Tag: political correctness

A Translation Guide To Progressive Slavespeak

I propose that we accompany physical detox with a verbal detox: we need to purge our bloated vocabulary of several concepts that are poisoning our understanding of ourselves and the world.

These concepts have been elaborated by people who would describe themselves as “self-aware,” “progressive,” and “liberated,” but they are actually terms more fit for a society of slaves than a society of free persons. Indeed, these concepts, at least as they are typically employed by “progressives,” could be described, without exaggeration, as a species of slavespeak. By this, I simply mean that they are used disingenuously, to rationalise political oppression and slavery.

Let’s name them and shame them, one by one:

  1. Misinformation/disinformation: On its face, this means false or misleading information that could be harmful to citizens. But in slavespeak, while it parades under this apparently innocent meaning, it actually means information that some individuals find disagreeable or inconvenient, and therefore want censored or banished from the public square.
  2. Far right: On its face, this means political positions that border on the insane, the pathological, and the irrational, and have violent and oppressive tendencies, with affinities to Nazism, white supremacism, and other dodgy political movements. In slavespeak, “far right” retains these connotations, but the term is applied arbitrarily to any position that disrupts the official narrative of the political Establishment.
  3. Xenophobia: Xenophobia usually means blanket dislike or prejudice against foreigners. But in slavespeak, xenophobia is applied to anyone who affirms the value of national ties or national identity, defends the idea that immigrants should adapt to the their host culture, or dissents from open border policies.
  4. Hate speech: On its face, this means speech that targets particular groups in society with vitriolic language and insults of various sorts, seeking to portray such groups as intrinsically detestable. In slavespeak, hate speech just means any strongly worded discourse that dares to speak critically of any protected cohort of society or its behaviour or opinions. So heated political discourse is treated as insidious hate speech, especially discourse that threatens the reigning ideology.
  5. Tolerance: On its face, this means a disposition to peacefully put up with people, behaviour, or opinions one finds abhorrent or offensive. In slavespeak, tolerance means the uncritical celebration of every conceivable lifestyle under the sun, the anaesthesisation of one’s critical faculties. So verbally expressing disapproval or criticism toward a way of life, which used to be permitted by freedom of expression, is now condemned as intolerance.

Keep reading

Not Parody: Socialist NYC Mayoral Candidate Lectures Billionaire About How DEI Is Good for Business

As if the Democrat Party — which still hasn’t recovered from the decisive beatdown it suffered at the hands of President Donald Trump in the 2024 election — wasn’t already in a self-inflicted free fall, recent events have only accelerated the decline.

First, Trump’s successful attack on key Iranian nuclear sites, which Democrats frantically continue to downplay (lie about), was a “yuuge,” (as Trump might say) setback for the TDS-riddled among us. 

Then, Zohran Mamdani, the so-called “Democratic Socialist” candidate for mayor of New York City, bested former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in Tuesday’s Democrat primary. Given the demographics of NYC, Mamdani is the hands-down favorite to become the Big Apple’s next mayor. 

Incidentally, I wonder if Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson might soon become the second-worst mayor in America, but I digress.

Anyway, billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman is among those who fear for the future of NYC, often dubbed “the financial center of the world,” given Mamdani’s socialist positions. Ackman posted an extensive missive on X (formerly, Twitter) on Thursday, in which he shared his concerns about Mamdani. Ackman wrote, in part (emphasis, mine):

I awoke this morning gravely concerned about New York City. I thought “What has NYC become that an avowed socialist who has supported defunding the police, whose solution to lowering food prices is city-owned supermarkets, who doesn’t understand that freezing rents will only reduce the supply of housing, who has no experience managing an organization — let alone a city with a $100+ billion budget and a $2 trillion economy — and who believes chants for ‘Globalizing the Intifada’ are acceptable, wins the Democratic Primary.

After speaking with those supported @ZohranKMamdani, I believe that he won the primary largely not due to his policies, but rather because he is a superb politician who ran a remarkable and inspiring campaign. He is intelligent and articulate. He is young and charming, and he successfully played down incriminating @X posts and statements from his past, pitching a joyful campaign of unity.

Isn’t that — the bolded passage — always what wins elections for Democrats? Think about it. 

