take your time.

But man who earns his survival from his thought needs to defend the right to bring those thoughts into reality especially through speech. To live, we must think, and to live we must speak.

To claim that mans defining element is his social element, ignores that this element is neither solely held by man, nor is it unique. We are a rational species more so than a social species and we gain maintain and start our social bonds through our communication, ei speech.

Abstract

I used the standard deviation and mean across four races of millionaires and non-millionaires, to calculate Z-scores, then plotted scores on a standardized Z distribution with quantiles. My research question was simple: If there is systemic racism in America, then why are there 1,621,600 Black millionaires? The fact Black Americans are normally distributed, similar to all the other races, in terms of being classified as net worth millionaires, is clear proof contrary to the proposition that America is systemically racist. Asian, White, Black, and Hispanic races were statistically the same on the standard normal distribution. However, White non-millionaires were the only race to have a significant, unusual z-score (-2.43), with a p. < .01 the chance of being a White non-millionaire in the United States is not random. Moreover, there are far too many Black millionaires for the evils of systemic racism in America to be real.

[..]

MY RESEARCH CLAIM AND HYPOTHESIS TESTING

I make the claim that there are far too many Black American millionaires for systemic racism to be a real thing. The odds of a Black American becoming a millionaire is favorable, with a 1 in 29 chance within the Black population, and 1 in 208 in the general population. I will prove my claim with simple Census bureau data (Jones et al, 2021) and computations of percentages and ratios of networth millionaires across four races: Black, White, Asian and Hispanic, both millionaires and non-millionaires. I stated my hypothesis the following way:

H1: No race of millionaires or non-millionaires will fall outside of a ±1.96 standard deviations of the mean of zero when z-scores are plotted along a standardized normal Z distribution with quantiles.

Why I rejected the Null Hypothesis

I tested the hypothesis based on the calculated z-scores plotted onto a standardized normal Z distribution. I rejected the hypothesis if any race fell outside of a ±1.96 standard deviations of the mean of zero. All four races were assumed normally distributed because of their huge populations and randomness, and the binary nature of race classification is White, not White, Black, not Black, etc. Millionaire status was the measure. Non-millionaire was a negative integer by necessity, as to calculate it, I subtracted the general population from the population of millionaires, by race.

I rejected H1; as p < .05: The White race of non-millionaires fell outside of a ±1.96 standard deviations of the mean of zero when z-scores were plotted along a standardized normal Z distribution quantiles. White non-millionaires have a z-score of -2.43, with a significant standard normal probability: p. = 0.00755.

A Throttled White Race?

Although there are more White people (with a z-score of 0.84, p. = .79955) who have achieved millionaire status, there are far more White people (with a z-score of -2.43, p. = .00755) who likely never will be millionaires. This fact is scientifically meaningful, because 95% of all z-scores should fall within ± 1.96 standard deviations of the mean of zero. Any z-score that falls outside of this range is significant at the p < .05 level of confidence, as z-scores falling outside this range is an indication the z-score is not a random or chance occurrence. The White race of non-millionaires is the only race that cannot be explained by random chance alone. The z-score of -2.43 for non-millionaire Whites is significant with a standard normal probability, p. = 0.00755, which is not by chance alone. The odds are 1 in 2 of not being a millionaire in the United States of America if you are White, and a z-score outside the -1.96 standard deviations when plotted on the Z distribution.

Therefore, it appears there could be a form of systemic racism in America, based on the z-scores plotted on the Z distribution, happening to White people. Some type of discriminatory activities appear to be happening to the White race of non-millionaires. Perhaps all the affirmative action laws and regulations has throttled their progress? Perhaps it is the constant bashing in main stream media about how White people are racist? It could be the number of divorces and household led by single parents. Perhaps the television broadcasters and talk show prognosticators who relentlessly paint pictures of doom-and-gloom for people of color against White people is having a deleterious effect? Who knows at this point the reason for this phenomenon?

