The Nov. 8 midterm elections were a watershed in modern American history. The implications of choosing a president whom the public strongly disapproves of and is generally a failure, over a controversial but undoubtedly capable and successful ex-president, are very serious.
That the Democrats and their lock-step allies in the national media succeeded in putting across the colossal smear that former President Donald Trump is a supporter of violence and a threat to the constitutional system could be interpreted as a long step toward the national suicide that Abraham Lincoln foresaw is the only way in which the American project could perish.
Former CIA Director John Brennan called Trump a traitor; former National Intelligence Director James Clapper declared as a matter of settled fact that Trump was a Russian intelligence asset. The corruption of the FBI and the intelligence agencies in the dissemination of the infamous Steele dossier funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign as authentic intelligence revealing Trump as completely unsuited to public office and the profound dishonesty of former FBI Director James Comey in white-washing Clinton’s alleged destruction of subpoenaed evidence and his recourse to surveillance granted in response to false affidavits while attempting to destroy the Trump presidency have escaped legal retribution by the somnambulant Durham investigation, and there will be no retribution for any of it.
Yet, Trump is the tainted protagonist. The Russian collusion hoax was the most monstrous defamation ever inflicted on a U.S. president. The spurious impeachment of him, for an innocuous telephone call to the president of Ukraine about the commercial activities of the Biden family in his country—now notorious but probably a matter of political suppression of the normal working of American justice—was in the same category of misuse of the political system for the lowest and most destructive partisan ends.
It’s obvious that the potentially millions of harvested ballots that couldn’t be verified in the 2020 presidential election could easily have provided the 50,000 vote switchover needed in Pennsylvania and two other states to flip that election to Trump in the Electoral College. The dishonesty of the universal media stone wall that 2020 was a pristine presidential election is compounded by the judiciary’s abdication of its coequal role in government and reassertion of its refusal to consider overturning the apparent presidential election result.
Democratic strategists deserve a near-perfect score for tactical judgment: They rounded up a big majority among young voters by hammering the abortion issue, emphasizing the reduction in marijuana penalties, and championing student loan forgiveness. This and the malicious and unctuous pressing of the safety of democracy as a euphemism for the defamatory nonsense that Trump was a menace to the Constitution turned the minds of an adequate number of voters to produce a dangerously perverse result. They have pretty well given up the former slanders that Trump is a racist, homophobe, and misogynist.
Tabulating all of the votes cast for all offices contested last week, the Republicans outpolled the Democrats all over. The Democrats only took what they needed. Politics is a notoriously unjust occupation; Trump is objectively perhaps among the 10 most successful holders of that office. But he did great harm to himself by his lack of public relations judgment, and this fact in the hands of the political and social media monopoly of his enemies working with the strategists and saboteurs in the Democratic leadership have unfortunately won the match.
But even the voters who rendered such an ambiguous result on Nov. 8 have betrayed a concern that the incompetence of the Biden administration, with the duplicity of the Democratic congressional leaders, can’t go on indefinitely. But they’ve demonstrated that Trump isn’t the man to stop them and to tear the government apart and repopulate it with people with clean hands.
There’s still an important place for Trump to complete the task that he commenced of transporting the Republican Party from the country clubs to the championship of the disadvantaged and working and middle class of America, and to cleaning out the bipartisan infestation of placemen and decayed servitors of the federal political and administrative state. But the former president is far from blameless in his own misfortunes. He warned of the dangers of ballot harvesting in 2020 but was completely inadequate in taking preventive measures or even following up efficiently to challenge the vulnerable points. Instead, we had the well-intended but completely ineffectual efforts of Rudolph Giuliani and Sidney Powell. In order to make his case plausibly, he absolutely had to avoid precisely the sort of outrage that occurred on Jan. 6, 2021. But the fact that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser paid no attention to Trump’s warnings that matters could get out of hand and his offer of 20,000 National Guardsmen indicates the Democrats’ role was a good deal less innocent than they pretend.
But Trump knew what desperate and sleazy people he was dealing with, and he doesn’t have a credible excuse for being so reckless. This condemned him to having to continue to emphasize the 2020 election irregularities in order to justify his calling forth such a huge and discontented crowd at the Washington Elipse on Jan. 6, 2021. Of course, he no more sought an insurrection than Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) did.
The only way to complete Trump’s work and root out and politically exterminate those who have corrupted the intelligence and justice arms of the federal government and have dragooned the contemptible but still insidiously influential national political media in full metal jacket Trump-hate, is for Trump to identify and support the successor whom he favors as Republican presidential candidate.
He shouldn’t go back to his 2016 playbook and insult all the other prominent Republicans. He has exchanged enough fire with his Republican enemies, contemptible though many of them are, and did well to win the first round and come so close in the second. The third round last week was an acute disappointment, and the Republican Party doesn’t need, and the American public doesn’t wish for, an internecine war on the scale that would rage if Trump sought another presidential nomination. But another candidate plausibly pledged to the enactment of the Trump program and supported by Trump but not stigmatized by him, could lead the desperately needed national political purgation.
Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, said in an email obtained by The Epoch Times that his reasons for leaving Greenpeace were very clear: “Greenpeace was ‘hijacked’ by the political left when they realized there was money and power in the environmental movement. [Left-leaning] political activists in North America and Europe changed Greenpeace from a science-based organization to a political fundraising organization,” Moore said.
Moore left Greenpeace in 1986, 15 years after he co-founded the organization.
“The ‘environmental’ movement has become more of a political movement than an environmental movement,” he said. “They are primarily focused on creating narratives, stories, that are designed to instill fear and guilt into the public so the public will send them money.”
He said they mainly operate behind closed doors with other political operatives at the U.N., World Economic Forum, and so on, all of which are primarily political in nature.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] is “not a science organization,” he said. “It is a political organization composed of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program.
“The IPCC hires scientists to provide them with ‘information’ that supports the ‘climate emergency’ narrative.
Their campaigns against fossil fuels, nuclear energy, CO2, plastic, etc., are misguided and designed to make people think the world will come to an end unless we cripple our civilization and destroy our economy. They are now a negative influence on the future of both the environment and human civilization.”
“Today, the left has adopted many policies that would be very destructive to civilization as they are not technically achievable. Only look at the looming energy crisis in Europe and the UK, which Putin is taking advantage of. But it is of their own making in refusing to develop their own natural gas resources, opposing nuclear energy, and adopting an impossible position on fossil fuels in general,” Moore wrote.
He said “green” for the environment and “peace” for the people were the organization’s founding principles, but peace was largely forgotten, and green had become the sole agenda.
