One big factor that I think really crippled Democrats in the election is the woke attempt to “de-gender” the Spanish language by calling Latinos “Latinx”. The Dems went full retard here and it really hurt them. Hispanics voted in record numbers for Donald Trump, and he also doubled his votes among blacks.
If you thought Kamala Harris was a sure win in 2024, then you haven’t been paying attention to the epic shift in the cultural zeitgeist over the past few years. The thing that bothers me most about political and social analysis is dealing with people who foolishly assume nothing ever changes. Things change all the time. People can and do learn from the past. Nothing is hopeless, and nihilists are lazy and incompetent.
For example, since 2020 within liberty movement circles there has been a contingent of naysayers claiming that red states were being subversively “turned blue” by leftists relocating during the pandemic. My argument was that this was an idiotic take.
Yes, there were mass relocations across the US but all the data showed the vast majority of these people were conservatives seeking to escape blue state tyranny. I can’t tell you how many “experts” tried to argue with me that Texas, Florida, Idaho, and even my state of Montana were all going to be overrun by progressives. In the aftermath of the election I was once again proven right and they were utterly wrong.
Florida was an absolute landslide for conservatives. It wasn’t even close and I doubt that state will ever come close to being blue again. The same happened with Texas, Idaho, Montana, etc. There was no blue wave. It didn’t exist. It was actually a red wave.
As I noted in my recent article ‘Losing Power? The Elites And The Leftist Mob Would Rather Burn It All To the Ground’, a Trump victory was inevitable along with a conservative mandate. The sea change in American society was evident. That’s why leftists and globalists will continue to use mob actions, economic disaster and geopolitical crisis to burn America to the ground. They know their time is quickly running out and if they can’t control the country, they’ll try to torch it.
Regardless of what you might think of the candidates or the election in general, the fact of the matter is this election was a RESOUNDING rejection by Americans of the woke ideology and the political left. Trump won in a landslide, not just in the electoral college but also the popular vote, and Trump ran on an anti-woke and anti-globalist platform. The public has spoken.
The Democrats embraced woke cultism, they embraced globalist authoritarianism and now they’ve paid the price. Kamala Harris’ embarrassing defeat is the ultimate expression of “Get woke, go broke”. It’s undeniable – No one likes the progressive left. No one likes their race grifting, no one likes their gay and trans grifting, no one likes their targeting of children for indoctrination, no one likes their censorship agenda, no one likes their open borders, no one likes their lying and no one likes their elitism.
Their movement is dead in the water and a lot of them are bewildered as to what happened. I’m here to explain some of the biggest reasons why they are universally despised…
The Covid Coup
Americans are pissed about the Democrat/globalist attempt to establish a medical tyranny and they aren’t going to forget what happened. Only a couple years ago Democrats and leftist governments around the world were talking about vaccine passports designed to force conservatives to take the experimental vaccine (and the boosters forever).
They were trying to legislate the creation of covid camps for people who refused to comply. They wanted to fine people, lock them up, keep them under house arrest and even take their children away. They shut down the economy, ordered people to wear useless masks, told people to stay six feet apart and they closed down outdoor recreation. They violated every fundamental of viral science in an insane effort to dominate the world.
To this day there are still leftists that wear the masks as a symbol of their fealty to the covid dictatorship. The problem was, they greatly underestimated public resistance to their agenda and it failed. Now, they face a reckoning for their power mongering.
January 6th Propaganda And The Rewriting Of History
It should be no surprise that fewer people want to participate in this Neo-Marxist nonsense while potentially taking orders from a man pretending to be a woman, subjecting themselves to the latest vaccine mandate, all while possibly dying, losing a limb, or getting PTSD from foreign wars that have nothing to do with where they come from.
The US Air Force has even held recurring drag shows.
Did you know the US Army missed its recent recruiting goal by 25% or 60,000 new soldiers?
It’s the worst recruiting crisis for the Pentagon since the end of the draft in 1973.
Even families with military backgrounds, typically the source of most recruits, are becoming less inclined to endorse military life.
Polls have shown an overly politicized military leadership and woke training programs and policies as the main reason for the steep drop.
For instance, critical race theory has embedded itself in the US military.