What is now known is that White non-millionaires fall far outside the threshold of random chance, and that their status is likely due to a systemic problem. The White race appears to be throttled in the non- millionaire status. The reason for their being the only significant outlier deserves further exploration. There is no good reason as to why they were the only race to be significantly outside of a -1.96 standard deviation of the mean of zero. The chance of a White person falling between White millionaire and White non- millionaire status is 79.2%. On the other hand, the chance of a Black person falling between Black millioaire and Black non-millionaire status is 28.4%, for Hispanics, 38.0%, for Asians, 13.8%. This significant finding provides some evidence that systemic racism might be happening to the White race of non-millionaires. The formulas for calculating the z-scores, and probabilities found in the z-score tables for White, Black, Asian and Hispanic, millionaires and non-millionaires, are located in the Appendix.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

People in media, have been implying that America is unfair to Blacks. Their claims have been shown untrue when millionaires by race are measured by z-scores on a standard normal distribution. Their claims go against the grains of credulity that any system designed to keep something out would be also actively seeking to let in the very thing it was designed to keep out. Black millionaires, 1.62 million of them, is a contradiction to the claim of systemic racism: financial independence is the aspirant goal of nearly every American. What are the astronomical odds of winning a $1.0 million Powerball drawing, for any race? What could those lottery expenditures be worth in 40 years? Ramsey (2022) argues that $100 per month is a 401(k) invested in an index 500 mutual fund, ROI of 11%, means $1.0 million or more in 40 years. Social and psychological options are either favorable or unfavorable (Bell, 2013). Getting rich is favorable options for any American.

Imagine a cooling system designed to cool an engine, which allowed the engine to overheat each time the engine was running. Every mechanic that I know would deem that system defective. Imagine a deep- sea diver wearing an oxygen canister which did not produce oxygen, but methane gas instead. There are numerous examples of design features in machines and systems which can be used to illustrate system failures, whether those features are mechanical or procedural. Systemic racism by design would treat Black, Hispanic and Asian American opportunities like varmints needing to be eradicated by systemic racist formulas; nevertheless, the system of holding Black, Asian and Hispanic Americans down is failing dramatically.

In order for the theory of systemic racism to hold true, there needs to be far fewer Black millionaires (approaching zero) in the USA. The odds are extremely favorable of being a millionaire, for Black, Hispanic, White and Asian Americans, which means the chances of becoming one, is very good! All races of millionaires are statistically the same on the Z distribution; z-scores for millionaires cluster between .065 and .85, just below +1 standard deviation above the zero mean. The odds of becoming a millionaire preclude the dictates of systemic racism towards people of color. The data shows that the volume of Black, Hispanic and Asian millionaires in America should not be possible in a system designed specifically to lock people of color out of the American Dream.

==

The "Be Kind" people, on "the right side of history," ladies and gentlemen. These people claim to be our most enlightened, morally evolved citizens. And they're spouting old-school antisemitic venom.

Remember when these people were calling everybody Nazis and arguing they not only had the right, but the moral obligation to punch anyone they deemed as such? Turns out they were the Nazis all along. I know, shocking, isn't it? /s

Anyone calling for "intifada" doesn't want a "ceasefire."

By: Andrew Doyle

Published: Mar 11, 2024

As a child of the Eighties and Nineties, I remember well that homosexuals were fair game in the mainstream media. One columnist in The Star railed against “Wooftahs, pooftahs, nancy boys, queers, lezzies — the perverts whose moral sin is to so abuse the delightful word ‘gay’ as to render it unfit for human consumption”. After the death of Freddie Mercury, sympathy in The Mail on Sunday was limited. “If you treat as a hero a man who died because of his own sordid sexual perversions,” one writer cautioned, “aren’t you infinitely more likely to persuade some of the gullible young to follow in his example?”

It was sadly inevitable that the AIDS crisis would exacerbate this ancient prejudice. A headline in The Sun declared that “perverts are to blame for the killer plague”. And while a writer for the Express held “those who choose unnatural methods of self-gratification” responsible for the disease, letters published in its pages followed suit. One reader called for the incarceration of homosexuals. “Burning is too good for them,” wrote another. “Bury them in a pit and pour on quicklime.” Someone had been reading his Dante.

I happened to come out in a much less hostile climate. In the early 2000s, we were enjoying a kind of Goldilocks moment, neither too hot nor too cold. We weren’t generally on the receiving end of homophobic slurs, but nor were we patronised by well-meaning progressives. My memory of this time was that no one particularly cared, and I was more than happy with that. Being gay for me has never been an identity, it’s simply a fact, as unremarkable as being blue-eyed or right-handed.

And so it has been troubling to see a resurgence in the last few years of the kind of anti-gay rhetoric that was commonplace in my childhood. Of course, it could be argued that the rise of social media has simply exposed sentiments that were previously only expressed in private. As Ricky Gervais has pointed out, before the digital era “we couldn’t read every toilet wall in the world. And now we can.”

