Liberals then and now…
Tag: hypocrisy
The Masking of the Servant Class: Ugly COVID Images From the Met Gala Are Now Commonplace
From the start of the pandemic, political elites have been repeatedly caught exempting themselves from the restrictive rules they impose on the lives of those over whom they rule. Governors, mayors, ministers and Speakers of the House have been filmed violating their own COVID protocols in order to dine with their closest lobbyist-friends, enjoy a coddled hair styling in chic salons, or unwind after signing new lockdown and quarantine orders by sneaking away for a weekend getaway with the family. The trend became so widespread that ABC News gathered all the examples under the headline “Elected officials slammed for hypocrisy for not following own COVID-19 advice,” while Business Insider in May updated the reporting with this: “14 prominent Democrats stand accused of hypocrisy for ignoring COVID-19 restrictions they’re urging their constituents to obey.”
Most of those transgressions were too flagrant to ignore and thus produced some degree of scandal and resentment for the political officials granting themselves such license. Dominant liberal culture is, if nothing else, fiercely rule-abiding: they get very upset when they see anyone defying decrees from authorities, even if the rule-breaker is the official who promulgated the directives for everyone else. Photos released last November of California Governor Gavin Newsom giggling maskless as he sat with other maskless state health officials celebrating the birthday of a powerful lobbyist — just one month after he told the public to “to keep your mask on in between bites” and while severe state-imposed restrictions were in place regarding leaving one’s home — caused a drop in popularity and helped fueled a recall initiative against him. Newsom and these other officials broke their own rules, and even among liberals who venerate their leaders as celebrities, rule-breaking is frowned upon.
But as is so often the case, the most disturbing aspects of elite behavior are found not in what they have prohibited but rather in what they have decided is permissible. When it comes to mask mandates, it is now commonplace to see two distinct classes of people: those who remain maskless as they are served, and those they employ as their servants who must have their faces covered at all times. Prior to the COVID pandemic, it was difficult to imagine how the enormous chasm between the lives of cultural and political elites and everyone else could be made any larger, yet the pandemic generated a new form of crude cultural segregation: a series of protocols which ensure that maskless elites need not ever cast eyes upon the faces of their servant class.
It’s Time to Acknowledge Anti-White Racism
Recently, Michael Tesler commented on “The Rise of White Identity Politics.” Tesler’s analysis draws on years of research into racialized politics, and he shows convincingly that there is a rise in white identity politics and that this rise is tied to “perceptions of anti-white discrimination.” However, when trying to explain why perceptions of anti-white bias might also be on the rise, his analysis falls flat. Supposedly, it has something to do with Republicans and Donald Trump.
Never once does the author speculate whether “perceptions” of such discrimination might be on the rise because anti-white racism is becoming increasingly common. In other words, perhaps white Americans are accurately perceiving a real phenomenon that is now pervasive in schools and the workplace.
Anti-White Racism, by Definition
As any student of George Orwell knows, no authoritarian government can ever gain complete control unless it commandeers people’s thinking through the manipulation of language. Thus, the dystopian powers in “1984” deliberately turned the meaning of words upside-down in a process known as double-think.
The same process is happening today with the words used to discuss racism. In true Orwellian fashion, Ibram X. Kendi (pictured) insists that the only way to fight racism is to embrace racial discrimination in perpetuity. This “anti-racism,” as he calls it, is as likely to stamp out genuine racism as Orwell’s Ministry of Truth was apt to stamp out falsehoods.
In order to understand what is going on, we must call to mind the traditional definition of racism: the stereotyping, denigrating, marginalizing, or excluding of persons on the basis of race. Look up any definition of racism prior to the racial awokening taking place in the last decade, and it will be: 1) race neutral; and 2) involve some act of free will—relating to word, deed, or belief.
The definition of racism has undergone a radical change in a short time. According to the new eighth-grade curriculum for the Albemarle County (Va.) School District, racism now means: “The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.”
Perhaps the most jarring aspect of this new definition is that it is no longer race-neutral. It is now impossible, by definition, for white people to be the victims of racism. The definition itself constructs a “racial hierarchy” whereby only people of color may be victimized, and only “white people” may marginalize or oppress.
But there is something even more insidious about the new definition. Since the “marginalization and/or oppression of people of color” is no longer committed by word, thought, or deed — but is based instead on an inescapable “socially constructed racial hierarchy” that always “privileges white people” — it means that white people are engaging in racism simply by being white (and hence privileged) within this impersonal system of marginalization and oppression.
A person of color is a victim of racism, by definition. A person identified as white is a racist, by definition. Therefore, not only does the new definition fail to capture the full meaning of racism; the definition is itself an example of the anti-white racism being taught to our children.
‘That’s Correct’ — White House Confirms Joe Biden Hypocrisy on Unvaccinated People Crossing Southern Border
The White House confirmed Friday that President Joe Biden would continue allowing unvaccinated people to cross the border — even while demanding private employers to require vaccines for their workers.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki spoke about the hypocritical rules during an exchange in the daily briefing with Fox News reporter Peter Doocy.
