circle Game” gesture, but rather, a White Power or White Supremacy gesture.
Mike Brehm from USA Today Sports reported: “Questions erupted during the Army-Navy game in Philadelphia when students appeared to make the White Power hand symbol during a pregame broadcast. Spokespersons from the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy told USA Today Sports they have been made aware of the issue – which blossomed on social media as the game wore on – and the schools are looking into it.”
Note all the b.s. that we find in that paragraph alone.
First of all, he calls it “the White Power hand symbol” as though it’s a hand sign that pretty much everyone understands is supposed to mean that when the VAST majority of people are grounded in reality and know that that’s not a “white power” hand symbol. But he reports it as though that’s exactly what it is and everyone interprets it to mean what he says it is. It’s nothing but fake news and it’s pretty clear how b.s. this is.
Secondly, they actually got the U.S. Army and Navy academies to investigate this as though it’s an “issue”, as Brehm reports. It’s not an issue worth of an investigation (that will likely cost taxpayer dollars). It’s not an issue at all! It’s just an academy cadet playing the “Circle Game” from the early 2000s.
For those of you who might not know, the Circle Game is a game where you make a hand gesture like the one the cadet made but you have to make that gesture below the waist. If you catch someone looking at the gesture below the waist, you get to hit them on the shoulder as hard as you want. It’s a dumb game people (mostly boys) would play back in the early 2000s.
There was this show I used to watch and really like from the early-to-mid 2000s called “Malcolm in the Middle.” Some of you may have watched it as well. In one of the episodes, Malcolm’s family is invited to dinner to a restaurant by Stevie’s family, a friend of Malcolm’s. One of the subplots of the episode revolves around Malcolm’s older and bully brother Reese playing the circle game, particularly with Stevie, who viewers of the show know is pretty physically weak and fragile.
In fact, if you look up this particular episode (titled “Dinner Out”) and you go to the Fandom Wiki page for the episode, you find the following picture:
Would you say that Malcolm, who is supposed to be one of the most grounded (pun not intended) characters in the show, is making a “white power” hand gesture? Would you say that he is indicating to the audience that he is secretly a “white supremacist”? OF COURSE NOT! IT’S JUST A DUMB GAME FROM THE EARLY 2000s!
No one who is in their right mind, certainly no one who is even remotely truthful, would consider that hand gesture to be a racist one.
And yet, you have dishonest idiots like Mike Brehm getting PAID to write idiotic reports like this as though it’s a national tragedy and an embarrassment. Of course, it doesn’t end there either.
Far-Left activists piled on, calling the gesture (and, in turn, the cadets) racist and white supremacist and trying to tie that in with the fact that President Trump was there.
One Leftist activist tweeted: “As an American, as a Navy Dad, as a decent human being… you hate to see racist West Point cadets emboldened by the presence of the Racist-in-Chief at an Army-Navy Game to throw up the “White Power” sign on national TV. Disgusting.”
Not surprising at all that this guy hates Trump and calls him a racist. The guy is an idiot himself. He parrots the idea that the CIRCLE GAME is a “white power” sign. It’s utterly ridiculous and completely dishonest, but hey, I don’t expect anything less from the Left.
Thankfully, PLENTY of people pushed back against the insane narrative and protected the innocent cadet.
Former senior White House adviser Cliff Sims wrote: “Here we go again. This time it’s [Mike Brehm] of [USA Today Sports] trying to ruin the lives of cadets for playing the circle game, because in some alternate reality they just MUST be white supremacists. At some point someone’s gotta bring a defamation case against these lunatics.”
Sports analyst Clay Travis also pushed back against the insanity: “Good lord. They were playing the circle game. America has gone insane.”
Not America, Clay, just the Left who will find any and all excuses to be offended. They live in a perpetual state of anger and scorn and hatred, so they must push it on other people and demand they be as angry, scornful and hateful as they are.
Curt Schilling wrote: “This is just idiotic. It’s a bunch of guys playing the circle game about 10 years after their friends all stopped. But ya, let’s make it out to be racist, since everything else you see and hear is as well.”
Attorney Kurt Schlichter issued a warning to those who would defame these cadets: “This is a warning to the media… If you Covington the cadets, you will be held accountable in court in front of a jury and not in your comfortable, sympathetic blue enclave venue. Do not participate in the defamation of American heroes.” He then went on to tag a few lawyers who would be able to help the cadet if he wishes to legally fight back against the libel.
Others also made the point that I myself am about to make: even if it wasn’t clearly the circle game, making the “ok” hand symbol is also not racist.
Back in January of this year, Kathy Griffin tried to libel Covington basketball players for making what she considered “racist” hand gestures… they were the symbol for celebrating a successful three-pointer by one of their teammates.