Yet the most virulent homophobia appears to be coming from a new source. Whereas we have always been accustomed to this kind of thing from the far-Right — one recalls Nick Griffin’s remark on Question Time about how he finds the sight of two men kissing “really creepy” — but now the most objectionable anti-gay comments arise in online spheres occupied by gender ideologues, from those who claim to be progressive, Left-wing and “on the right side of history”. The significant difference is that the word “cis” has been added to the homophobe’s lexicon. Some examples:

“Cis gay men are a disease.”

“Cis gay men are truly some of the most grotesque creatures to burden this earth.”

“I hate cis gay people with a burning passion.”

“If you’re a cis gay man and your sexuality revolves around you not liking female genitalia I hope you die and I will spit on your grave.”

“Cis gays don’t deserve rights.”

“There’s so many reasons to hate gay people, most specifically white gays, but there’s never a reason to be a transphobe.”

“It’s time to normalise homophobia.”

Of course, any bile can be found on the internet, but these kinds of phrases are remarkably commonplace among certain online communities. Even a cursory search will reveal innumerable examples of gender ideologues casually branding gay men “fags” or “faggots”, praising the murder of gays and lesbians, and claiming that the AIDS epidemic was a positive thing. Many thousands of examples had been collated on Google Photos under the title “Woke homophobia: anti-gay hatred & boxer ceiling abuse from trans activists & gender-identity ideologues”. The site was taken down last year, presumably because it violated Google’s policy on hate speech — or perhaps because it revealed the toxicity of the ideology the company has spent so long promoting.

If such ideas were restricted to the demented world of internet activism, we might be justified in simply ignoring it. But we now know that the overwhelming majority of adolescents referred to the Tavistock paediatric gender clinic were same-sex attracted. Whistleblowers have spoken out about the endemic homophobia, not simply among clinicians but also parents who were keen to “fix” their gay offspring. And of course there was the running joke among staff that soon “there would be no gay people left”.

And now a series of leaked internal messages and videos from WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health), has revealed that clinicians in the leading global organisation for transgender healthcare have openly admitted in private that some teenagers mistake being same-sex attracted for gender dysphoria. The result of the “gender-affirming” approach has amounted to what one former Tavistock clinician recently described as “conversion therapy for gay kids”. Homosexuality was removed from the World Health Organisation’s list of psychiatric disorders in 1993, and yet here we are medicalising it all over again.

So how did we reach the point where gay conversion therapy is being practised in plain sight by the NHS? Much of the responsibility has to lie with Stonewall, a group that once promoted equal rights for gay people but now actively works against their interests. It has even gone so far as to redefine “homosexual” on its website and resource materials as “same-gender attracted”. It should go without saying that gay men are not attracted to women who identify as men, any more than lesbians should be denounced for excluding those with penises from their dating pools. What trans activists call discrimination, most of us call homosexuality.

Indeed, activists often claim that “genital preferences are transphobic”, or that sexual orientation based on biological sex is a form of “trauma”. The idea that homosexuality is a sickness was one of the first homophobic tropes I encountered as a child. Now it is being rebranded as progressive.

As for Stonewall, its former CEO Nancy Kelley went so far as to argue that women who exclude trans people as potential partners are analogous to “sexual racists”. She claimed that “if you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it’s worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions”. It is worth remembering that Stonewall is deeply embedded in many governmental departments and quangos, as well as corporate and civic institutions. Anti-gay propaganda is being reintroduced into society from the very top.

Meanwhile, the Crown Prosecution Service has been meeting with trans lobby groups such as Mermaids and Stonewall to discuss changes to prosecutorial policy in cases of sex by deception. Since these meetings — only revealed after sustained pressure from a feminist campaigner who submitted Freedom of Information requests — the CPS has recommended what Dennis Kavanagh of the Gay Men’s Network has described as “a radical trans activist approach to sex by deception prosecutions that would see them all but vanish”. In trans activist parlance, the barriers to having sex with lesbians and gay men are known as the “cotton ceiling” and “boxer ceiling”. Now it seems the establishment is attempting to support the coercion of gay people into heterosexual activity.

Consider a recent post on X by Stephen Whittle, OBE, a professor of equalities law at Manchester Metropolitan University. In a reply to LGB Alliance’s Bev Jackson, Whittle took issue with the notion that “love is all about genitals” (an argument that Jackson has never made). Having dismissed this straw man as “a very hetero/homo-normative perspective”, Whittle then claimed that “a lot of gay men can’t resist a young furry ftm [female-to-male] cub”.