“Many [so-called] ‘environmental’ leaders were now saying that ‘humans are the enemies of the Earth, the enemies of Nature.’ I could not accept that humans are the only evil species. This is too much like ‘original sin,’ that humans are born with evil, but all the other species are good, even cockroaches, mosquitos, and diseases,” Moore argued.
He said the new dominant philosophy is that the world would be better if fewer people existed.
“But the people who said this were not volunteering to be the first to go away. They behave as if they are superior to others. This kind of ‘pride’ and ‘conceit’ is the worst of the Cardinal Sins,” Moore said.
Environmental Activist
As a prominent scholar, ecologist, and long-time leader in the international environmental field, Patrick Moore is widely regarded as one of the world’s most qualified experts on the environment. He is also a founder of Greenpeace, the world’s largest environmental activist organization.
Moore received his Ph.D. in Ecology from the University of British Columbia in 1974 and an Honorary Doctorate of Science from North Carolina State University in 2005.
He co-founded Greenpeace in 1971 and served as president of Greenpeace Canada for nine years. From 1979 to 1986, Moore served as the Director of Greenpeace International, a driving force shaping the group’s policies and directions. During his 15-year tenure, Greenpeace became the world’s largest environmental activist organization.
In 1991, Moore founded Greenspirit, a consultancy focusing on environmental policies, energy, climate change, biodiversity, genetically modified food, forests, fisheries, food, and resources.
Between 2006 and 2012, Moore served as co-chairman of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a U.S.-based environmental advocacy group.
In 2014, he was appointed Chairman of Ecology, Energy, and Prosperity of Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a non-partisan Canadian public policy think tank.
In 2019 and 2020, Moore served as the Chair of CO2 Coalition, a U.S.-based nonprofit environmental advocacy group dedicated to disputing false claims on CO2 as relates to climate change.
False Narrative on Chlorine
“At the time I decided to leave Greenpeace, I was one of 6 Directors of Greenpeace International. I was the only one with formal science education, BSc Honors in Science and Forestry, and Ph.D. in Ecology. My fellow directors decided that Greenpeace should begin a campaign to ‘Ban Chlorine Worldwide.’”
Moore said it is true that elemental chlorine gas is highly toxic and was used as a weapon in World War I. However, chlorine is one of the 94 [naturally-ocurring] elements on the Periodic Table and has many roles in biology and human health. For example, table salt (NaCl or Sodium Chloride) is an essential nutrient for all animals and many plants. It is impossible to “ban” NaCl.
He pointed out that adding chlorine to drinking water, swimming pools, and spas was one of the most significant advances in public health history in preventing the spread of water-borne communicable diseases such as cholera. And about 85 percent of pharmaceutical drugs are made with chlorine-related chemistry, and about 25 percent of all our medicines contain chlorine. All halogens, including chlorine, bromine, and iodine, are powerful antibiotics; without them, medicine would not be the same.
“Greenpeace named chlorine ‘The Devil’s Element’ and calls PVC, polyvinyl chloride, or simply vinyl, ‘the Poison Plastic.’ All of this is fake [and] to scare the public. In addition, this misguided policy reinforces the attitude that humans are not a worthy species and that the world would be better off without them. I could not convince my fellow Greenpeace directors to abandon this misguided policy. This was the turning point for me,” Moore said.
False Narrative on Polar Bears
When asked how Greenpeace utilizes its massive donations, Moore said it was used to pay for “a very large staff” (likely over 2,000), extensive advertisements, and fundraising programs. And virtually all of the organization’s ads for fundraising are based on false narratives, which he had thoroughly disproven in his books, one example being the polar bears.
“The International Treaty on Polar Bears, signed by all polar countries in 1973, to ban unrestricted hunting of polar bears, is never mentioned in the media, Greenpeace, or politicians who say the polar bear is going extinct due to melting ice in the Arctic. In fact, the polar bear population has increased from 6,000 to 8,000 in 1973 to 30,000 to 50,000 today. This is not disputed,” Moore said.
“But now they say the polar bear will go extinct in 2100 as if they have a magic crystal ball that can predict the future. In fact, this past winter in the Arctic saw an expansion of ice from previous years, and Antarctica was colder during the last winter than in the past 50 years.”
Moore said that he does not pretend to know everything and predict the future with confidence like many in the “climate emergency” business claim they can do.
The Goal of the ‘Environmental Apocalypse’ Theory
“I believe the human population has always been vulnerable to people who predict doom with false stories,” Moore said.
“The Aztecs threw virgins into volcanos, and the Europeans and Americans burned women as witches for 200 years claiming this would ‘save the world’ from evil people. This has been [referred to as] ‘herd mentality,’ ‘groupthink,’ and ‘cult behavior.’ Humans are social animals with a hierarchy, and it is easiest to gain a high position by using fear and control.”
Moore said the environmental apocalypse theory is mostly about “political power and control,” adding that he is dedicated to showing people that the situation is not as negative as they are told.
“Today, in the richest countries, our descendants are making decisions that our grandchildren will have to pay for,” he said. “Predictions that the world is coming to an end have been made for thousands of years. Not once has this come true. Why should we believe it now?”
“People are naturally afraid of the future because it is unknown and full of risks and difficult decisions. I believe there is also an element of ‘self-loathing’ in this apocalypse movement.”
Moore said the young generation today is taught that humans are not worthy and are destroying the earth. This indoctrination has made them feel guilty and ashamed of themselves, which is the wrong way to go about life.
The Demonization of Carbon Dioxide
“Very few people believe the world is not warming. The record is clear that the world has been warming since about the year 1700, 150 years before we were using fossil fuels. 1700 was the peak of the Little Ice Age, which was very cold and caused crop failures and starvation. Before that, around 1000 A.D. was the Medieval Warm period when Vikings farmed Greenland. [And] before that, around 500 A.D. were the Dark Ages, and before that, the Roman Warm Period when it was warmer than today, and the sea level was 1–2 meters higher than today,” Moore said.
“Even until about 1950, the amount of fossil fuel used and CO2 emitted were very small compared to today. We do not know the cause of these periodic fluctuations in temperature, but it was certainly not CO2.”
Moore clarified that the “minority opinion” is not about the history of the Earth’s temperature, but it is the relationship between the temperature and CO2 that is at the center of the dispute.
“In this regard, I agree that many believe CO2 is the main cause of warming. CO2 is invisible, so no one can actually see what it is doing. And this ‘majority’ are mainly scientists paid by politicians and bureaucrats, media making headlines, or activists making money. [The rest are] the public who believe this story even though they can’t actually see what CO2 is doing,” Moore said.