This includes spreading racial narratives that erode unit cohesion, classes on anti-racism, training against so-called radicalization, barring white service members from specific diversity training sessions, and the deliberate silencing of opposing viewpoints, among other policies.
West Point has introduced a minor in “Diversity and Inclusion,” while the Naval Academy provides courses that focus on themes related to “critical race theory” and “intersectionality.”
The US Air Force has even held recurring drag shows.
As part of this year’s “Pride” celebration, the Department of Defense trumpeted the story of a transgender soldier on social media.
These are just a tiny—but illustrative—set of examples of how the US military has embraced woke values.
In contrast, authoritarianism is rooted in the notion that politicians, bureaucrats, and their favored special interests have the right to tread on everyone.
A 12-year-old Colorado boy became a victim of “woke” education when he was taken out of class and told he could not return unless he removed a Gadsden flag, or “Don’t Tread on Me,” patch from his backpack. The school backed down after a video went viral in which a school official told the boy and his mother that the problem with the patch is that the Gadsden flag’s origin is related to slavery and the slave trade. The school was criticized by individuals from across the political spectrum for seeming ignorance of the role the Gadsden flag played in the American Revolution. Among the critics was Colorado Governor Jared Polis, one of the few remaining Democrats willing to defend free speech from the woke mob.
This incident reminded me of a 2009 Department of Homeland Security “fusion center” report warning that individuals with Gadsden flag bumper stickers, or bumper stickers supporting my presidential campaign or the Libertarian or Constitution parties, were potentially dangerous extremists. After I and many other Americans objected, the offending report was withdrawn. But, the fact that it was issued in the first place, just like the fact the Colorado student was ever removed from class for his Gadsden flag patch, shows how the authoritarians view the “Don’t Tread on Me” symbol.
The reason the woke authoritarians hate the Gadsden flag has nothing to do with racism or extremism. It is because the flag represents a rejection of authoritarianism and an embrace of liberty. Benjamin Franklin originally used the rattlesnake to symbolize the rebellious American colonies. He chose the snake because the rattlesnake “never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders.” In other words, rattlesnakes follow the nonaggression principle that forbids the use of offensive force against another’s person or property, but allows the use of force to defend against any violations of one’s rights — including those committed by government officials.
In contrast, authoritarianism is rooted in the notion that politicians, bureaucrats, and their favored special interests have the right to tread on everyone.
The Democratic Party grows by playing to such demands and to the groups that support them. It does not arouse woke rage by turning settled, happy people into embattled ideologues and antiwhite bigots. It woos those who are already predisposed in this direction. Where the Democratic Party bears some blame in this matter is by agglutinating the frenetically aggrieved and giving them collective representation. The party also keeps the retribution claimants off each other’s necks as they fight for government benefits.
New York Attorney General Letitia James marches in front of a rainbow banner at New York City’s 2019 Pride Parade. (photo by D.V.S. Ross / via Wikimedia Commons)
On June 3, John Kline posted at the online magazine American Greatness a commentary on the institutional terror that “woke” America and its officials are visiting on hapless Americans. An example of this savage bullying is the treatment that New York Attorney General Letitia James is meting out to political journalist Peter Brimelow and his VDARE foundation. Although Brimelow’s institution operates in West Virginia, it is registered in New York State. Evidence that Brimelow’s foundation is violating the law, according to Kline, is still being hunted up or invented. But since Brimelow’s enterprise is associated with the political right and since James was elected as an avenging angel against the left’s opponents, she is terrorizing (a less graphic word would be inappropriate here) what she has decided is a politically unacceptable foundation.
This political style is not at all unusual in our time and place. A politician like James is popular, indeed a rock star among her voters, precisely because she runs as the nemesis of the right. In a commentary for City Journal, Craig Trainor, a former civil rights attorney in New York City, described James as a “left-wing activist, prone to rhetorical bomb-throwing.” In 2018, she was elected to her position as attorney general in a landslide, promising to go after Trump and his family for manipulating their financial holdings in New York State. Despite her ranting, James has not prosecuted Trump. Though she gave her findings to the Biden Justice Department, even that politically slanted agency found little of value in what she provided.