While it is true that there are some bisexuals who identify as gay, it is simply not the case that homosexual men “can’t resist” certain kinds of women. As Jackson rightly noted in her response, this is rank homophobia, “disturbed and disturbing on every level”. Yet it has been expressed by an individual who has been described as a “hero for LGBTQ+ equality”. With heroes like these, who needs villains?

Another example is Davey Wavey, a popular online influencer, who has encouraged gay men to perform heterosexual acts in a video called “How to Eat Pussy — For Gay Men”. It may as well have been called “Gay Conversion Therapy 2.0”. We are firmly back in the Eighties, where gays are being told that they “just haven’t found the right girl yet” and lesbians are assured that they just “need a good dick”. And yet now these demeaning ideas are being propagated by those who claim to be defending the rights of sexual minorities.

The Government’s recent guidance on how schools are to accommodate trans-identified pupils — in which biological sex will take precedence over identity — has been met with horror from gender ideologues. One of the common refrains one hears from activists is that it represents “this generation’s Section 28”. But this is to get it precisely backwards. Gay rights were secured on the recognition that a minority of the population are same-sex attracted. In dismantling the very notion of sex and substituting it for this nebulous concept of “gender identity”, activists and their disciples in parliament are undoing all of the achievements of previous gay rights movements.

The widespread homophobia of the Eighties, epitomised by Section 28, was based on the notion that homosexuality was unnatural, dangerous and ought to be corrected. Present-day gender identity ideology perceives homosexuality as evidence of misalignment between soul and body. In other words, it seeks to “fix” gay people so that they fit into a heterosexual framework. It is no coincidence that so many detransitioners are gay people who were simply struggling with their sexuality. Gender identity ideology is the true successor to Section 28.

Yes, let's talk about "your" pronouns for a moment, because I have some thoughts on the matter...

What's that? Oh, silly me. By "let's talk about," what you actually mean is "unquestioningly comply with my demands."

Be that as it may, "we" - which is to say, "I" - am going to talk about it regardless.

Let's analyze this for a moment.

She gives the game away right up front: blue heart is for boys, pink heart is for girls. This ideology is based on stereotypes. If you still doubt this, I don't know what else to show you to convince you.

Secondly, her "gender" isn't a profound knowledge of personal identity, because it changes faster than the weather. I'm not even sure it's her personality, because anyone whose personality changes that rapidly and that wildly has some kind of severe disorder. What she's calling "gender" seems to be nothing but her mood.

Thirdly, and I keep having to repeat this, if your "gender" requires others to participate, then it's not a "deeply personal sense of self." Just like your faith cannot be "a personal relationship with Jesus" if everybody else has to pray or refrain from pointing out the flaws in the bible. "Gender is a social construct" means that your "gender" only "exists" to the extent people play along. People are sick of being bullied into pretending for narcissists.

More importantly, you don't get to make others participate and then deny them any say or input. You can't give people an obligation with no authority, because if you think you can, then others can give you an obligation with no authority.

And you don't get to make others responsible for your mental wellbeing, to carry the burden you cannot or will not, and then get angry when they don't meet your standards or decline the obligation at all. You are responsible for you. Trying to make other people responsible for your emotions or mental state is psychotic. Xians insist that humans - and particularly children - are responsible for keeping their god happy, evidently because he cannot do it himself. You're just as much of an immature psychopath. We are not responsible for keeping you from bursting like a fragile soap bubble.

You can have a personal, unquestionable conviction, or you can have a matter of public interest and discussion. As soon as you insist others participate, you forfeit the right to cordon your beliefs off from scrutiny. If you want your beliefs to go unmolested, then keep them to yourself.

If it's nobody else's business, don't make it other people's business. You can't claim your "gender" is nobody else's business, nobody else gets a say, and then insist it is their business to comply with these demands and prop the whole delusion up.

Private concern or public interest. Choose one.

Fourthly, anyone who comes up with rules like this is a sociopath who is trying to control, manipulate and trap others. Since third-person pronouns are used primarily when someone is not present, when referring to an individual when talking to others, this is a form of authoritarian thought-control. You do not get to dictate how others must see you or think of you. They get to decide for themselves what they think of you, regardless of whether or not you like it, and it's none of your business. And if your sense of self is so flimsy that you must coerce them to conform their view of you to your own view of yourself, then you have bigger problems than "your" pronouns.