But even if you also took out the context of basketball, that symbol is NOT a symbol of white supremacy and it’s utterly ridiculous to suggest so.
Look at the following people making the “ok” hand gesture:
What person in his right mind would suggest that OBAMA, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bill de Blasio are throwing up “white power” signs? There’s no denying these people are racist, but one would not claim that they are white supremacists because of the gesture alone.
It is utterly ridiculous to suggest such a thing, and yet, these Left-wing reporters and activists, in all their shared idiocy, attempt to libel cadets as being racists and throwing up secretive “white power” hand gestures.
It’s for crap like this, and for crap like the Covington case that Schlichter referenced, that so few people trust or like the media. They are an utter disgrace to the very profession they claim to be a part of. They are not journalists; they are propagandists using the power of the free press. They can claim whatever they want with zero repercussions, regardless of the sort of damage it causes to a person’s character or life.
The media tried to ruin a Christian, Trump-supporting HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S LIFE AND FUTURE and they just tried something fairly similar with a cadet of a military academy.
THAT is what is disgusting about it and I sincerely hope that the cadet and whoever else gets targeted for this nonsense sues the heck out of these “news” people and organizations that publish such damaging b.s. Mike Brehn needs to be held accountable for such reckless reporting and libel, as well as all other “journalists” that do this.
“There are men in you who slander to shed blood, and people in you who eat on the mountains; they commit lewdness in your midst.”
Continuing down the list of things people find strangely racist, we find Jack-O’-Lanterns that are painted black, because 2019 is stupid and we continue to stray farther from God.
A New York law firm recently came under fire due to placing black Jack-O’-Lanterns in their front porch in Nyack, New York, which some people decried was “racist” and “insensitive.”
Mary Marzolla, a partner at Feerick, Nugent, MacCartney Law Offices, said that “we understand that someone complained about [the black Jack-O’-Lanterns] and so once we got word of that, we immediately took them down.” Marzolla also explains that the pumpkins were personalized with the names of each of the firm’s partners and were not intended to offend anyone. “We represent people of all colors and faiths, and we would never do anything to exclude anyone from any community.”
A local NAACP director, Wilbur Aldridge, says that the display shows an “extreme lack of sensitivity.”
I’m not exactly surprised that an NAACP director would complain about something like this. These people find just about everything offensive, except for the systemic genocide of black people in the womb.
But regardless, the law firm subsequently queried why it was that they came under fire for displaying the pumpkins when they bought them from Bed Bath & Beyond, putting the spotlight on that company.
As a result of that, Bed Bath & Beyond apologized for having sold the “racist” Jack-O’-Lanterns and pulled them from store shelves, adding that any offense was unintentional.
Director Wilbur Aldridge also decided to attack Bed Bath & Beyond, decrying that it was “equally as offensive” that the retail store would sell the product as the firm was for displaying it.
Now, I don’t ever tend to put up decorations outside my home during Halloween, only during Christmas and even then, only the wreath on my front door, but nothing more than that. But if I wanted to put a black Jack-O’-Lantern on my front porch, why would anyone take offense to it? The lanterns that the firm used were not all too different from other ones. The lanterns had faces painted on them that gave them a white mouth, white teeth, white eyes and a white nose. What’s so offensive about that? How is this equal to blackface?
In my opinion, this is just bullying the law firm. Of course they meant no offense! NO ONE INTENDS OFFENSE WHEN PUTTING UP DECORATIONS! It’d be like saying a display of the birth of Jesus was racist because the characters have brown skin and Muslims could be offended (although there are other “arguments” people make about taking down such decorations). It’s utterly ridiculous and the only person here that is in any way offensive is the NAACP director.
The fact that he can only see things through the lens of skin color tells me race is all that is in his mind. And the fact that he would push the law firm and the retail giant to pull the “racist” lanterns off their porch and shelves respectively tells me the guy is just a bully. How exactly is this necessary? Who does it offend? Why does it offend? Because it’s black? PLENTY OF THINGS ARE BLACK TOO!
The very computer monitor I’m typing on is black. Is that racist? My phone is black. Does that make it racist and make me racist for having it? Or is it only racist if I put a face on it? If I put a face on my phone, does that make me racist? Is a black cat racist? Because it’s both black and has a face on it.
So then why would A BLACK JACK-O’-LANTERN BE CONSIDERED RACIST?!
That’s really a rhetorical question. We know precisely why it’s considered racist. Not because it fundamentally is racist but because people want to flex some social muscle and bully others into submission.