Moore provided a graph of temperature continuously measured over 350 years (from 1659 to 2009) in central England. “If carbon dioxide was the main cause of warming, then there should be a rise in temperature along the carbon dioxide curve, but it doesn’t,” he explained.
Moore described the demonization of CO2 as “completely ridiculous.” He added that CO2 is the basis of all life on Earth and its concentration in the atmosphere today, even with the increase, is lower than it has been for a large majority of life’s existence.
Rising CO2 Correlates With Increased Plantation: Study
A study in 2013 found that increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions over the past 30 years.
The Australian government agency CSIRO conducted the research in collaboration with Australian National University (ANU). The data was based on satellite observations from the year 1982 to 2010 across parts of the arid areas in Australia, North America, the Middle East, and Africa.
It found an 11 percent increase in foliage cover in the studied area due to what’s called “CO2 fertilization.”
The study said a fertilization effect occurs when elevated CO2 levels enable a leaf during photosynthesis—the process by which green plants convert sunlight into sugar—to extract more carbon from the air or lose less water to the air or both.
“If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to drop, plants in arid environments will respond by increasing their total numbers of leaves. These changes in leaf cover can be detected by satellite, particularly in deserts and savannas where the cover is less complete than in wet locations,” according to Randall Donohue, the CSIRO research scientist.
Breaking the Global Warming Narrative
“Climate alarmists prefer to discuss climate knowledge only since 1850. The time before this they referred to as the pre-industrial age. This ‘pre-industrial age’ was more than 3 billion years when life was on the Earth. Many climate changes [occurred during that period], including Ice Ages, Hothouse Ages, major extinctions due to asteroid impacts, and other unknown causes,” Moore said.
“Today, the Earth is in the Pleistocene Ice Age, which began 2.6 million years ago. … So, the most recent major glaciation, which peaked 20,000 years ago, was not the end of the Ice Age. We are still in the Pleistocene Ice Age no matter how the climate alarmists wish to deny this.”
He said the great irony of the present panic about the climate is that the Earth is colder today than it was for 250 million years before the Pleistocene Ice Age set in. And CO2 is lower now than in more than 95 percent of Earth’s history.
“But you would never know this if you listen to all the people who benefit from the lie that the Earth will soon be too hot for life and that CO2 will become higher than in Earth’s history,” Moore said.
‘More CO2 Is Beneficial to the Environment and Humans’
According to Moore, nearly all commercial greenhouse farmers worldwide buy CO2 to inject into their greenhouses to realize up to 60 percent higher crop yields.
A third of England’s state-run maternity hospitals have adopted terms such as ‘birthing people’ or ‘pregnant people’, in addition to or in place of ‘mother’ or ‘pregnant woman’, according to the Daily Mail. Such de-gendered language is promoted by powerful and influential LGBTQ organizations.
The British newspaper submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the 124 NHS hospitals in England with maternity units, and found that 42 of them have adopted this language. Only 29 still exclusively use the words ‘women’ or ‘mother’ to talk about pregnancy, while 15 are considering giving their literature a woke makeover.
Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals told the Mail that they combine gendered and woke terms in the phrase “women and birthing people,” in a bid to “be as inclusive and representative as possible.” However, they could not say whether a single one of their patients has ever identified as anything except a woman.
Liverpool Women’s Hospital told a similar story, saying that while it has transitioned to using the “more fully inclusive language of pregnant people,” it has never recorded a single transgender patient using its maternity services.
Other hospitals are avoiding the word ‘woman’ in creative ways, with Southampton hospitals speaking of pregnancy in the second person – using terms like ‘you’ and ‘your pregnancy’ to avoid ‘woman’ or ‘women’.
The NHS’ official guidelines are unclear. While the health service’s website uses female terms in most of its maternity literature, individual hospitals have issued complex rules on when and where to avoid them. The NHS has also published information describing breastfeeding as ‘chestfeeding’, and removed the word ‘women’ from its online advice on menopause and ovarian and cervical cancers.
As of earlier this year, NHS hospitals were asking male patients if they were pregnant before certain procedures, as policy dictated that this question be asked to all patients, “regardless of how you may identify your gender.”
The scrubbing of gendered language has been fiercely opposed by some feminists, who argue that transgender-inclusive language erodes what it means to be female. However, it is supported by some of the UK’s most influential LGBTQ organizations. Stonewall, which ranks Britain’s workplaces by their LGBTQ-friendliness, advises employers to use gender-neutral language, and specifically urges healthcare providers to offer female-only procedures to men.
Mermaids, an organization focused on transgender youth, has lobbied the British government to add gender-neutral language to a bill on maternity allowance for ‘mothers or expectant mothers’.
The use of these terms, used throughout the entirety of recorded history to describe people who can give birth, constitute “a deliberate exclusion of trans men and non-binary people who may get pregnant,” the organization said.
Olaf Scholz, Federal Chancellor of Germany, grandson of Fritz von Scholz, SS Gruppenfuehrer
If the European Union hopes to compete in global politics, it can no longer afford to allow individual member states to veto the bloc’s actions, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said in an article published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper on Sunday.
Arguing that the bloc should become a geopolitical actor, the German leader highlighted the importance of unity in Europe in light of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. He insisted it was time to put an end to the “selfish blockades” of EU decisions by individual members. “We simply can no longer afford national vetoes, for example in foreign policy, if we want to continue to be heard in a world of competing great powers,” he wrote.
Under current EU rules, any policy decisions must be approved by all 27 member states. However, after countries like Hungary and Slovakia held up the implementation of the EU’s sixth sanctions package against Russia due to energy concerns, some have called for the bloc’s principle of unanimity to be abandoned.
Last month, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told Politico that the union should ditch the unanimity requirement in matters of foreign policy and should move to qualified majority voting. She noted that “the speed at which things happen” was too slow and that it was important for the “European voice” to be heard and seen without one single member being able to block it.
In his article, Scholz also stated that the EU had been weakened by “permanent disunity” and “permanent dissent between member states, ”claiming that unity was Europe’s most important response to the “change of times.” He suggested that one of the ways unity across the bloc and its allies could be achieved was if Germany “assumes responsibility for Europe and the world in these difficult times.”
Scholz noted that Germany could bring together “East and West, North and South in Europe” since it was located in the middle of the continent and was a country that “lay on both sides of the Iron Curtain.”
The chancellor added that it was important to “close our ranks” in all areas in which Europe has been struggling, such as migration policy, European defense, technological sovereignty, and “democratic resilience.”