When she walks into room, people stiffen because they have to talk like idiots around her - and that's part of the appeal. She wants to be "misgendered," because who is she if she's not a marginalized victim and the center of attention? That's the trick: either you comply, and she wins, or you refuse, and she gets to pretend to be a victim and she wins. Nobody's obliged to pay attention to these insane, imaginary rules, much less play along. When she's already gamed it to win no matter what, the only way for you to win is to retain your integrity and self-respect and tell the truth.

And finally, you do not have pronouns. The pronouns belong to the language, in this case, English. The English language has pronouns for you. You don't have your own pronouns any more than you have your own conjugations or your own adjectives. Other languages, such as German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian, Chinese and Japanese, have their own structures, and they're not for you to "fix" with your stupid activism.

And yes, languages change. They evolve through common usage and common acceptance, not through narcissists performing blunt-force creationism enforced with emotional manipulation and vilification.

She's an average, unremarkable girl who's found a socially acceptable way to control other people and pretend to be interesting.

My adjectives are amazing/brilliant/impressive.

Misadjectiving is hate. #BeKind

Thank you, Mr Chairman, I’m Jeff Cleghorn, sixth generation Georgian, live in Butts County, army veteran, retired lawyer, and have been a gay rights activist for the last three decades.

I served on the board of directors of Georgia Equality and Lambda Legal,and am a past president of the Stonewall Bar Association. I have long advocated for the equal dignity of gay and lesbian Georgians and Americans.

SB88 is necessary because queer, gender identity transgender activism, and the transgender medical industry, are aggressively targeting children of all ages including inside school classrooms. This is a belief system that many people, me included, do not believe in.

The gay rights movement succeeded because we changed hearts and minds, and we did it the old-fashioned way: by telling the truth about our lives. And today, gays and lesbians live in every Georgia county happy and content to love our families and be good citizens. I have long known and worked with many transgender people, and I know that they only want to live their lives in peace, free from mistreatment by anyone. And I’m glad trans Americans and Georgians now have every legal right as the rest of us with the Supreme Court recently expanding Title VII to include workplace protections for transgender.

But, as a result of piggybacking transgender activism on the gay movement of yesterday, transgender activists never did the work. They skipped right over the changing hearts and mind part. Instead, they stridently declared the “LGBTQ+ is now a single identity," and that some people can be both sexes at the same time, while other people are neither male nor female, and some people are born in the wrong body, and some women have a penis. and there are 58 different genders, and as many pronouns.

SB88 is necessary because the former gay rights movement has been hijacked by those pushing this dishonest gender ideology on children. This is about much more than helping kids with gender dysphoria, most of whom will grow up to be gay or lesbian if left alone, according to every study ever conducted on the subject. This is about indoctrinating kids into a belief system that is not real.

Tens of millions of dollars are spent each year by groups like GLSEN and the Trevor project specifically targeting kids with this ideology. And queer activists push this belief system that gender and sex and sexuality can mean whatever someone says they mean, and there should be no boundaries.

Parents have every right to know if this stuff shows up in their child’s school. No one had ever heard of a transgender child until recently and today we see tens of thousands of young females soliciting GoFundMe donations online to amputate their healthy breasts or to have “gender affirming hysterectomies."

15 years ago, there were only two or three so-called gender clinics. Today there are hundreds, including more than 50 paediatric. The skyrocketing thousands of percent recent increase in kids claiming a trans identity is not by accident and children are being harmed.

There are more than 52,000 members of a Reddit transitional group, mostly young lesbians, and gay men with gutting stories of regret, sterility, loss of sexual function, early onset osteoporosis, and vaginal atrophy as the transgender medical industry is laughing all the way to the bank.

SB88 is needed because they are proselytizing this queer, sex, sexuality ideology to children. Activists and schools have no business interfering with the parent-child relationship.

I collected a lot of data. We collected millions of observations on everyday use of force that wasn’t lethal. We collected thousands of observations on lethal force.

And it was in this moment, 2016, that I realize people lose their minds when they don’t like the result.

So what my paper showed, you’ll see tomorrow, some of you, was that, yes, we saw some bias in the low level uses the force, everyday pushing up against cars and things like that. People seem to like that result.