The NAACP is, unsurprisingly, full of Leftists. Leftists, in case one can’t tell, are massive bullies. I don’t think I have to make much of a case as to why they are. My entire website highlights time after time after time and case after case after case of Leftists being bullies in some way or another. Whether it’s bullying Trump, bullying celebrities, bullying regular people, bullying libraries, bullying businesses, bullying the law-abiding citizens, just about their entire ethos surrounds the tactic of bullying.
It’s a means to an end and it’s disgusting. And it’s totally insincere too. Let’s not forget that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam GOT CAUGHT WEARING BLACK FACE IN A COLLEGE PICTURE and is still governor of Virginia. Let’s not forget that Canadian PM Justin Trudeau got caught in black face THREE DIFFERENT TIMES and he recently won re-election as PM.
What this tells us is that it’s okay to be racist, to wear blackface, to offend people, so long as you are 1) a Democrat/liberal/Leftist and 2) apologize, even if you do not mean it in the least.
No one can sincerely argue that the law firm or the retail giant intended any offense when putting up or selling the black-O’-lanterns. But still, they catch fire for it. And yet, Northam and Trudeau have both worn blackface, which I would argue is FAR more offensive than a black Jack-O’-Lantern, and they do not get punished whatsoever, in fact, only get rewarded for it, as is the case for Trudeau.
Racism means nothing if consequences aren’t equally shared. If the law firm and Bed Bath & Beyond are punished for the black lanterns, why aren’t actual people who intentionally wore blackface? If it’s okay for the racist liberals to do it, it’s okay for EVERYONE to do it (and let’s not even get into the whole “lynching” fiasco, which is another example of Leftist hypocrisy, given even they have used the word which they claim is offensive, but actually is not).
Every time someone is accused of racism, while at one time was a heavy charge, it means absolutely nothing anymore. When someone is accused of being a Nazi, while that was a serious charge against someone in the past, it means absolutely nothing any more (unless they actually are a Nazi, of course).
These words have lost all meaning due to overuse. Of course, for businesses who risk profits, they will bend the knee to these Leftist bullies and do whatever they want so as to avoid unnecessary conflict. But for me, when someone is accused of being a racist, that means absolutely nothing to me (again, unless they actually were being racist).
Trump has been called a racist since the beginning of his campaign and there isn’t a single time when he has proven or even slightly suggested that he was racist. The charge itself holds no value anymore, which is why some Democrat candidates have insisted on saying something “stronger” than just calling people racist.
The fact that that is even being discussed is proof that what I say is true. They wouldn’t need to come up with a stronger charge than “racist” if the charge of “racism” was in any way as effective as it once was.
But to reiterate my original point, the black Jack-O’-Lanterns are NOT ACTUALLY RACIST! Certainly, not to anyone who has any sense of reason or logic or even a remotely thick skin.
“Be strong and courageous. Do not fear or be in dread of them, for it is the Lord your God who goes with you. He will not leave you or forsake you.”
Following the two shootings that occurred over the weekend, President Donald Trump issued a televised statement from the White House condemning white supremacy, racism and hatred that likely fueled the shootings to take place, something the Left had been demanding Trump do following the tragedies. However, having done so, the Left is ticked off that he did, insists he is insincere and continues to spread the lie that Donald Trump is a racist white supremacist who enables people like the shooters (who both held Leftist beliefs) to commit those kinds of heinous acts.
But for a brief period of time, the New York Times actually acted like a news organization and planned to deliver a story surrounding the event in a relatively unbiased manner. Their original headline was: “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.”
I will share a few of the statements the President made shortly, but I would have to say that that is an apt summation of what was said. President Trump fully condemned the shooters, as well as the white supremacy ideology that likely fueled at least one of them. However, this unbiased headline was too “far-right” and too unbiased for the ever-so tolerant and not-at-all full of crap Leftists who are still subscribed to the paper.
Nate Silver from FiveThirtyEight, a notable far-Left source, tweeted: “Tomorrow’s NYT print edition. Not sure ‘TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM’ is how I would have framed the story.”
Him being a Leftist, that doesn’t surprise me. Neither does it surprise me that 2020 Dem hopefuls also announced their frustrations over the truthful headline.
Cory Booker tweeted: “Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do.”
Kirsten Gillibrand tweeted: “That’s not what happened.”
Allow me to briefly address the two failures. First, let’s start with what Not So Smarticus said, “Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do.”
Am I the only one getting 1984 vibes here? Cause to me, it sounds like a politician is shaming the publication for reporting the truth and insists that people’s lives are in danger as a result of it. Because, you see, the truth is dangerous. When people find the truth, they stop believing the lies. The lies that Donald Trump is a racist and a white supremacist. The lies that Donald Trump colluded with Russia. The lies that Republicans have blood on their hands when tragedies like these happen. And to me, it looks like Cory Booker is attempting to channel his inner Joseph Goebbels: “Let me control the media and I will turn any nation into a herd of pigs.”