🎥A heated discussion has erupted between Berkeley Law Professor Khiara Bridges, who is famous for her pro-abortion position, and Josh Hawley, a Republican Senator from Missouri during the Senate hearing on abortion rights.
▪After asking Bridges why she was using the phrase “people with a capacity for pregnancy” instead of saying “women”, Hawley was accused of “opening trans people up to violence”;
▪The two also tried to figure out “if a man can get pregnant”
A question for Professor Bridges from Republican senator for Texas, John Cornyn III: “Do you think that a baby that is not yet born – do you think that baby has value?“
“I think that the person with the capacity for pregnancy has value,” Bridges answered.
Be it an epidemic, a ‘foreign adversary’, or apocalyptic climate change, the elites will always find a way to keep us scared
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once famously said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Regardless of how you feel about his New Deal, those words hold timeless truth that I wish more Americans today would take the time to consider.
America was founded by men who risked their lives in the pursuit of liberty for all. Our founding fathers stood up to the power of the Crown when they formed the States, knowing full well the potential repercussions if they failed. They also knew that to be free, you must be fearless. You have to believe liberty is worth fighting for and even dying for. You have to believe that you are a divinely created sovereign being, and that your rights come from God, not the government. If you believe this, as they did, you have the basis to create something truly wonderful. How far we have fallen.
America in 2022 more closely resembles a giant mental asylum inside a circus than a country of the brave and the free. Sometimes I wonder if most of my fellow citizens even believe in freedom anymore, or are they so fearful and shellshocked they’ve forgotten what that word means? I see young people in the prime of their lives walking around Los Angeles wearing three layers of face masks because they heard on TV that will keep them safe. Shoulders always slumped, heads always bent. I see people wearing surgical masks while driving alone, locked in their cars.
We’ve had more than two years, multiple vaccinations, a slew of well-documented early viral treatments, and still it’s not enough. Everything is sanitized, every cashier is behind a plexiglass barrier, and every germ is now seen as a threat. Everyday phrases like “See you later” and “Take care” have been replaced with “Stay safe.” It’s almost like safety is the new American pastime, replacing baseball. Or worse, Safety is the new religion. To quote Nabokov, “The poison was in the wound, and the wound remained ever open.” And that’s exactly what our new fearful citizenry has been subjected to – an enormous national fear-wound, inflicted by our own government, whose taste for power has unleashed a monster. That monster both creates and feeds off of the fear, churning out more and more fresh poison with every news headline.
It doesn’t begin or end with Covid-19, or epidemics in general. Lock yourselves down because monkeypox is coming! Along with West Nile, Zika, and Covid variant numbers 5, 6, and 10,000. Oh, and the world is going to end in ten years due to climate change, just like it was about to end ten years ago, and ten years before that. Better stop driving! (So the world’s elite can fly more private jets and buy yachts, of course). And you should definitely be afraid of (insert foreign country) and ohmygod what if aliens attack?! The barrage never ends. And we’ve been living like this for years and years. It’s difficult not to be affected. If you’re an American reading this and you live in a big city, ask yourself this: When was the last time you felt lighthearted and carefree?
Why would our government and their news media lackeys do this to their own people? Simple. To control us. A fearful populace will go along with almost anything, which we witnessed at the onset of Covid-19 and the countless small businesses that were crushed by the lockdowns. When we are controlled by fear, we are easy to divide and conquer. And they got what they wanted. Neighbors ratted on neighbors, calling the cops over a simple house party (or, in my neighborhood, over a family gathering to grieve together after a funeral). All of it driven by instilled fear, all of it devoid of human empathy.
Americans were already facing nationwide crises that impacted our mental health long before Covid. Just look at how obsessed we are with Hollywood, social media, and the new ‘influencer’ class. We have endless pharmaceuticals for anxiety and depression, and an epidemic of porn addiction. We’re dealing with an opioid crisis, and the delusional idea that one can change their sex or pick one of 78 genders. All of this doesn’t bode well for a healthy, functioning society, but when you add in a hysterical media and a ruling class working together to instill fear, you’ve got a direct path to the total destruction of a nation. I’m afraid that if we don’t collectively, as a nation, gain control over this (manufactured) fear, that’s where we’re headed.
Not only are fearful people easy to control, they aren’t capable of functioning in a normal human way. Humans need to be with other humans, not isolated or communicating through phones and computers. We are highly social creatures designed to take risks, to try new things, learn, create, and explore. We can’t do that if we suspect everyone to be a personal health threat, or if we believe we’re on the cusp of nuclear war, or if we fear food shortages, or that we may not be able to pay for the things we need to live. When we reach this point, we begin to develop mental illnesses, addictions, and neuroses like the ones I described earlier.
A president I happen to think was much wiser than Rooselvelt taught us that, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” It’s worth standing up for our God-given human rights and not giving into fear, which only serves to enslave us. Freedom is still worth fighting for, and it’s not as hard as it may seem. Step one: Turn off the fear porn.
Anyone who is perceptive of current social and political trends in America knows that women — especially White liberal women — play an inordinate role. They are almost always at the forefront of any protest lecturing others about ‘systemic racism,’ ‘white privilege,’ ‘toxic masculinity,’ and the need for ‘equity’ in every sphere of life.
These same women are given every conceivable platform to spew their revolutionary rhetoric. They demand to be heard, and they haven’t the slightest hesitancy to confront and shout down their opponents. The prevailing attitude among them best fits the popular quote attributed to the late Harvard professor, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, who wrote in 1976 that “well-behaved women seldom make history.” This was apparently taken out of its context and given the new meaning that if women are to make an impact on society for good, they must rebel against the norm and be disruptive. The notion of a woman who is gracious and well-mannered as she protests is anathema to the thinking of most contemporary liberal female activists.
All of this, of course, is not a recent phenomenon. It has its roots in the women’s suffrage movement beginning in the nineteenth century and increasing in influence ever since. The most notable modern feminists were Jews such as Betty Friedan, Naomi Klein, Gloria Steinem, and the late Supreme Court judge, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, can be named among them. In fairness, there are plenty of gentile women who have also played a significant role in feminist history. Yet it would be hard to deny that Jewish feminists have played a more influential and disproportionate one. I suspect this is due in large part to Jews controlling news corporations, print media, Hollywood, and much of academia.
Feminist women have always created scenes for their cause. They have always engaged in public antics. They have always been vocal and confrontational. What we are witnessing today, then, is not necessarily new, but it is different in its degree and scope.