But we didn’t find any racial bias in place shootings. Now that was really surprising because I expected to see it. The little-known fact is I had eight full-time RAs that it took to do this over nearly a year. When I found this surprising result, I hired eight fresh ones and redid it to make sure. They came up with the same exact answer, and I thought it was robust.

And then I went to go give it and my God, all hell broke loose.

It was 104 page dense academic economics paper with 150 page appendix. Okay? It was posted for four minutes when I got my first email. "This is full of shit." "It doesn’t make any sense." And I wrote back: "How'd you read it that fast? That's amazing. You are a genius."

And I had colleagues take me into, to the side and say, "don’t publish this. You’ll ruin your career." I said, what are you talking about? I said, what’s wrong with it? Do you believe the first part? Yes. Do you believe the second part? Well, it's... the issue is they just don’t fit together. We like the first one, but you should publish it-- the second one another time. I said, let me ask this. If the second part about the police shootings-- this is a literal conversation. I said to them, if the second part showed bias, do you think I should publish it then? And they said, Yeah, then it would make sense. And I said, I guarantee you, I’ll publish it. We’ll see what happens.

So, it was, it was, I lived under under police protection for about 30 or 40 days. I had a seven day old daughter the time. I remember going and shopping for-- because, you know when you have a newborn, you think you have enough diapers, you don’t. So I was going to the grocery store to get diapers with an armed guard. It was crazy. It was really, truly crazy.

==

This is why Claudine Gay set out to destroy Roland's career.

By: Andrew Doyle

Published: Feb 17, 2024

This is how it begins. “Why not add your pronouns to your email signature?” “Why not announce your pronouns at the beginning of meetings?” “Why not encourage your staff members to ask for pronouns in day-to-day conversation?” After all, it’s just about being compassionate and creating a more “inclusive” work environment. Only a bigot would object to that…

It’s this kind of skewed reasoning that has led to the firing of Fran Itkoff, a 90-year-old volunteer for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, who simply expressed confusion when faced with a request that she add pronouns to her emails. “I had seen it on a couple of letters that had come in after the person’s name”, Itkoff said in an interview, “but I didn’t know what it meant”.

We can hardly be surprised when a nonagenarian is befuddled by this strange new quasi-religious ritual, so rapidly has the practice taken hold. This didn’t stop the National MS Society from turning its back on Itkoff, a volunteer whose commitment to the charity dated back for six decades. For committing heresy against the Holy Creed of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, Itkoff was immediately sacrificed. The statement issued by the National MS Society claimed that her query about pronouns was “viewed as not aligning with our policy of inclusion”.

Declaring pronouns makes little sense in any case, given that they are used in place of a name when talking about someone, not to someone. And besides, human beings are perfectly capable of determining someone’s sex without being told, usually instantaneously. Of course, according to activists, all of this is irrelevant. We are assured that sex has been superseded by “gender identity”, that mysterious sense of self that few of us believe even exists. It would be like being told to announce the colour of your aura every time you began a conversation. 

Like the vast majority of the population, I use pronouns to denote the biological sex of the person to whom I’m referring. And I certainly would not comply if commanded to declare my own due to my innate aversion to any form of compelled speech. The lessons of history are clear: when those in authority begin to demand the use of certain phrases, they have taken the first step on the pathway to tyranny. I do not wish to see a future in which we are forced to stand in lockstep and chant the approved slogans of the ruling class. 

Of course, the declaration of pronouns is far removed from any such scenario, but the principle to me is sacrosanct. I will not be told what to say by anyone, least of all those who claim to know what is best for the good of society. Authoritarians have always couched their demands in faux-benevolence, and we have seen how gender ideologues have a particular tendency to viciousness and bullying. “Be kind… or else” is not a maxim to which I am willing to capitulate. 

To ask for pronouns in the workplace is the equivalent of suggesting that employees pledge fealty to a deity they do not worship. It is a kind of test, a way to ensure that the tenets of Critical Social Justice – otherwise known as “wokeness” – are being observed. Spinoza argued that for any man to “be compelled to speak only according to the dictates of the supreme power” is a violation of his “indefeasible natural right” to be “the master of his own thoughts”. Once you agree to make statements in favour of a belief-system you do not hold, you are surrendering your agency to those who will exploit it. 

While the declaration of pronouns remains a purely voluntary matter, it is fair to say that no-one’s free speech is being violated. But the consequences for non-compliance in the workplace are becoming increasingly severe. Members of staff are passed over for promotion, they are smeared as unreconstructed bigots and “transphobes”, and eventually shunned and isolated. I have written before about friends of mine in the acting profession who feel uncomfortable in stating pronouns at the beginning of rehearsals, but know that they are unlikely to be recast if they refuse. This may not be compulsion, but it is coercion.