For example, Barack Obama soared into the presidency on January 20, 2009, after having declared at the 2004 Democratic National Convention: “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America, there is the United States of America.” Yet, when Obama became president, he set about dividing America on class and racial bases for eight years — and then some. 

Keep reading

Rep. Brandon Gill Embarasses Racist ‘DEI Expert’ With a Few Simple Questions During Testy Hearing

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) is fast emerging as one of the brightest young stars of the Republican Party with a series of star-turning performances at congressional hearings.

On Wednesday, he displayed this talent while facing off against a so-called “DEI expert” named Dr. Shaun Harper during a congressional hearing called “Sacrificing Excellence for Ideology: The Real Cost of DEI.”

Harper is a University of Southern California professor who specializes in research focused on racial and gender equity and inclusion, according to his school biography. Naturally, he served as the House Democrats’ witness during the hearing.

Gill immediately sought to expose Harper as a complete fraud by asking a handful of simple questions that someone with his experience should be able to answer without issue.

These included:

Do you believe America should be a color-blind society?

Should race be considered in employment practices?

Which race should be preferred in hiring practices?

Harper failed to properly answer these questions once and was left stumped completely at one point. Due to this, Gill was able to make a complete mockery of the witness and the whole racist practice of DEI.

Keep reading

DOJ Probes University Of California Over Alleged Race And Sex Hiring Quotas

The Justice Department has opened a civil rights investigation into the University of California (UC) system to determine whether its efforts to boost faculty diversity run afoul of federal anti-discrimination laws.

In a June 26 announcement, the Department of Justice (DOJ) stated that it is probing whether the university’s “UC 2030 Capacity Plan” and related campus-level programs constitute a pattern or practice of unlawful employment discrimination based on race and sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“Public employers are bound by federal laws that prohibit racial and other employment discrimination,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who leads the department’s Civil Rights Division. “Institutional directives that use race- and sex-based hiring practices expose employers to legal risk under federal law.”

According to the Justice Department, the UC system’s strategic hiring plan explicitly encourages campuses to measure and increase the number of new hires by race and sex to meet internal diversity targets. Officials described the framework as potentially unlawful, citing provisions in the plan that direct campuses to recruit “diverse” faculty in line with demographic benchmarks.

The UC 2030 Capacity Plan outlines several such goals, including the recruitment of at least 40 percent of its graduate students from its own undergraduate programs and from other minority-serving institutions, including Hispanic-serving institutions, historically black colleges and universities, and tribal colleges and universities. The plan also outlines a goal to hire more than 1,100 new ladder-rank faculty members by 2030—an effort the university says will help diversify its academic workforce, noting that new hires tend to be more diverse than the existing faculty.

“Identity-based hiring is not only wrong—it is illegal,” Dhillon wrote in a post on social media. “Public employers ignore our civil rights laws at their peril.”

A request for comment sent to the University of California by The Epoch Times was not immediately returned.

A university spokesperson told The Hill that the university “is committed to fair and lawful processes in all of our programs and activities, consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws.”

“The University also aims to foster a campus environment where everyone is welcomed and supported. We will work in good faith with the Department of Justice as it conducts its investigation,” the spokesperson said.

Keep reading

RIGHT ON CUE: Any And All Criticism of Zohran Mamdani is Suddenly Islamophobic

Democrats and the media have discovered a new strategy to protect the communist Muslim Zohran Mamdani from criticism. Just kidding, it’s actually an old strategy.

From now on, criticism of Mamdani automatically makes you an Islamophobe.

Where have we seen this strategy used before? Oh yeah! During the eight years of the Obama presidency. As you may recall, all criticism of Obama made you automatically racist.

Same old tired playbook.

From Axios:

MAGA erupts with Islamophobic attacks on Zohran Mamdani

MAGA influencers exploded over Zohran Mamdani’s upset victory in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary, launching a wave of racist and Islamophobic attacks against the 33-year-old democratic socialist.

Why it matters: Mamdani who would be New York’s first Muslim mayor if elected, is of Indian ancestry, was born in Uganda and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2018. He’s quickly becoming a MAGA boogeyman as much for his faith and background as for his left-wing politics.