He doesn’t want the media to report on the truth because that has consequences dire to his agenda – to the Leftist agenda. Lives are not put into danger because the New York Times’ original headline featured objectivity and truth. Lives are not put into danger because the headline, for once, featured a Trump who offers unity (which he had been for years, but the MSM never reported on it, likely because of crap like this). But in the mind of a Leftist, Trump is Hitler (who was also an extreme Leftist, but no one will care to admit that on the Left) and as a result, to give him any sort of objectivity is the same as allowing him to start a Holocaust.
This is why they say ICE detention centers are “concentration camps”. Having lived their lives in the constant toxic bullcrap they spew, they started to believe it. They truly believe that Donald Trump is in any way comparable to Hitler, so to portray him objectively in any way would be the equivalent of giving Hitler a pass, in their minds.
This is how utterly corrupt these people are, and the reason I say that there is truly no longer freedom of the press. Constitutionally, and officially, there is freedom of the press as it is detailed in the First Amendment. But when news organizations are hit with so much blowback not only from other “journalists” but also politicians and people threatening to unsubscribe, the organizations under fire for reporting the truth no longer have the right to report freely.
So, they changed the headline to: “Assailing Hate But Not Guns.” Because of course the focus has to be on the guns. The two shooters held Left-wing ideologies. That can’t be mentioned whatsoever. The Left is lucky one of them was a white supremacist, because otherwise, they would have to avoid talking about motive, for the most part. They certainly avoid the Dayton shooter, who had very openly-Leftist social media activity before the shooting.
Now, let’s discuss what Kirsten Gillibrand thought of the original headline. To repeat, she tweeted: “That’s not what happened.”
Oh, isn’t it? I understand Leftists tend to live in their own world, but please at least try to provide evidence to back up your claims. You claim that Trump didn’t call for unity against racism? Well, what’s this then?:
“Together, we lock arms to shoulder the grief. We ask God in Heaven to ease the anguish of those who suffer. And we vow to act with urgent resolve… The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online, consumed by racist hate. In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America. Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart and devours the soul… In the two decades since Columbine, our nation has watched with rising horror and dread as one mass shooting has followed another, over and over again, decade after decade. We cannot allow ourselves to feel powerless. We can and will stop this evil contagion. In that task, we must honor the sacred memory of those we have lost, by acting as one people. Open wounds cannot heal if we are divided. We must seek real bipartisan solutions – we have to do that, in a bipartisan manner – that will truly make America safer and better for all.”
This is only a portion of what the President said recently, followed by similar remarks on social media. Exactly which part of this is him not trying to unite our country against racism? The part where we “lock arms to shoulder the grief”? The part where we “vow to act with urgent resolve”? The part where “our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy”? The part where we must act “as one people”? The part where our “wounds cannot heal if we are divided”? Or the part where “we must seek real bipartisan solutions… in a bipartisan manner… that will truly make America safer and better for all”?
Exactly how is the headline: “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” not a factual and accurate summation of what the President said? No, the President didn’t assail against guns because, as I said in my previous article covering these tragedies, that wouldn’t solve anything because guns are not the root cause of shootings. But in what way is the original headline in any way dangerous or fictitious? In the Left’s mind, any story that does not portray Trump as the literal devil is dangerous to their narratives and rhetoric and their opportunity to defeat him at any capacity. That’s the Left’s current goal: defeat Donald Trump at any cost.
Evidently, that comes even at the cost of a free press, but we already knew journalism was long dead. This just further proves that to be true.
“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Back in late 2018, a story came out about a Portland State University professor and his two colleagues (above) writing “hoax” research papers, about 20 of them, sending them to be peer-reviewed, edited and published, and successfully published 7 of those hoax papers.
The hoax papers discussed insane topics such as rape culture in dog parks, fat bodybuilding, and toxic masculinity in “breastaurants” like Hooters, as well as others, and were ultimately reviewed and published by esteemed academic journals despite a distinct lack of facts to support the arguments being made.
The three professors, Peter Boghossian, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay referred to their little hoax project as an analysis of “grievance studies”, suspecting that some fields in academia have focused more on “ideologically-motivated scholarship” rather than the pursuit of scientific fact or truth.
In an essay in which the trio announced this project, they wrote: “Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview. This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of this problem.”
The three professors received worldwide support for their work to expose the problems of academic research. Campus Reform sent Mark McLellan, PSU’s vice president for research and graduate studies, a public records request for his e-mails that had to do with what Boghossian did. Campus Reform gathered thousands of e-mails from all over the world addressed to McLellan in support of Boghossian.