We see the same phenomenon on social media, where trans rights activists routinely denounce and defame those guilty of the crime of “misgendering”. They report users in the hope of seeing them banned, contact employers and claim to feel “unsafe”, and even occasionally call the police. This is the essence of cancel culture. They are, of course, free to criticise, even in a robust and rude manner. But to seek to destroy someone’s livelihood for their choice of language is fundamentally authoritarian. 

In the same vein, we have seen a handful of gender-critical feminists attacking people online for choosing to use “preferred pronouns” in certain cases. Again, the criticism is valid, but once it strays into the realm of libel, misrepresentation and character assassination, these critics are merely borrowing from the playbook of trans activists. In the tenor of some of these online free-for-alls, it has been difficult to tell one faction from the other. 

When it comes to the declaration of pronouns, I have often wondered how long it would take before requests transformed into demands. The sacking of Fran Itkoff by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has the ring of inevitability about it. Many of us saw this coming. This is why we need to be vigilant against anyone who attempts to compel the speech of others, for whatever reason, and in whatever context. If we tolerate this inchmeal erosion of our liberties, we will doubtless live to regret it. 

--

If you haven't been following it, Fran Itkoff is a 90 year old woman who volunteered for the MS Society for sixty years after her husband had MS (multiple sclerosis). She didn't understand what all this talk about pronouns was about, asked, and was then told her volunteering services were no longer required.

Some of you may well go, "ew, LibsOfTikTok, ew, ew." Okay, but hear me out: shut up and read the screenshots. They tell the story.

[ They also deleted or hid their Board of Directors page. ]

This is the stupid little girl who removed a woman who had dedicated her life, and worked longer than this vacuous apparatchik has been alive, to helping others.

One supposes that all the MS in the world has been cured, given how eager they are to tell dedicated volunteers that they're no longer needed.

--

A few years ago, there was a fuss about atheists being turned away from volunteering activities.

This is the same principle: adherence to their dogmatic ideology supersedes what is supposed to be their organization's mission and purpose: their "telos". This is why you cannot have two "teloi." One will always win over the other.

This is what I mean by ideological capture. The telos of the MS Society is no longer services and support for those with MS, it's "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion." That's their number one objective. And that means pronoun-policing and excommunicating those who aren't part of the cult.

It would seem both humorous, being so petty and stupid, and sad, given Fran's long service to the organization, but as Andrew Doyle points out, it's more insidious than that. It's compelled speech. It's about punishing those who will decline to be part of - or even simply don't understand - the fundamentalist, puritan religious ideology these fanatics have adopted and imbued throughout the organization.

Just as you must testify to Jesus as your lord and savior in order to volunteer at a soup kitchen or to raise money for cancer, they will demand you adhere to the belief in gender thetans in mismatched meat prisons in order to volunteer for the MS Society. In the name of "Inclusion,"

As Fran mentions, the MS Society has always been inclusive, but what she doesn't understand is that it's now Inclusive™, a brand name which doesn't mean including as many people as possible but including as many members of their cult as possible.

They're not looking for behaviors - e.g. respect, tolerance, etc - they're looking for beliefs. Enforcing a particular ideological belief system. They don't care that you might be an atheist who subscribes to secular humanism, or you could be a Xian who believes we're all children of God, they want to make you believe what they believe.

"37 states have what's called 'Obscenity Exemption Statutes.' And that allows them to put pornographic books in schools. So, what's happening is, you can be in a school and show children in a classroom books like 'Gender Queer.' Books like 'Let's Talk About It.' Whatever porn it is, doesn't matter. You can show it to them.

But if you walk outside that school to the playground across the park, and show those same children the same material, you'll be arrested.

We have a nonsensical system where the institutions with authority are able to deliver the most damage and abuse to our children."

-

"When you're a poor kid from a poor family, religion counts for a lot. And when a priest pays attention to you, it's a big deal. He asks you to collect the hymnals or take out the trash, you feel special. It's like God asking for help. So maybe it's a little weird when he tells you a dirty joke, but now you got a secret together, so you go along. Then he shows you a porno mag, and you go along. And you go along, and you go along, until one day he asks you to jerk him off or give him a blow job. And so you go along with that, too, because you feel trapped, because he has groomed you. How do you say no to God, right? See, it is important to understand that this is not just physical abuse, it's spiritual abuse, too. And when a priest does this to you, he robs you of your faith. So you reach for the bottle or the needle. Or if those don't work, you jump off a bridge. That's why we call ourselves survivors." -- Phil Saviano

-

"This is in school?!?"