The contemporary feminist woman of today is not just passionate about what she believes, she is uber-passionate about it. She’s not just a believer, she’s a fanatic. She’s not just on a mission, she sees herself as a revolutionary bent on transforming the world. She cannot be reasoned with. She’s not just ready to argue, but ready also to brawl. She doesn’t just lecture, she screams her message at others. She demands that you listen to her, and if you don’t, she’ll force you to listen. She invades public spaces demanding to be heard.
The modern ‘woke’ feminist is consumed with her own self-righteousness. She is obsessed with virtue signaling before others. She hasn’t the faintest doubt about the rightness of her cause. And anyone who opposes her or even tries to temper her opinions is no different than the most deplorable humans we could imagine. Restraint and moderation aren’t permitted among today’s feminists. Like the most rabid religious fundamentalist, there is no reasoning with them. It is an all or nothing proposition.
The new and hard-core feminists of today are not limited to a few cranks who are childless and have never been married. A good many of these women, instead, are married and have children. They are part of mainstream society. Other than the ‘pussy hats’ they might wear to some rallies, they wouldn’t necessarily stand out all that much from ‘normie’ women.
Nevertheless, leftist women have a number of differences, as revealed by a recent U.K. survey.
The most popular LGBT identity is bisexual, which is significantly more common among women than men.
When we look at homosexual behavior, we find that it has grown much less rapidly than LGBT identification. Men and women under 30 who reported a sexual partner in the last five years dropped from around 96% exclusively heterosexual in the 1990s to 92% exclusively heterosexual in 2021. Whereas in 2008 attitudes and behavior were similar, by 2021 LGBT identification was running at twice the rate of LGBT sexual behavior.
Because the rise in LGBT identity is so heavily concentrated on the political left, its influence on the balance of power between the two parties is likely to be limited.
College students majoring in the social sciences and humanities are about 10 points more LGBT than those in STEM. Meanwhile, 52% of students taking highly political majors such as race or gender studies identify as LGBT, compared to 25% among students overall.
Various data sources indicate that gender nonconformity – trans and non-binary identity – reached its peak in the last few years and has started to decline.
Overall, the data suggest that while there has been an increase in same-sex behavior in recent years, sociopolitical factors likely explain most of the rise in LGBT identity.
Yet this is where the potential of their destructive message and influence could be greater than feminists of previous generations. They may not necessarily look like the traditional feminist with their short, cropped hair, tattoos, piercings, blue hair, and the like (there are plenty of modern feminists, admittedly, who still appear as I have described). Instead, they physically appear to be no different than every other adult woman. This gives the feminist message of today a less threatening appearance and, thereby, more acceptable to the gullible women who might entertain such notions.
The question naturally arises why women are so seemingly susceptible to such radical social and political movements? Why do women so often comprise the shock troops and first ranks of any Leftist political protest?
I think there are reasons for this, none of which are accidental.
The first reason lies in a woman’s nature. Women are nurturers. They are disposed to care for, treat and help others. They are natural do-gooders. They have an innate pull to help and ease the suffering of the less fortunate. Their inclination is to make things better. They are helpers at heart. These are not necessarily bad qualities, but they must be kept in check lest it morph into the kind of militant ‘woke’ women who have taken hold in our society.
The collective insanity of our women is perhaps no more perfectly illustrated in the massive numbers of American women who are rabidly pro-abortion. If women do indeed possess nurturing qualities when it comes to babies and children, why are so many of them willing to terminate their pregnancies — even to the point of supporting partial-birth and after-birth abortions?
These same women must literally suppress their most natural instincts in order to support abortion. Spiraling to this level of evil doesn’t occur overnight. No, it occurs incrementally until one completely sears and deadens their moral conscience. What accounts for this other than a nationwide mass delusion of our women? What sort of wickedness has crept into their hearts and minds for them to celebrate laws that permit the deaths of millions of unborn and partially born babies?
The second reason lies in the emotional nature of women. They tend to think from the heart and not so much from the head. Women, generally, tend to be less critical and cautious in their thinking than men. They are often reactionary, and their heartstrings can be more easily pulled than their male counterparts.
Obviously, there are exceptions to what I’m saying. There are plenty of women who are careful thinkers and who are not as easily manipulated emotionally as other women. But in my estimation these kinds of women are the exception and not the norm. They are the outliers. I don’t even think it comes natural to them. They must fight against their more trusting and emotional natures in some way.
Bear in mind that I’m not saying that men are completely free of emotionalism and less critically minded in the way women generally are. There are plenty of men who can be just as irrational at times and emotionally driven. But overall males tend to be different in this realm than females. Men are not so easily emotionally manipulated as women, and in this sense the two sexes really are different from each other.
It should surprise no one, then, why religious charlatans and radical Marxist groups have so easily preyed on females. They too understand the nature of females, and they exploit it for all it’s worth. Most churches are filled with women, and they often lead the various committees and church ministries. Even cosmetic manufacturers target women in their advertisements in ways that comport with the nature and unique proclivities of females.
They know good-and-well that most women are gullible and can be easily manipulated. They would never admit it, of course, but they would not have had the same level of marketing success if these fundamental distinctions were not kept in mind.
Go to any Leftist protest, and you will witness crowds of angry women with posters and picket signs on behalf of their political cause. The sheer numerical dominance of female protesters, in fact, often serves as the impetus for some men to join the cause so they can have easy access to all the women. The point being that women are the ‘weaker sex’ and not just physically, but emotionally and in terms of critical awareness.
I would add that the presence of large numbers of women at Marxist and feminist political rallies serves also to disarm any political opponents who may be in attendance. Who would, after all, like to be surrounded by throngs of hostile and screeching women? Any male who sought to engage them would be drowned out with a barrage of epithets and the vilest profanity. Today’s loud-mouthed ‘pussy hats’ are not ashamed to say what they really think. Even if a melee broke out, what man would want to be filmed fighting a woman? Women, then, are used by Leftist activist groups to intimidate and demoralize any male opposition that might be present.
The third reason lies in what women are told about themselves by those who control the messaging. Women in America are told they can do anything a man can, and even better too. Women are portrayed in the media, television and Hollywood as practically super-heroes. These are lies, of course, but we’re not allowed to say so. Expect consequences if you do.
Turn on any television commercial and the woman is always portrayed as smarter and more quick-witted than any man. Males are portrayed as clueless and dull-minded. Whether it’s working as a police officer or in combat infantry, females can do it all. There are no intellectual or physical barriers, and anyone who suggests there might be is a backward patriarchal fool.