“But it’s a requirement for people at a business with more than a hundred people, and it’s not a requirement for migrants at the southern border,” Doocy noted. “Why?”
“That’s correct,” Psaki replied, quickly moving to the next reporter in the briefing room.
Other White House reporters did not follow up and press Psaki on the administration’s hypocrisy.
For months, the White House has refused to endorse a vaccine mandate for migrants released into the United States, even though the administration is enforcing more onerous mandates on American citizens to get them vaccinated.
MSM Refusing to Fact Check Themselves on Ivermectin Lie Is the Nail in the Coffin of Their Credibility
Everyone reading this article right now has likely experienced or knows someone who has experienced some form of social media censorship. Whether your entirely peaceful post received a “fact check” label, or was “removed for violating community guidelines” or you were unceremoniously silenced for life, Facebook and Twitter censorship affects millions. No matter what degree of big tech censorship you have faced, there is a common theme with all forms of it — it is censorship for thee, not for me.
When an independent news outlet puts out information that is verifiably factual but challenges the establishment narrative on issues, often times, this will trigger a fact check. As a result of the “fact check” that news outlet’s social media reach is diminished, all of their followers receive a notice that they shared false information, and in order to get the “fact check” lifted, that outlet has to appeal the decision and prove to the fact checker that there was never anything reported that was false.
The Free Thought Project knows this process all too well as we have a target on our backs and we have successfully refuted and overturned nearly every fact check from the outlets who respond to our appeals. But even after the fact check is reversed, the damage is done. Even though they were all given a notification that they shared possibly false information, our users never get a notice that the ruling was overturned and our information was vindicated.
Our name is run through the mud on the public stage and when it’s finally cleared, it happens behind closed doors and no one see it.
Quite to the contrary, however, the establishment media can and does frequently publish information that is verifiably false and they face little to no recourse at all — though now, the heavily left-leaning fact checkers are becoming more prone to calling out right wing mainstream media like FOX. But even then, these media goliaths face almost no backlash for putting out false information that has led to mass suffering and even wars.
To prove this point, we need only look at the recent push by many in the leftist establishment media to discredit the drug ivermectin. Whether or not it can help prevent covid is moot but one thing is for certain, blow hards like Rachel Maddow and the rest of the big pharma shills who do nothing but repeat the establishment’s narrative — have zero business telling you what to do with it. They are not doctors or scientists, they are paid actors whose jobs consist of rattling off the day’s talking points to keep their party followers believing an established narrative.
Case in point: “Horse dewormer.” Where are the ‘Fact-Checkers’ on the media referring to Ivermectin as a “live stock drug” or “horse dewormer”? While it is used for these things, it was invented by Japanese scientist Satoshi Omura who won the Nobel Prize for its discovery which saved millions of human lives.
Ivermectin is catalogued by the WHO as an essential medicine and referred to as a “magic bullet” for the global health of humans — not horses.
But these facts matter not to the establishment’s Praetorian guard. The mainstream is allowed to spout false information about medicine that could likely be leading to the needless suffering and even deaths of countless individuals. And they do so with impunity.
Recently, the NBC affiliate in Oklahoma, KFOR, ran a verifiably false news piece about Ivermectin overdoses backing up hospitals.
The ACLU, Prior to COVID, Denounced Mandates and Coercive Measures to Fight Pandemics
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) surprised even many of its harshest critics this week when it strongly defended coercive programs and other mandates from the state in the name of fighting COVID. “Far from compromising them, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties,” its Twitter account announced, adding that “vaccine requirements also safeguard those whose work involves regular exposure to the public.”
If you were surprised to see the ACLU heralding the civil liberties imperatives of “vaccine mandates” and “vaccine requirements” — whereby the government coerces adults to inject medicine into their own bodies that they do not want — the New York Times op-ed which the group promoted, written by two of its senior lawyers, was even more extreme. The article begins with this rhetorical question: “Do vaccine mandates violate civil liberties?” Noting that “some who have refused vaccination claim as much,” the ACLU lawyers say: “we disagree.” The op-ed then examines various civil liberties objections to mandates and state coercion — little things like, you know, bodily autonomy and freedom to choose — and the ACLU officials then invoke one authoritarian cliche after the next (“these rights are not absolute”) to sweep aside such civil liberties concerns:
[W]hen it comes to Covid-19, all considerations point in the same direction. . . . In fact, far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties. . . . .
[Many claim that] vaccines are a justifiable intrusion on autonomy and bodily integrity. That may sound ominous, because we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions. But these rights are not absolute. They do not include the right to inflict harm on others. . . . While vaccine mandates are not always permissible, they rarely run afoul of civil liberties when they involve highly infectious and devastating diseases like Covid-19. . . .