– Police were already investigating hate-related threats against Mamdani in the days leading up to Tuesday’s election, where he was on track to defeat former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

– Mamdani, whose has drawn criticism for his pro-Palestinian activism, has repeatedly condemned antisemitism and pledged to be a mayor for all New Yorkers.

What they’re saying: “It’s sad in that in one sense it’s unsurprising, and in another, it is still deeply disappointing to see what politics has become in this moment,” Mamdani told MSNBC’s Jen Psaki in an interview Wednesday.

It’s all so predictable.

Keep reading

Insanity: ESPN Announcer Apologizes for Calling America ‘Great’ During WNBA Broadcast

Calling America “great” is apparently a flagrant foul in the WNBA.

ESPN basketball analyst Rebecca Lobo was essentially forced to eat her words after an off-the-cuff comment led to some awkward seconds of silence during a game between the Indiana Fever and the Las Vegas Aces on Sunday.

Not only did she backtrack on calling her own country “great,” she actually apologized afterward. And the public backlash has been scathing.

As Fox News reported, the embarrassing incident occurred when Lobo took issue with a foul call issued by officials in the closing minute of the contest.

You have to see it to believe it.

Keep reading

The Coward’s Bargain: How We Taught A Generation To Live In Fear

Everyone’s Afraid to Speak

Someone our family has known forever recently told my sister that they’ve been reading my Substack and that if they wrote the things I write, people would call them crazy. I got a kick out of that—not because it’s untrue, but because it reveals something darker about where we’ve ended up as a society. Most people are terrified of being themselves in public.

My sister’s response made me laugh: “People do call him crazy. He simply doesn’t care.” The funniest part is that I don’t even write the craziest stuff I research—just the stuff I can back up with sources and/or my own personal observations. I always try to stay rooted in logic, reason and facts though—I’m clear when I’m speculating and when I’m not.

This same guy has sent me dozens of private messages over the last 4 or 5 years challenging me on stuff I share online. I’ll respond with source material or common sense, and then—crickets. He disappears. If I say something he doesn’t want to hear, he vanishes like a child covering his ears. Over the last few years, I’ve been proven right about most of what we’ve argued about, and he’s been wrong. But it doesn’t matter—he’s got the memory of a gnat and the pattern never changes.

But he’d never make that challenge publicly, never risk being seen engaging with my arguments where others might witness the conversation. This kind of private curiosity paired with public silence is everywhere—people will engage with dangerous ideas in private but never risk being associated with them publicly. It’s part of that reflexive “that can’t be true” mindset that shuts down inquiry before it can even begin.

But he’s not alone. We’ve created a culture where wrongthink is policed so aggressively that even successful, powerful people whisper their doubts like they’re confessing crimes.

I was on a hike last year with a very prominent tech VC. He was telling me about his son’s football team—how their practices kept getting disrupted because their usual field on Randall’s Island was now being used to house migrants. He leaned in, almost whispering: “You know, I’m a liberal, but maybe the people complaining about immigration have a point.” Here’s a guy who invests mountains of money into companies that shape the world we live in, and he’s afraid to voice a mild concern about policy in broad daylight. Afraid of his own thoughts.

After I spoke out against vaccine mandates, a coworker told me he totally agreed with my position—but he was angry that I’d said it. When the company didn’t want to take a stand, I told them I would speak as an individual—on my own time, as a private citizen. He was pissed anyway. In fact, he was scolding me about the repercussions to the company. What’s maddening is that this same person had enthusiastically supported the business taking public stands on other, more politically fashionable causes over the years. Apparently, using your corporate voice was noble when it was fashionable. Speaking as a private citizen became dangerous when it wasn’t.

Another person told me they agreed with me but wished they were “more successful like me” so they could afford to speak out. They had “too much to lose.” The preposterousness of this is staggering. Everyone who spoke out during COVID sacrificed—financially, reputationally, socially. I sacrificed plenty myself.