-

"If a priest telling a kid a joke. If a priest talking about sex. If a priest showing a kid pornography, keeping a secret with a kid, coming between a kid and his parents. If a priest doing those things is grooming, anyone doing those things is grooming. And that includes every teacher who's doing this. Every librarian who's in on it. And every school board member and politician who isn't protecting your kids."

==

A predator is a predator. If you only fixate on the ones with clerical collars, you don't really care about protecting children.

By: Winkfield Twyman, Jr.

Published: Nov 28, 2023

In a recent Equiano Project podcast featuring Helen Pluckrose, Helen talked about the perpetuation of racial essentialism and stereotype training. I feel comfortable referring to Helen by her first name in that I have known her since my days with Counterweight and given her early support for my book, Letters in Black and White: A New Correspondence on Race in America (co-authored with Jennifer Richmond).

Helen is the author of Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody (co-authored with James Lindsey). Cynical Theories may well be the most prophetic book about the dangers of racial dogma in the past decade. Helen’s interview landed well with respect to the dark underbelly of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) training.

The most important fire bell in the night shared by Helen is that people write things they do not believe. The ability to write and publish a book is a privilege, and a blessing. Less than 1 percent of Americans have published a book. As one user on Reddit calculates, the number of humans who have published a manuscript is far less than 1 percent. “Well, 6 million books on Amazon, which includes a big chunk of the self published authors, divided by 7 billion people and you get .0086%. So a lot less than 1%.”

Why does writing falsehoods pose a problem for society? When one writes a lie in print, one is reducing the sacred trust between a reader and a writer. Reality becomes distorted for the writer who must suppress the truth and for the reader who doesn’t recognise reality on the printed page. For example, someone might write that incarceration of black men is the new Jim Crow. That assertion is a falsehood. Jim Crow was a legally mandated system of laws to segregate blacks and whites in the public sphere. Incarceration occurs because someone commits a crime. Incarceration does not equal Jim Crow. But once the lie is seized upon in public discourse, people begin to live in lies and to not see the truth; i.e. criminals are incarcerated because criminals commit crimes. 

I no longer believe anything authored by writer Michelle Alexander. She has abused her sacred opportunity as a privileged writer by bringing into the world a monumental falsehood, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. We have all suffered and been injured by her distortion of truth and reality. But for Alexander’s fictional argument, the fertile groundwork might not have been present for the rise of another falsehood, Black Lives Matter. Sadly, one falsehood leads to another falsehood and so it goes.

It is the duty of a published writer to write the truth. 

The next powerful insight from Helen was this idea that DEI training causes racial minorities to assess the level of racism as higher than it should be. Doesn’t this bad consequence ring true? Berry Gordy, the heroic founder of Motown in the year 1959, was once asked the reason for his success. Without hesitation, Gordy answered the reason was “focus.” This psychology applies to Gordy and, indeed, every ordinary human. If you focus on the positive, you will welcome the positive into your life. If you can only look at the negative, one invites the negative into one’s life. The divisive structure of DEI programs prompts participants to dredge up instances and examples of racism, no matter how remote or distant or of little consequence in one’s life.

If I were in a DEI program and the trainer asked me to name three examples of racism from my life when I felt oppressed, sure, I could search my memory banks and come up with three examples. Every black person could in the Western World. But having done so, the trainer has now implanted in my mind resentment and suspicion and ill-will towards my white colleagues. Such a poisonous outcome and for what purpose other than to raise race consciousness in the minds of work colleagues? It is a shame we enable these types of corrosive trainings. 

Finally, Helen channelled the opinions of many black employees who have had enough! Around 60% of the people who reached out to Counterweight for help were black. They pleaded with Helen to stop the racialising at work. Black employees want normal relations with their colleagues, not perpetual grievance struggles about how oppressed one is and how evil oppressor white colleagues are. We should listen to these black employees who don’t like anti-racism programs, Professor Ibram X. Kendi, and all of the manipulative slogan words in the office nowadays. 

Let people work together, lunch together and laugh together. DEI training should be discarded as an unworkable scheme that does more harm than good.