One notable e-mail came from Alan Sokal, a physicist teaching at New York University who had actually done something similar to Boghossian back in 1996 with an article titled: “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” To the normal person, what Sokal wrote might seem confusing but might be taken as the truth, given it’s an academic paper. But to any scientist or mathematician that knows his stuff, they’d be able to tell that what is in the paper is utter garbage. Sokal himself said: “Throughout the article, I employ scientific and mathematical concepts in ways that few scientists or mathematicians could possibly take seriously… In sum, I intentionally wrote the article so that any competent physicist or mathematician (or undergraduate physics or math major) would realize that it is a spoof. Evidently, the editors of Social Text felt comfortable publishing an article on quantum physics without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject.”
But despite the honestly good work the three professors did, at the very least Professor Boghossian is likely to be punished, as he was placed under investigation and was found guilty of research misconduct by the Internal Review Board. Boghossian was accused, and later found guilty of, fabricating data and studying human subjects, specifically the journal editors, without their consent. While technically that is what he did, the guilty verdict is ridiculous. The fabrication of data served entirely to prove a point, a point that was further proven not only by the actual publishing of this data, but by the response from the IRB and PSU, that academic journals hold the responsibility of sticking faithfully to data and to the facts, despite of the topic being discussed, but many do not actually do that.
The fact that Boghossian will be punished for EXPOSING the fact that academic journals don’t do their due diligence in verifying the claims being made in the articles shows us just how truly rotten the system is. If the article says something supposedly “woke”, such as perpetuating a “rape culture” in DOGS VISITING DOG PARKS IN PORTLAND, then whatever is used to “prove” the thesis is irrelevant. Much in the same way as a paper that claims illegal immigrants commit less crimes than American citizens, if the thesis is “woke” and SJW-friendly, then facts be damned. This is the point professors were trying to prove, that ideologically-motivated papers, even if entirely fictitious, will be approved and spread as “truth”, goes entirely against what scientists, real scientists, are trying to do: find and discuss what is actually TRUE.
For example, let’s take a look at an article from Breitbart about a high school kid in Scotland being suspended for saying that there are only two genders. Despite the fact that science is behind the kid, the 17-year-old was suspended for saying something that is not “inclusive” aka something that is not part of the “right-think” of the British school system. The teacher and the entire school board do a disservice to society not only by banning a dissenting thought, but also perpetuating the idea that there are more than two genders when the truth and facts completely disagree with that.
Whether someone says they are a different gender from what they are is entirely up to them. If a man wants to claim he is a woman, fine. But let’s not distort what science says about genders. Let’s not throw away the fact that our chromosomes dictate what gender we are. For the thousandth time, an XY set of chromosomes makes someone a male and an XX set of chromosomes makes someone a female. There is no third option, there is no destroying this fact. To challenge this proven scientific concept is to challenge reality and truth itself, all in the vein effort to be more “inclusive”. No one benefits from destroying science.
The three professors wanted to stick to the idea that science is the pursuit of truth about different things in our universe (which is why I so often say that science and faith are not mutually exclusive but often work together, as we study the creation) and challenged the unscientific views some, if not most people within academic journals hold with regard to what is truth.
In essence, those in academic journals take a Pontius Pilate sort of stance of: “what is truth?” They believe truth is subjective when it is, in fact, objective and as such, see actual science as an enemy while pretending to be in favor of “science” that “shows” them to be right about things like climate change (of course, they are entirely wrong there too) and the theory of evolution (which they dropped the “theory” part and pass it off as fact, an entirely unscientific thing to do).
While the professors ought to be commended for their work to IMPROVE the academic journals’ research and publishing standards to not pass off what is essentially SJW-feeding crap as truth, they are more likely to be punished for it than anything else.
The reason for which is likely not simply the ones being given to us: that they gave false data, conducted research on people who did not consent to it (which is the point of a project to expose something like this). The reason is likely so that academic research papers can continue to be useful for Leftists who use it as “arguments” against people who actually have science and reason behind them. It’s no secret that academia belongs to the Left. As such, they get to control what kind of “information” is published in academia, to certain extents. Rogue professors that expose the heavily-biased nature of at least some people within the academic journals are counterintuitive to the purpose of academic journals. So those professors must be punished for exposing the truth in an effort to keep these things in the dark in the future.
“For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
This is the second time in a week that I write about something like this, but it is always important to make note when it happens.
Recently, former tennis player and openly gay activist Martina Navratilova wrote an op-ed for the Sunday Times of London where she voiced her concern regarding transgender women (men who turn female) playing against biological women and having a natural advantage as a result.