But I’m no victim. Far from it. Since I was a young man, I’ve never measured achievement by finance or status—my benchmark for being a so-called successful person was owning my own time. Ironically, getting myself canceled was actually a springboard to that. For the first time in my life, I felt I’d achieved time ownership. Whatever I’ve achieved came from being raised by loving parents, working hard, and having the spine to follow convictions rationally. Those attributes, coupled with some great fortune, are the reason for whatever success I’ve had—they’re not the reason I can speak now. Maybe this person should do some inward searching about why they’re not more established. Maybe it’s not about status at all. Maybe it’s about integrity.

This is the adult world we’ve built—one where courage is so rare that people mistake it for privilege, where speaking your mind is seen as a luxury only the privileged can afford, rather than a fundamental requirement for actually becoming established.

And this is the world we’re handing to our children.

Keep reading

Belgian Nationalist Given 12 Month Suspended Sentence Because Someone Else Shared a ‘Racist’ Meme

Belgian conservative-nationalist Dries Van Langenhove has again been sentenced on appeal to one year in prison as a suspended sentence for what the judge said were violations of the Racism and Negationism Act.

The sentence stems from racist memes that were not even posted by him, but by members of a group chat he administrated seven years ago.

The sentence was delivered today by the Court of Appeal in Ghent, although Van Langenhove does not accept the sentence, and the case now goes into cassation.

On X, Van Langenhove simply wrote, “Guilty. 12 months in jail. Madness.”

He later clarified upon receipt of the written verdict that the custodial sentence “appears to be a suspended sentence,” which he suspects is “most likely because the prisons in Belgium are literally full of illegal migrants.”

“Most people don’t realize that the end result of such a sentence is the same. One politically incorrect tweet can now put me in jail. One meme sent by someone else in a group chat I am in can turn the suspended sentence into an effective one. This suspended sentence is the gravest form of censorship they could pursue and an effective way to kill activism,” he added.

Keep reading

Washington Teacher Fired for Reading ‘the N-Word’ from a Passage in ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’

In what some believe to be another case of political correctness gone awry, a teacher at West Valley High School in Spokane, Washington, claims he was fired for reading the “n-word” aloud during a class discussion of To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee’s iconic novel about racial injustice in the Jim Crow South.

The former West Valley High School teacher, Matthew Mastronardi, was secretly recorded by a student while reading a passage from the school-approved text that uses the n-word in its historical context.

In a series of posts on X, Mastronardi explained that while he teaches Spanish, he had overheard two students discussing how they were instructed to skip over “the n-word” while reading the novel in their English class.

Mastronardi wrote, “I was astonished and expressed disagreement, saying, ‘That’s silly; it undermines the book’s historical context and disrespects the author’s intent to use accurate language.’ A girl asked me in front of the class, ‘Would you read the word?’ I replied, ‘Yes, I would read every word.’”

“A male student immediately handed me the book and said, ‘Okay, do it.’ I knew the situation was serious with 30 students watching, wondering if I would read,” Mastronardi continued. “Nervous but committed, I saw it as a teachable moment about context and literary honesty in reading. I read a passage aloud, including the word ‘nigger,’ unaware I was being recorded.”

Keep reading

Whistleblower claims Lockheed Martin eliminated whites from bonuses – ‘and they wrote it all down’

A whistleblower has come forward claiming America’s largest defense contractor has been awarding bonuses based on skin color rather than merit.

The whistleblower told right-wing DEI expert Christopher Rufo that they were preparing year-end bonus recommendations for Lockheed Martin’s aeronautics division in 2022 when they were told their “comp adder” list contained too many white people.

“I got a call from [human resources director] La Wanda [Moorer] last night regarding diversity stats on comp adder,” top Lockheed Martin official Santiago Bulnes wrote to the whistleblower in an email, according to a report published by Rufo at City Journal.

“They took a run at getting your few approved and we’re told that we need to fit in the box. I asked her to send you the list of diversity names to simplify the task of finding the best in the group,” he added.

Afterward, other officials in Lockheed’s human resources department reportedly told the whistleblower to add over a dozen minorities to the “comp adder” list and remove an equal number of white people, never mind whether or not the people deserved to be on the list or not.

The whistleblower was reportedly outraged that Lockheed was requiring managers like them to reward bonuses “on the basis of their [employees’] skin color alone and contrary to documented performance.”

Keep reading