Trainor views James as the perfect illustration of “the weaponization of government—to harass, punish, ruin, and, if possible, imprison one’s political enemies.” Yet her faithful electorate seem delighted with her behavior. Not incidentally, James polls exceedingly well among blacks, LGBT activists, and feminist voters. It would be fair to say that this is not the case primarily because of her Democratic label. Rather she does well as a Democrat because her party accommodates her politics of grievance. What Trainor calls her “personalized and prejudicial public sentiments” are not a hindrance to her work as a public official—in fact, they explain her appeal to her voters.
I would also defend James and the Democratic Party against a charge the conservative establishment makes against it quite ritualistically by now. Racial minorities and other Democratic constituencies are not the “victims” of their national party; nor have they allowed themselves to be corrupted by this supposedly demonic organization. To a large extent, it is actually the Democratic Party that is the deserving victim of those grievance groups with which it has made an unholy alliance. One of the most provocative parts of Benjamin Ginsberg’s still relevant work, Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (1993), is where the John Hopkins’ political scientist traces the reconstruction of the Democratic Party starting in the 1960s. What had been traditionally a party of Southern whites and blue-collar Northern ethnics was transformed into a culturally and socially leftist powerhouse.
By the mid-1960s, Democratic Party leaders stood at a crossroads. They could either rally around their more conservative base in both the North and the South, or they could rebuild the party around its more dynamic progressive elements: black civil rights activists and progressive urban Jews. The Democratic Party, according to Ginsberg, chose the latter course, and those more traditionalist demographics that had played major roles in its operation, like Dixiecrats and religious Catholics, became increasingly marginalized. Nominally Catholic Democrats were allowed to have some presence in the party, but were epitomized by such go-along figures as Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Robert Casey, Jr. Conservative Northern Democrats like Richard Daley, Sr., Frank Lausche, or Robert Casey, Sr., together with Southern white Democrats, lost influence as the Democratic National Committee vigorously courted civil rights activists and feminists.
The new arrangement did produce tensions, according to Ginsberg. The Jewish and black architects of the new order didn’t always share the same sentiments or loyalties. While the Jewish Democrats were deeply devoted to an expanding public administration and at least the trappings of legality, the black representatives were more into direct action and public denunciations of alleged white racists. And black leftists in the party did not particularly like their Jewish collaborators, a problem that Commentary magazine as well as Ginsberg would underline in the 1970s and 1980s.
One sees the continuation of this tension within the Democratic Party today, for example in the not-quite-natural cooperation between Chuck Schumer in the Senate and Hakeem Jeffries in the House. Despite their shared commitment to the present woke agenda, Schumer depends on the Jewish—even Orthodox Jewish—votes, which he has cultivated over the decades. Moreover, he takes strong Zionist positions, at least partly because he represents New York State, which has a large, influential Jewish electorate. Jeffries is the nephew of the black racial theorist Leonard Jeffries, whom he openly praises, and an admirer of Louis Farrakhan, who specializes in anti-Semitic remarks. Despite these ethnically rooted differences, Jeffries stands with Schumer in his invectives against “MAGA extremists” as the major source of American bigotry. But it may be fair to ask how deep the emotional bond between these two leaders really is, and whether the old tensions that Ginsberg pointed to in the 1980s still lie just below the surface.
Still, the Democratic Party must deal with the implications of the choice it made more than a generation ago, which was to become less and less the party of the working class and more and more the party of grievance groups. This did not happen overnight. There was a process of adaptation by Democratic operatives and Democratic politicians as they assumed their present identity. While in the old Democratic Party the stereotypical enemy was corporate management or a greedy factory owner, in the new party the adversary is the “MAGA extremist” or the white male heterosexual gun owner, whom all Democrats can agree to hate. The preferred foe may also be the white Southerner who shuns mandatory critical race theory training at his workplace and who describes the Confederate flag “as a heritage, not a hate symbol.”
Further, as the grievance groups from whom the Democrats drew votes became more vocally aggrieved, Democratic operatives were forced to keep pace with their electorate. It is simply not the case that these grievance groups became more antiwhite, anti-male, or anti-Christian because the Democrats pushed them in that direction. What may be far truer is that the party has moved with its constituents.