Anyone who appeals to the physical limitations of women compared to men in the realm of sports, is immediately denounced. No amount of reality and facts will persuade the feminist mindset.
For example, during a CBS This Morning interview, the once great professional tennis player (now retired), John McEnroe, tried to talk some sense into host Gail King when he stated in a 2017 NPR interview that if Serena Williams “played the men’s circuit she’d be like 700 in the world.” She wouldn’t accept it even though McEnroe admitted that Serena was “the greatest female tennis player that ever lived.” Gail wanted so badly for McEnroe to say that Serena was the greatest tennis player among both men and women. To his credit, he wouldn’t say it because it wasn’t true.
At one point, McEnroe was asked by one of Gail’s co-hosts, “Would you like to apologize?” Thankfully, he refused to cave to such pressure. Yet it serves to illustrate that fundamental and biological differences between men and women, including differences in physical abilities, cannot be admitted even when the facts are readily available.
Also, why must people apologize for an opinion they have, especially if it is sincerely held and can be proven? The question reveals more about the mindset of the person asking for the apology than the opinion of McEnroe.
The reality of innate male and female differences and their physical abilities should be patently obvious to anyone, but is now denied so as not to arouse the displeasure of today’s feminists. We must pretend that men and women are the same. We must deny what our lying eyes see and what we instinctively know.
Any man who dares to publicly challenge the reality-denying worldview of ‘woke’ feminism will soon find himself de-platformed and likely unemployed. A voice free to express itself, personal dignity, and even employment cannot be given to society’s ‘heretics.’ The very things that feminists demand and force upon society they quickly deny to anyone who challenges their dogma. It only serves to prove just how disingenuous and intellectually dishonest they are at their core.
The fourth reason lies in the breakdown of the family and society. Feminism did not arise in a vacuum. There were an array of historical events and influences that contributed to its development. Like most misguided political movements, especially those that had strong Jewish and Marxist influences, it was just a matter of time before what seemed like a well-intentioned movement for ‘equality’ turned into a nation destroying agenda led largely by crazed women bent on imposing their Utopian values on the rest of us.
It has been said that when even the women of any society become as debased as the men of that same society, you can rest assured that its days are numbered. Surely America’s days are numbered if one considers how far too many of our women conduct themselves, especially when given a platform. Just look at how they dress. You can’t go to any store or public event without seeing an enormous ham-beast wallowing about attired in the tightest and most revealing clothes imaginable. Jiggles and cellulite for all to see. Tatted sleeves on every arm. Pierced like an African tribesmen, and a foul mouth to boot. She has no sense of shame. No self-awareness. God help the man who’d dare to suggest that she’s not the Greek goddess she imagines herself to be!
There is nothing gracious or even feminine about them. Nothing that could be deemed dignified or classy. They are not soft-spoken nor reasonable — the very qualities that might attract more men to their cause!
This is what our American women have morphed into. This is what ‘woke’ feminism does to the women of any society stupid enough to tolerate it. Is it any wonder why so many American men are turning to Asian and Eastern European women who possess the slimness, femininity, grace, and traditional values they want?
Our women, in truth, have abandoned the natural order of things. They are in complete rebellion, but they are too brainwashed and self-righteous to see it. At least two generations of American women have been duped into believing that causal sex, abortion, and climbing the corporate ladder will bring them happiness. A good many of them have discovered it doesn’t. They are now in their late 30s and 40s, and they want to get married and have children. But for most of them, it’s too late.
Some of them have only recently discovered what they were intended to be all along — namely, mothers and homemakers. Instead of saving themselves sexually for their husbands, partnering with those same husbands, and rearing responsible children possessing real values and character, they opted for a corporate career with no husband and no children. They spent their best years pursuing a worthless college degree (at least in most cases) and partying. Having hit the wall by the time they reached thirty, and having gone through multiple sexual partners, there remains few marriageable men and those who are single may not necessarily want a woman who has a host of bed notches to her name.
The fifth reason is because men have largely abdicated their role as leaders in the home, church, and society. Women have rebelled against the natural order of things, no doubt, but men have also allowed it to happen. They have remained content to do nothing about it. They have become passive. Some of these same men have aligned with feminists in order to have access to them and to gain their approval. Other men have done it because like so many feminists they too have a need to virtue-signal.
When our men refuse to take their leadership roles in society, there will arise plenty of women who will be glad to do it for them. And this is where the problems begin.
Far too many men do not have their lives together. They have no framework or worldview in which to interpret the society around them. They have not developed a practical philosophy of marriage and child-rearing. Most men do not even think in such terms. It’s completely foreign to them. Their fathers never taught nor modeled before them how a husband and father is to conduct himself. There is a complete absence on the part of these same fathers of imparting values and practical wisdom to their sons. They either haven’t considered it or don’t think it’s important to do so. Their own fathers may have never addressed such subjects. And so whatever knowledge is gained by our young men is almost always based on a liberal and materialistic worldview — which will always prove detrimental to the lives and future of Whites.
I know this will be difficult for many to accept, but the dominance of women in almost every realm of our society is not a good indicator of our national health. When women and transexuals are promoted to important and even strategic positions within our military, this is not a good sign. It certainly signals to our enemies that we are weak, that we are driven more by popular ‘woke’ rhetoric and artificial constructs than by the safety of our countrymen. Any nation, such as the U.S., that exalts and virtually deifies women sets itself on a course that will surely collapse under the weight of its own stupidity. This is not to say that honorable and virtuous women should not be honored by society, but only that national and social policies should not be determined by what women ‘feel’ nor by any false or inflated views of what they can do.
In other words, when women rule a nation’s most important institutions — especially if its foundation are ideologically ‘woke’ — it will inevitably self-destruct. Consider, for example, Germany’s former Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the problems she saddled her nation with because of her bleeding heart for Islamic migrants. In Sweden, 47% of its Riksdag (parliament) is comprised of women. Switzerland’s Federal Assembly has 41.5% females. It should surprise no one that these same countries also have extremely liberal social policies and permit large numbers of Islamic people to immigrate.
While there may be some historical exceptions to what I have written, the point remains: Women in national leadership roles generally tend to weaken a nation because of their sympathetic natures, their susceptibility to social contagion, and poor discernment.
The same thing could be said about the presence of women in the police profession. Although women do well in support roles (e.g., dispatchers), they do not have the natural physical traits and upper body strength that’s required to do the job. Most male cops will admit this, albeit privately. Is it any wonder why so many female officers are injured in the course of their duties? Most male felons will comply with a female officer only when she’s accompanied by stronger male officers.