While limited exceptions are necessary, most people can be required to be vaccinated. . . . . Where a vaccine is not medically contraindicated, however, avoiding a deadly threat to the public health typically outweighs personal autonomy and individual freedom.
The op-ed sounds like it was written by an NSA official justifying the need for mass surveillance (yes, fine, your privacy is important but it is not absolute; your privacy rights are outweighed by public safety; we are spying on you for your own good). And the op-ed appropriately ends with this perfect Orwellian flourish: “We care deeply about civil liberties and civil rights for all — which is precisely why we support vaccine mandates.”
What makes the ACLU’s position so remarkable — besides the inherent shock of a civil liberties organization championing state mandates overriding individual choice — is that, very recently, the same group warned of the grave dangers of the very mindset it is now pushing. In 2008, the ACLU published a comprehensive report on pandemics which had one primary purpose: to denounce as dangerous and unnecessary attempts by the state to mandate, coerce, and control in the name of protecting the public from pandemics.
The title of the ACLU report, resurfaced by David Shane, reveals its primary point: “Pandemic Preparedness: The Need for a Public Health – Not a Law Enforcement/National Security – Approach.” To read this report is to feel that one is reading the anti-ACLU — or at least the actual ACLU prior to its Trump-era transformation. From start to finish, it reads as a warning of the perils of precisely the mindset which today’s ACLU is now advocating for COVID.
But science man said…
Hmm…
Elizabeth Warren Parties Maskless With Deb Haaland And Real American Indians
Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren appeared to join real American Indians Saturday when she partied maskless in defiance of New Mexico’s mask mandate at Interior Secretary Deb Haaland’s wedding.
Photos obtained and published by the Washington Free Beacon show Warren with the first American Indian cabinet secretary at a tribal resort in a state where Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has reimposed indoor mask requirements regardless of vaccination status.
“The re-implemented mask requirement applies to all individuals aged 2 and older in all indoor public settings — except when eating or drinking,” Grisham’s office wrote in an Aug. 17 press release with the policy expiration date set for Sept. 15.
A spokesman for the Interior Department wrote in an emailed statement to The Federalist “guests were required to be vaccinated and wear masks,” to be “consistent with CDC guidance and New Mexico’s public health orders.”
But Saturday’s maskless celebrations, illustrated by photos from the Free Beacon, mark the latest episode of Democrats skirting restrictive COVID protocols imposed by their own statist politicians within liberal enclaves of the country.
The Covid Debate Isn’t A Medical Issue, It’s A Social One
If you’ve been told in the last 15 months or so that you and your family are selfish, careless people for going about your business or normal lives without considering how the Covid-19 pandemic is affecting everyone else, you’re not alone.
If you’ve been lectured ad nauseam by news outlets, social media platforms, elected officials, etc. on the importance of following guidelines meant to supposedly protect us, you’re also not alone. There’s just one problem – the Covid policy debate isn’t a medical issue, it’s a social one.
By now, most of us are pretty well aware of Covid’s effects on our lives. Even as variants develop and the so-called science of pandemic expert-turned state-approved celebrity Dr. Anthony Fauci fluctuates, to our mainstream culture, the pandemic is not over. For the average citizen and their family, this news is disheartening, but to the elite, it couldn’t be less of a problem.
Covid Has No Meaningful Effect Whatsoever on the Elite
Since the beginning of the pandemic, it’s been made clear to us tragically common people that for politicians, media figures, celebrities, and the other privileged few, the pandemic is merely an inconvenience more than anything else.
We’re lectured with wagging fingers that not getting vaccinated is the most entitled and self-absorbed action we could possibly conceive. Meanwhile…
Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot says that the city might be “forced” to reinstate some of the nation’s strictest policy measures to curb the spread of possible new variants. Just weeks ago, hundreds of thousands of people descended on Chicago’s Grant Park for the annual Lollapalooza festival. The event, where the price of just a day’s admission is $130, had an estimated 350,000 attendees, yet no city officials expressed concern over the possibility of the event causing a surge in Chicago’s Covid cases (while simultaneously, South Dakota’s Sturgis Motorcycle Rally was quickly labeled a superspreader event and its attendees lambasted).
There’s no basis for moral posturing from elites when their lives haven’t essentially changed.
In the aftermath of the festival, city officials seemed pleased as punch to declare that there was no evidence to suggest that the four-day gathering resulted in an increase in cases. Then, just three days later, it was reported that 200 positive Covid tests had been linked to the festival. While 200 out of an estimated 350,000 isn’t a superspreader, it’s also not nothing.
If you’re asking yourself why these two events with nothing in common could be depicted so differently in the media, take a moment to think about it. Who’s more likely to blindly support progressive policies, swarms of young Millennials and Gen Zers (who can afford to pay thousands of dollars to attend a four-day festival), or a group of bikers who publicly display symbols of American pride?
Hellbound and Down 
You must be logged in to post a comment.