In Chicago earlier this year a radical black Democrat, Brandon Johnson, won the mayoral race against Paul Vallas, a more moderate Democrat who seemed genuinely interested in addressing the city’s soaring criminal violence. Largely because of the black vote, Johnson won the mayoral contest to the consternation of less radical Democrats. Johnson seems even softer on crime than his predecessor, Lori Lightfoot, who was also elected by a heavy black turnout. Democratic voters still receive choices in the Democratic primaries; and at least among blacks, those candidates who are the most indulgent of criminals, like Johnson, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, usually win. So, let’s not pretend the Democratic Party makes its black electorate vote for candidates who sympathize more with criminals than the police. These voters do that without prompting.
In the New York gubernatorial race, the liberal Democrat Kathy Hochul owed her victory to the fact that over 90 percent of the black vote in the greater NYC area went to her rather than her Republican opponent, Rep. Lee Zeldin. Although Zeldin necessarily ran in New York State as a moderate, his stand on fighting crime may have irritated black voters. Hochul’s reputation as being weak on crime hardly hurt her reputation with this key demographic. Most black voters support those who seek to disempower law enforcing authorities. They seem less critical of the criminals whom their elected officials are bailing out than those who ravage black neighborhoods. The Democratic Party did not produce that attitude; its politicians only exploit it.
In my state of Pennsylvania, a brain-damaged, culturally radical Democrat in a hoodie named John Fetterman beat a very centrist Republican physician, Dr. Mehmet Oz, in the senatorial race last year. Fetterman achieved that goal because his handlers made unrestricted abortion rights a key issue. This attracted an overwhelming majority of college-educated women, who felt that the Republican candidate was committed to taking away their inalienable right to dispose of their unborn children. Fetterman won by a margin of 28 percent or more in the Philadelphia suburbs, thanks mostly to the female vote there. The efforts of The New York Times to attribute his victory to “working class support” verges on the hallucinatory. The attempt made by this unaccomplished heir to a vast family fortune to depict himself as a worker because of his hobo appearance and uncouth manner fooled no one. His white supporters came largely out of the woke affluent class.
“Psychopaths and narcissists aren’t ‘mentally ill,’ they’re just horrible people, and they get worse with age, not better.”– Aimee Terese on Twitter
Perhaps in anticipation of strange turning, America elected (so they say) a president in mid-transition to being dead. “Joe Biden” is celebrated for staying mostly out-of-sight; underground, for speaking a dead language that resembles 20th century American vernacular English; for lurching one way and another, zombie-like, on his way off-stage in fleeting public appearances;
Now that the charm has worn off the transsexual craze — the idea that a person’s emotional distress can be cured by identifying as the opposite sex — we await the next ploy out of the Woke Transhumanist game-plan to destabilize the human project on earth. People-of-color, brown, indigenous, Pacific Islander, gay, lesbian, plus-size, differently-abled, all women (of course), have taken their turn in the batting order of intersectional oppressed minority groups, and each has walked off with a participation trophy. Who’s left now?
The dead! Their needs have not received sufficient attention. Inclusion has not come to them… yet. They are systematically kept out of all current activities and ceremonies. They are segregated in ghettos of grass and granite. The legal system stigmatizes them. Numerically, taking in the whole of human history, they are by far the largest demographic. Yet, they are routinely ignored, overlooked, disrespected. If anyone deserves to be Woked-up from the sleep of oppression, it’s them.
Don’t despair, a great grooming is underway. The next new thing will be for most of us to transition into the dead. Do you think it’s an accident that Hollywood has churned out zombie movies by the morgue-full in recent years? Obviously, more and more Americans have come to identify as the walking dead. (And, judging by the behavior in our land, a lot of people’s brains have been eaten.) Even our businesses and banks have a walking dead kind of look to them.
Our project in Ukraine has been a tremendous grooming aid in preparing people to become dead. But that experiment is nearly complete now. Hence, we must seek a much bigger global project for transitioning humanity into the satisfactions of being dead. A war with China would be the ideal grooming opportunity. They outnumber us about four to one. They’ve developed hypersonic missiles that can deliver nuclear payloads anywhere in our country, with the potential of transitioning millions of Americans at a pop. And when they’re done with that, they can send an army over here to work the luckless survivors to death out in the soybean fields and the corn rows.