When women are given endless platforms to spew the sappiest political drivel, including the most nation-destroying social ideas, and then celebrated for it, this too is not a good thing. It is a sign that we are done with as a nation since only a people bent on national suicide would permit it. And it’s not because there aren’t any intelligent and perceptive women because there surely are. But when a society tolerates only one viewpoint — a liberal feminist one — there is little hope that that same society will turn out wiser and stronger in the end.
The old 1968 Virginia Slims cigarette TV commercial used to say, “You’ve Come A Long Way, Baby” — but for great numbers of American women, it’s been a self-imposed disaster for themselves and the nation at every step.
According to the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), science teachers must cease using words like “parent,” “men,” “women,” “mother,” and “father” since they are “oppressive”.
The world’s largest association of science teachers has released a guide for science teachers on “anti-oppression” vocabulary, which includes instructions to refer to men as “XY individuals” and fathers as “persons with testes.”
In the guide, titled “Gender-Inclusive Biology: A framework in action,” the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) mothers are now referred to as “persons with ovaries” in reference to reproduction cycles. The NSTA also announces its support for biological men competing in women’s sports, declaring the move of various states toward “Sex verification in sports” as an example of oppression.
Jonathan Turley reports: The use of such a guide by a state school would raise serious First Amendment issues. We have already seen successful litigation challenging mandatory pronoun usage, including the recent litigation involving a teacher in Loudoun County, Virginia. Yet we have also seen new cases, including the charging of three high school students for not using preferred pronouns.
Under the new guidelines, teachers are encouraged to drop terms like “male” in favor of “XY individuals.”
The NSTA suggests that this can be a fun exercise like having students come up with an entirely new name for the word “parents,” such as “gene-givers” or “biological life transmitters.” This is not likely to be viewed as a fun exercise by some teachers or students, including those with opposing deeply religious views.
I happen to believe that teachers can and should address different gender identities in relevant courses. However, this type of sweeping guide, if made mandatory or enforced through “microaggression” policies, could contravene constitutional protections.
It is important to keep this guide in its proper context. The guide does not call for mandatory rules in schools barring the use of these terms. The guide is not calling for Father’s Day cards to be converted into “Happy Person with Testes Day.” However, we have seen such guides cited as the basis for sanctions, including allegations of hostile classroom environment or micro aggressive speech.
The KNM Helge Ingstad (Photo: JakobØshthiem/Norwegian Defense)
An Inauspicious Sign For The Ukraine
Last August, a short video clip of armed Afghan women purportedly ready to fight the Taliban went viral on social media.
A week later, Afghanistan had been retaken by the Taliban, with nary a shot fired. So this tweet by Britain’s ambassador to the Ukraine seems inauspicious:
That second tweet came to mind when reading our friend Emil Kirkegaard’s post about the consequences of shoe-horning women into roles for which they aren’t suited. I’ve posted Emil’s piece in full below.
Now on to Emil’s excellent post. Authored by Emil Kirkegaard at Substack
Too Many Women In The Wrong Places
As women increasingly are hired into traditionally male jobs via affirmative action laws or indirect pressure via media, we see more and more incompetence. This is true whether it is academia, the military or the police. Here’s a funny example from Norway a few years ago. The Norwegian navy was recruiting more women and celebrating their great success in their own magazine Forsvarets Forum (Forum of the Defense) in April 2017.
We can read a quote from one female navigator named Emilie Jakobsen Ophus:
– Det er en fordel å være mange kvinner om bord. Det blir jo med en gang en naturlig greie og et ganske annerledes miljø, som jeg ser på som positivt.
– It is an advantage to be many women onboard. It immediately becomes a natural thing and a quite different environment, which I see as positive.
She is named a navigator on the KNM Helge Ingstad, which is, well was, a frigate. You can guess where this is going. The article also mentions that 4 out of 5 navigators onboard are female. Fast forward to only the next year and we see this headline:
The collision with the KNM Helge Ingstad left a big enough hole in the starboard side of the frigate for the warship to take on water. The crew has been forced to abandon the vessel, The Barents Observer reported. On Tuesday morning, most of the navy ship was already under water.
The warship, one of Norway’s five top modern frigates, was on her way home to Haakonsvern naval base, but it is still a mystery why the well-equipped warship couldn’t avoid colliding with the 250 meters long oil tanker just north of the oil terminal.
The weather was excellent while the waters in the area offer maritime traffic real-time shipping control. Also, there was radio-contact between the vessels when the accident happened.
The nagging question remains as to why the frigate, with all its radars and sensors, could not change course to avoid the collision.
An English summary of the events can be found here. Interestingly, the apparently only male navigator on board, the commanding officer, was asleep when the mistakes were made. The Navy is hiding the names of who were where, so we can only guess at whether everybody involved was a woman, but according to the numbers above, where 4 out of 5 were women, and knowing the CO was asleep, it would appear 100% were female.
From a HBD perspective, this stuff is gruelingly obvious. Not only are women more less interested in these jobs to begin with, but they obviously lack talent compared to men. We know this because spatial ability — the sine qua non of navigators — shows a large male advantage even from childhood. The same way men also dominate basically all sports relating to spatial ability, even where physical strength is not an advantage (e.g. race car driving). To quote a random meta-analysis A Meta-Analysis on Gender Differences in Mental Rotation Ability Measured by the Purdue Spatial Visualization Tests: Visualization of Rotations (PSVT:R) (2013):
This meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the magnitude of gender difference in three-dimensional (3-D) mental rotation ability and to investigate how factors related to test administration conditions play a role in varying gender difference effect sizes and threatening validity. Individuals’ 3-D mental rotation ability was measured by the Purdue Spatial Visualization Tests: Visualization of Rotations (PSVT:R). We integrated 70 effect sizes of gender differences in mental rotation ability measured by the PSVT:R which were obtained from 40 primary studies. The results indicated that male participants outperformed females on the test (Hedges’ g = 0.57). The I 2 statistic indicated 41.7 % of variation in effect sizes reflects real heterogeneity. The moderator analysis indicated that male superiority on spatial ability tasks measured by the PSVT:R is related to the implementation of time limits. The gender difference became larger when stringent time limits (equal or less than 30 s per item) were implemented.