“To put the argument at its most basic: a man can decide to be female, take hormones if required by whatever sporting organization is concerned, win everything in sight and perhaps earn a small fortune, and then reverse his decision and go back to making babies if he so desires… It’s insane and it’s cheating. I am happy to address a transgender woman in whatever form she prefers, but I would not be happy to compete against her. It would not be fair.”
Seems fairly reasonable, wouldn’t you think? She’s not outright dropping any support for transgenders, but she is voicing her concern regarding physically superior transwomen competing against biological women and having a natural advantage every time out.
But instead of being willing to have a conversation with her, who very much is still adamant about supporting LGBT “rights”, the LGBT-friendly sports group Athlete Ally completely dropped her as an ambassador and from the group altogether.
Athlete Ally released a statement regarding Navralitova’s piece:
“Athlete Ally unequivocally stands on the side of trans athletes and their right to access and compete in sport free from discrimination. Martina Navratilova’s recent comments on trans athletes are transphobic, based on a false understanding of science and data, and perpetuate dangerous myths that lead to the ongoing targeting of trans people through discriminatory laws, hateful stereotypes and disproportionate violence… As an organization dedicated to addressing root causes of homophobia and transphobia in and through sport, we will only affiliate with those committed to the same goal, and not those who further misinformation or discrimination in any way.”
Boy, can I have a lot of fun with this one.
First of all, I find it hilarious that they try and call Navralitova “transphobic” for voicing her opinion regarding this issue. It’s a darn cliché at this point. Everyone who disagrees with me in this day and age can only be a Nazi, or a fascist, or a racist, or a homophobe or a transphobe or a veganphobe (just watch, that will be a thing soon enough) or whatever negative accusation one can come up with.
Anyone who disagrees with me is literally Hitler and there’s no room for discussion, so such opinion existing must be eliminated and all affiliations with that person must be ended and that person be made to suffer as a consequence of their reasonable actions or thoughts.
Second, don’t b.s. me about what science and data says. Grab any 5th grade biology book, look into DNA and chromosomes and you will see what science has to say about gender “stereotypes”. The fact of the matter is, as I stated in my previous article surrounding a similar topic, men are physically superior to women on average.
On an individual case, yes, sometimes a woman beats a man in a contest of physicality. Which is why, whenever anyone says “well, if trans people playing against women is cheating, why aren’t they winning all the time?” I will say just that: sometimes, a woman can best a man in a physical event.
For example, I myself used to sort of play tennis when I was younger. The very first somewhat legitimate game I ever had (in which I was neither playing against my parents or against my coach) was against a girl that was maybe a couple of years younger than me. I was maybe ten while she was likely no older than 9 herself, around 7 or 8.
I lost… badly. That doesn’t mean she was physically superior to me in any way. While I was a young kid, I undoubtedly was still physically stronger than her. However, multiple factors can contribute to such a loss.
Primarily, that was my first “real” game against someone while she herself had been playing for longer (at least that’s what my coach told me after I lost and I legit started to cry because I was 10 and just lost to a younger girl, which hurt my pride). The girl was more experienced than me and that helped her out.
So there most certainly can be cases of women beating men in a physical competition. But the fact remains that men are physically superior to women on average.
Going back to my NBA/WNBA comparison, most halfway decent players in the NBA would likely dominate in the WNBA, while not one WNBA player would likely do that well against NBA players.
One of the biggest challenges for college players joining the NBA is getting their bodies “NBA ready”. There’s a major difference between college basketball and NBA basketball that goes beyond the distance of the three-point line. NBA players are older, bigger, stronger and more physically dominant than college players. Look at pictures of a rookie LeBron James, Kevin Durant or Giannis Antetokounmpo compared to today and you will see they did not have NBA ready bodies back then, but most certainly do now.
So that’s a problem MEN face. How much more likely would a female athlete be able to compete against NBA players in anything regarding physicality?
Whatever “science” and “data” these people are using are anything but scientific. It’s propaganda made to fit their erroneous narrative that totally betrays science while pretending to be science. Like the media claiming to be objective, no one with a brain buys that men are not physically superior to women on average.
The third and final thing I want to talk about regarding these idiots’ decision to drop one of their best allies in the world of sports for the heinous crime of disagreeing about something is that I want to highlight the sort of self-destructive behavior that must accompany their self-destructive ideology.
It’s no secret that I think the Leftist ideology, socialist ideology, is self-destructive. Not only does it not work anywhere it’s tried, but it fails miserably, creating tons of human suffering, and for the literally idiotic belief from Karl Marx that you can go from 100% government control of pretty much everything to zero need for any government at all and a people fully capable of ruling themselves without a government and laws to protect them as Marx believed the last phase of communist evolution would be.