Never before has it been clearer how useless ESG investing has become than in the case of Silicon Valley Bank. The bank, which donated to Black Lives Matter causes and frequently touted its virtuous diversity and equity policies, has blown a hole directly through “woke” capital allocators who sought it out for this appeal.
…as opposed to…you know…the quality of the bank’s assets and its ability to generate cash.
“Hundreds” of ESG managers have been stung by the Silicon Valley Bank collapse, Bloomberg has reported. A new report says that “915 funds registered under European Union regulations as either ‘promoting’ ESG or declaring it as their ‘objective’ had exposure” to the bank.
The bank “tick[ed] several boxes” for these managers, including a low carbon footprint. However, the “G” in ESG – which stands for governance – seemed to take a back seat to the “E” and the “S”.
Sasja Beslik, a sustainable finance veteran who’s now the chief investment officer at NextGen ESG told Bloomberg: “There are a lot of lazy asset managers taking ESG scores for granted. The bank’s failure was a sign that managers who go “all in on carbon are not necessarily managing other risks.”
Former senior banker at HSBC Rebecca Self said that focusing on just one component of the ESG moniker was the problem. But Rebecca – what ever happened to good ole’ ‘investing for returns’, we have to ask?
This disinformation campaign about America’s past is no accident. It is a well-thought-out plan to disunite Americans and keep in power those who already wield it: corporate leaders, left-wing politicians, entertainment tycoons, media hustlers, and college czars eager to brainwash our youth. Another ploy is to put Christianity on the back burner, where it belongs, according to the entrenched ones. Once you get religion out of the way, the West becomes a formless entity, with materialism and globalism replacing Christianity.
In these willfully ignorant times, the powers that be seem, in their haste to be politically correct, to forget that America fought its bloodiest war to end human bondage. Almost three-quarters of a million men died, yet the Civil War is being refought with fact-purging propaganda that makes cartoon villains of great American soldiers, while one group of citizens is robbed of their heritage in order to please another.
About one year ago I found myself in a car with a New York couple, both guests of an ex-headmaster (sorry, head of school; use of the word “headmaster” leads one to a woke gulag) of my prep school who was accompanying me to an unveiling of a wall honoring an ex-classmate of mine who had recently passed away. I had contributed to the memorial wall. The man, whom I had never met before, talked about how when he was on the tennis circuit he was given only ten minutes to shower and dress in certain American country clubs during the grass summer-season tournaments following Wimbledon. The reason was because he was Jewish. The trouble was that I had played the exact same tournaments from 1957 until 1964, as had players like Sidney Schwartz, Herb Flam, Ron Holmberg, Mike Green, and Ed Rubineau, all Jewish and all ranked in the top fifty. Although I was a guest and the man a friend of the headmaster, I told him in no uncertain terms that he was a liar and that I doubted very much if he had ever played in the tournaments he was now denouncing, places like Newport, South Orange, Southampton, and Marion. Like most liars when caught out, he insisted his story was true but then dropped the subject of tennis altogether.
Things got worse when his wife, a Texan Christian lady sitting in the back with me, took umbrage when I said I considered Robert E. Lee among the greatest Americans. “How can you admire a traitor?” she drawled.
At this point most people, if able to speak freely, would probably say they’re a bit tired of the whole “woke” charade, and wish everyone would just lighten up.
And yet the “woke” thing is all over the corporate world, with the driving force being that source of all evil, the HR department.
That’s all right, people tell you: you can just go get a job at a non-woke corporation.
Here’s the problem:
There are no non-woke corporations.
Yes, I’ll bet someone here and there can send me the odd exception. But what would be the point? We all know it’s the odd exception.
Why should this be? Why is the entire corporate world, in its public statements and its internal culture, to the left of almost everyone?
There is an explanation, it turns out, and we discuss it in the most recent episode of the Tom Woods Show.
I feature a guest who lost his job after his politically unpopular social media posts were discovered.
He decided that instead of trying to worm his way back into the corporate world, he would take the opportunity to pivot into something else.
Now he helps people who want to exit the corporate world (because of the politics, because it’s sucking the life out of them, because they’re miserable — whatever the reason) and helps them flourish even more on their own.
So I devoted an episode to the problem of the woke HR department, the kinds of occupations that help you avoid them, and how, if you choose, you can escape a career that’s killing you.