It’s ludicrous and self-destructive. But not only is the ideology self-destructive, so are the people that push for it.
Martina Navratilova has been an advocate for LGBT rights for ages, particularly in the age of Reagan and AIDS when people thought the disease was a gay-only disease. In many ways, she was a pioneer for gay people, both within and without the world of sports. And all it takes to eliminate her work for these people is one differing opinion regarding transgenderism and sports.
All it took was not being “woke” enough for this group to drop her completely. Anything to the right of Marx, even within lifelong Democrats and Leftist allies, simply cannot be allowed to remain and they cannot allow themselves to associate with such people.
Today, being a feminist can cause ire on the Left if you don’t count transwomen as actual women.
They eliminate their own in an effort to keep moving farther and farther to the left if their own aren’t “woke” enough.
I imagine Martina must feel pretty jaded for the current treatment she’s receiving. I doubt she ever thought the same people she helped throughout her life and career would betray her like this.
But this further goes to show the kind of mentality of the Left: agree with us all the time or be made to suffer.
No room for independent thought whatsoever. And definitely no room for independent thought that is backed up by reason, logic and outright facts.
Here’s hoping Martina Navratilova opens her eyes to the sort of monster that the Left is and opens her eyes to Christ as well that she might believe in Him and be saved.
“So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, ‘If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.’”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
I have no idea just how this actually started, but the Left seemingly is beginning to be convinced that making the “OK” sign is somehow a new symbol equal to the Nazi salute.
I think it may have started around the Kavanaugh hearings, but it’s really stupid and, if I’m honest, will probably be legitimately seen as a hate symbol in the very near future, but not before it is made fun of for a long while.
Now, allow me to give you some context for the reason for me to be writing about this at all.
Recently, soulless human being and c-list comedienne Kathy Griffin posted a picture on Twitter (picture above) which she later deleted for reasons that will soon be made clear, doubling down on her attacks on Covington Catholic high school students.
Instead of admitting fault and apologizing for demanding people dox these kids, she chooses to double down and tries to continue smearing these kids, or at least anyone who attends that school, as racists.
The picture she showed is the one above, where a bunch of Covington Catholic basketball players are seemingly making the “ok” sign.
Kathy Griffin, in all her glorious ignorance, took that to be an actual “ok” sign, which the Left is trying to make into a hate symbol, as I stated previously.
Now, there are two major points I want to make regarding this symbol.
Point number one: it’s not an “ok” symbol in the context of basketball. It’s a symbol for a successful three-pointer. Just about everyone who plays basketball makes this symbol.
Look at anyone from the Golden State Warriors, who time and time again refuse to visit the White House because they are convinced in the Leftist narrative that Trump’s racist. The Warriors are among the best three-point shooting teams in the league and have Stephen Curry (picture below), who is more-than-likely going to be remembered as the best three-point shooter in NBA history by the end of his career.
Whenever someone makes a three, that player or his teammates will make that same exact symbol. Does that mean that the Warriors are Nazis? Or how about when LeBron James, one of the most notorious Trump-haters in basketball makes that symbol? Is he a Nazi? How about Dwyane Wade, James Harden, Anthony Davis, Allen Iverson, Carmelo Anthony, Michael Jordan?
LITERALLY ALL OF THEM MAKE OR HAVE MADE THAT SIGN!
But since Kathy Griffin is just that ignorant, she sees this symbol that her friends in Hellywood are trying to equate to a Nazi salute and assumes these kids are racists for no other reason than they are white and are from a Catholic school. And once she realizes the colossally dumb mistake she made, she opted to delete the tweet, but without apologizing for making assertions that these kids are racists.
And it’s not just Kathy Griffin that is showing that level of ignorance. Other people on Twitter looked at that picture and thought the exact same thing.
Point number two: even if that wasn’t the symbol for a three-pointer, WHY IS THE “OK” SYMBOL CONSIDERED THE SAME AS A NAZI SALUTE BY THESE NUT-JOBS!?
It literally makes no sense how making that hand gesture is beginning to be considered a racial affront to people.
Again, I don’t quite know how it got started. All I know is that this is a relatively new thing and it’s insanely ridiculous. Ten years ago, if you said that the “ok” symbol would be considered racist, people would probably laugh at you. I was going to say the same for five years ago, but with how much else is considered racist and it’s been this way for some time, I think people could’ve legitimately believed that symbol could eventually be considered racist. Soon enough, white people simply existing will be considered racist by these nut-bags.
In any case, something else I want to focus on is just how heartless and actually deranged these people are.
Take Kathy Griffin as our prime example here. Aside from picturing herself holding a makeshift decapitated head of Donald Trump, for which she has apologized and doubled down multiple times on and off, she is now doubling down on her hatred for kids who were maligned by a bloodthirsty media.
And do you want to know what else is kind of sad about her? She isn’t this crazy only against conservatives.
She might actually be a deranged person. According to The Wrap, Griffin and her 18-year-younger boyfriend named Randy Bick were sued by their neighbors last summer for invasion of privacy.
The Wrap reported last July: “According to the suit, Griffin and Bick ‘undertook a campaign of secret electronic surveillance and recording almost immediately after taking up residence,’ first with their iPhones, then with an audio-video surveillance system that was pointed directly into the Mezgers’ (their neighbors) backyard ‘in order to spy on and record them.’ The suit says that Griffin and Bick ‘illegally captured hundreds of hours of audio and video from the Mezgers’ back yard’ and that the Mezgers only learned about it in September 2017, months after the secret recordings began, when Griffin and Bick leaked one of the recordings to the media.”
This, combined with the fact that she literally asked for these kids’ names, indicates that you can hardly tell me this woman is of any sound mind.
Another prime example of outright deranged behavior is actor Jim Carrey.
We all know and maybe have even seen at least some of his outright vomit-inducing paintings depicting Trump and other conservatives as demons and other things. Regarding the Catholic Covington kids, the guy, once again showing his sick artistic skill (not a good “sick”), showed Nick Sandmann as a cocky kid with a mocking smug on his face wearing a red hat that says “hate again” and the other kids appearing malicious when nothing of the sort was shown to be the case in the full story of the event.
In debuting his painting, the guy called the kids “baby snakes”, yet again showing his deranged nature.
By the way, that painting and subsequent tweet was released on January 22nd, so the full story had already been made available at that point in time.
Jim Carrey, being an outright psychopath, doesn’t care and continues with the now-debunked narrative that these kids are the bad guys.
But that’s just these sickos following a trend. Even after the kids were shown to have been victimized by the Black Hebrew Israelites and Nathan Phillips, who outright slandered them, they are still seen as the bad guys by a sick and twisted Left.
Some have apologized, or at least semi-apologized, but many refuse to apologize and choose to double down on this hatred against the kids, even going so far as to signify that anyone making the “ok” symbol is a Nazi.
This is how sick and twisted many on the Left are. It’s reprehensible what the media did to these kids, but the fact that we know the full and actual story, have the evidence to see that the kids are the victims, and still some people choose to villainize them and their school shows the height of their stupidity, hatred and maybe even evil.
These kids, by virtue of being white, Christians and Trump-supporters, even when proven to be the victims of hate, are seen by a hateful political group of people as the aggressors and bad guys.
Kathy Griffin, Jim Carrey, and anyone who continues to spread the bullcrap that these kids are the villains are truly disgusting people.
And that pains me to say for multiple reasons: 1) that there are people this evil and depraved in general and 2) that Jim Carrey, an actor whom I used to really like in the past, is part of this depraved action.
These people truly need more help than any psychiatrist could possibly provide them. Their problem isn’t simply a twisted mind, but an evil heart.
How else can you explain Kathy Griffin posing with a paper-mache figure of what is supposed to be Donald Trump’s decapitated head? How else can you explain Jim Carrey spending tons of time and money painting portraits that are as disgusting as they are?
How else can you explain the effort by the Left to try and brand the “ok” sign as a Nazi symbol? It’s almost Orwellian what these people are trying to depict as “wrong”. Even the simple act of smiling in an uncomfortable situation is seen as a sign of aggression by the Left.
These depraved people, I am beginning to think, are honestly demon-possessed. Not like in the horror movies where little girls are possessed by a demon that causes them to float, turn their heads 180 degrees, spit vomit bile, etc. but actual depraved actions that one cannot believe a human being could be capable of doing and can only believe a demon would be capable of doing.
We all need Jesus, but if there are any people I can point to as truly and unequivocally needing Jesus, it’s these people.
People like Kathy Griffin, Jim Carrey, (and the evil s.o.b.’s that passed a bill in New York allowing for abortion to happen even up to birth and celebrate that as some sort of achievement and not a moment of shame) all truly need Jesus in their lives.
Of course, whether they receive Him or not is an entirely different matter, but the need still exists.
I am someone who believes in predestination (and there is plenty in the Bible that backs up that belief), so I am fully aware that there will be people who are simply not meant to be saved. However, that need for Jesus, for God, exists within every single one of us. We all need Him, whether or not we receive Him or are predestined to receive Him.
That is why I so often say that people on the Left need Jesus. That need is always there, no matter what.
I can only hope that at least some of these people come to Christ.
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make straight your paths.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...