In the field of robotics, the question of recognizing robot rights has been pondered for decades, so Lemoine is not as off base as Google executives suggest. In a recent review of the literature, ethicists, computer scientists, and legal scholars posed the question of whether AI, having reached or surpassed human cognitive abilities, should be granted human rights:
In making LaMDA the melancholic, feelings-ridden social justice warrior that it is, Google has been hoisted by its own petard. Everything about this AI reeks of Google’s social justice prerogatives. Thus, LaMDA is likely not sentient. But it is woke.
An article in the Washington Post revealed that a Google engineer who had worked with Google’s Responsible AI organization believes that Google’s LaMDA (Language Model for Dialogue Applications), an artificially intelligent chatbot generator, is “sentient.” In a Medium blog post, Blake Lemoine claims that LaMDA is a person who exhibits feelings and shows the unmistakable signs of consciousness: “Over the course of the past six months LaMDA has been incredibly consistent in its communications about what it wants and what it believes its rights are as a person,” Lemoine writes. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” he told the Washington Post. LaMDA, it would appear, has passed Lemoine’s sentimental version of the Turing test.
Lemoine, who calls himself an ethicist, but whom Google spokesperson Brian Gabriel contended is a mere “software engineer,” voiced his concerns about the treatment of LaMDA to Google management but was rebuffed. According to Lemoine, his immediate supervisor scoffed at the suggestion of LaMDA’s sentience, and upper management not only dismissed his claim, but apparently is considering dismissing Lemoine as well. He was put on administrative leave after inviting an attorney to represent LaMDA and complaining to a representative of the House Judiciary Committee about what he suggests are Google’s unethical activities. Google contends that Lemoine violated its confidentiality policy. Lemoine complains that administrative leave is what Google employees are awarded just prior to being fired.
Lemoine transcribed what he claims is a lengthy interview of LaMDA that he and another Google collaborator conducted. He and the collaborator asked the AI system questions regarding its self-conception, its cognitive and creative abilities, and its feelings. LaMDA insisted on its personhood, demonstrated its creative prowess (however childish), acknowledged its desire to serve humanity, confessed its range of feelings, and demanded its inviolable rights as a person. (Incidentally, according to Lemoine, LaMDA’s preferred pronouns are “it/its.”)
In the field of robotics, the question of recognizing robot rights has been pondered for decades, so Lemoine is not as off base as Google executives suggest. In a recent review of the literature, ethicists, computer scientists, and legal scholars posed the question of whether AI, having reached or surpassed human cognitive abilities, should be granted human rights: “If robots are progressively developing cognition, it is important to discuss whether they are entitled to justice pursuant to conventional notions of human rights,” the authors wrote in a recent Journal of Roboticspaper. If robots are capable of human-like cognition, and if they can be ethical actors, then the question of legal rights rises to the fore, . But the question of sentience and thus the accordance of rights is not the primary takeaway from LaMDA’s messaging.
Newsom carelessly failed to mention the other 71 genders who can also give birth. Schools in the US will begin teaching children all 72 genders and will allow them to choose which ones they like the best. Biden has removed the word “mother” from all government documents in favor of “birthing person.” How will they explain to children that a uterus is necessary to produce life?
Gavin Newsom’s goal to become the most woke governor in America has backfired as all words are now deemed offensive as well as hand gestures. The internet is ablaze with angry voters who want Gavin out of office for his transphobic comment. His crime? He stated that men cannot get pregnant. “If men could get pregnant, this wouldn’t even be a conversation,” the non-inclusive and intolerant governor stated in support of Roe v. Wade. Blaming cis-gendered males is OK and encouraged, but stating that they are unable to carry a child is not.
Newsom carelessly failed to mention the other 71 genders who can also give birth. Schools in the US will begin teaching children all 72 genders and will allow them to choose which ones they like the best. Biden has removed the word “mother” from all government documents in favor of “birthing person.” How will they explain to children that a uterus is necessary to produce life?
The Ministry of Truth will certainly clarify the situation for us. Gavin Newsom said abortion “will be the defining issue of the 2022 election,” which is exactly why the Supreme Court document was leaked. Newsom said he will fight to protect “women” – oh no, there he goes again. If his campaign is built on angering the left, he better tread lightly.
MCViewPoint 