There are inconsistent reports regarding behavioral sex differences in the human navigation literature. This meta-analysis quantifies the overall magnitude of sex differences in large-scale navigation skills in a variety of paradigms and populations, and examines potential moderators, using 694 effect sizes from 266 studies and a multilevel analytic approach. Overall, male participants outperform female participants, with a small to medium effect size (d = 0.34 to 0.38). The type of task, the type of dependent variable and the testing environment significantly contribute to variability in effect sizes, although there are only a few situations in which differences are either nonexistent or very large. Pointing and recall tasks (and the deviation scores associated with them) show larger sex differences than distance estimation tasks or learning to criterion. Studies with children younger than 13 years showed much smaller effect sizes (d = .15) than older age groups. We discuss the implications of these findings for understanding sex differences in human spatial navigation and identify avenues for future navigation research.
In general, we expect a general weakening of the job performance of these jobs since the women hired are obviously subpar due to different standards in hiring. For instance, Norwegian police physical tests:
Bench press: Krav for kvinner: 4 repetisjoner med 32,5 kg Krav for menn: 4 repetisjoner med 60 kg
Almost 50% lower!
Running: Krav for kvinner: 704 meter på seks minutter Krav for menn: 802 meter på seks minutter
Only 12% lower for the 6 minute run.
I am sure the violent criminals — mostly young men — will run slower and only use one arm when faced with female cops. What a joke! Last year, the US military released their 1000 page report on some trials with women in combat units. The results are what you expect. Some results at distance:
The samples are too small to care about specific areas, but as we can see, basically all the directions are the same.
Of course, as we live in clown world with no adults in charge, the army is going forward with more women in these roles. The women are busy TikTok dancing in the barracks.
By Graham Hryce, an Australian journalist and former media lawyer, whose work has been published in The Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age, the Sunday Mail, the Spectator and Quadrant.
The scandals in England and Australia currently engulfing cricket simply confirm that the campaign by woke elites in the West to take over and ideologically purify sport is proceeding apace.
Institutions in the West – universities, the bureaucracy, large corporations and significant sections of the media, for example – have long since capitulated to woke elite domination.
But professional sport, despite becoming progressively more corporatised since the 1950s, has stubbornly maintained a measure of genuine independence until very recently.
Sport has its origins in play, and its underlying values are at odds with the crude ethics of the marketplace. Most sports are organised on strict gender lines, and sport is an activity where success is essentially determined by individual ability and talent – ‘commodities’ that cannot be purchased. Furthermore, most sports attract a predominantly working class following.
These characteristics make sport decidedly suspect in the eyes of the woke elite and, in recent years, they have sought to take over and refashion it in accordance with their own ideology.
This determined campaign has employed a predictable array of tried and tested tactics. #METOO style allegations of endemic sexual assault and harassment, or accusations of ‘institutional racism’ are made in the media in relation to entire sports and/or individual sporting organisations. These allegations often involve events that took place years ago and the terms ‘sexual harassment’ and ‘racism’ are defined so loosely that they encompass acts that cannot, on any rational level, be properly defined or proven. Said allegations are often made by disaffected, moderately successful, players with an axe to grind and prompt other players and former players to make similar claims (possibly true, but possibly just attention seeking.)
It is at this point that corporations threaten to withdraw their sponsorship from the club/organising body/tournament/player tarred with this brush. In a panic the sport or sporting body immediately admits its complete guilt and officials resign – to be replaced by members of a more ‘prorgressive’ outlook. An inquiry is held that inevitably confirms the truth of all the allegations and another round of public self-flagellation is ordered. Individual players, coaches or executives who express ‘politically incorrect’ views are immediately drummed out of the sport.
The most extreme example of this is transgender activists targeting sports and sporting organisations that oppose their ongoing attempts to destroy female sport altogether. They have been so successful that this year the New Zealand sportswoman of the year award went to Laurel Hubbard, a weightlifter who is not only a biological male but also failed to complete a single successful lift at this year’s Olympic Games, finishing dead last in her group.
Recently, many sports and sporting organisations in Australia have found themselves on the receiving end of such campaigns – rendering them dysfunctional and hopelessly divided.
Australian swimming was subjected to #METOO allegations of widespread sexual assault and harassment in the lead up to the Olympic Games this year. The sport’s governing body immediately conceded guilt, and a confirmatory inquiry is now underway.
Last year Australian rules football, in particular the Collingwood Football Club, was accused of “institutional racism” by a number of disgruntled Aboriginal players. The Collingwood chairman admitted guilt and resigned – and this year the club struggled to win a game.
Earlier this year, women’s soccer was accused of fostering a “toxic culture” of sexual assault and grooming of young players. An inquiry is currently taking place into these allegations.
A few years ago, Rugby Union became engulfed in a scandal when woke officials drove champion player Israel Folau out of the game for expressing a religiously conservative view of homosexuality. The divisions caused by the “cancelling” of Folau have still not healed and have affected the subsequent performance of the Australian rugby team on the field.
This brings us to the twin scandals currently besetting cricket in England and Australia – that have emerged, not by accident I suspect, in the lead up to the Ashes series due to commence in Australia in a few weeks time.
The English scandal – which centres on Yorkshire County Cricket Club – is a textbook lesson in woke inflammation. The complainant is Azeem Rafiq, who was born in Karachi and played cricket for Yorkshire some years ago. Rafiq has alleged he was subjected to systematic racism while playing for Yorkshire. Amongst his allegations are that former England captain Michael Vaughan once said to him “there are too many of you lot” (Vaughan has denied this), that other players had called him a “Paki,” and he was forced to drink red wine (Rafiq is Muslim) when he was 15.
Rafiq was given the opportunity to appear before a parliamentary committeerecently and tell them how his life was “ruined” (he now suffers from mental health problems) by the alleged abuse.
In typical capitulatory fashion, the English Cricket Board issued a profuse apology, and the Yorkshire Cricket Club likewise confessed to its alleged transgressions – thus giving passable imitations, in post-modern form, of the behaviour of Stalin’s victims during the 1930s Moscow show trials.
A number of Yorkshire Cricket Club officials have resigned, and most of the club’s sponsors have deserted it.
This was perfectly predictable, especially after the pointed intervention of the UK minister for sport – who openly threatened cricket with increased “regulation” if it did not immediately purge itself of its institutional racism. UK health secretary and Conservative Party member, Sajid Javid, also weighed in, saying, “heads should roll at Yorkshire CCC.”
A few days after Rafiq’s parliamentary performance, the Times published screenshots of a series of anti-Semitic Facebook comments made by him – which are just as offensive as anything his former teammates are alleged to have said to him. Rafiq is also alleged to have sent ‘creepy’ messages to a teenage girl in 2015. These incidents, however, have received nothing like the same level of media attention.
Even for the woke elites, their gross hypocrisy in relation to Rafiq is simply breathtaking – their position seems to be that Yorkshire Cricket Club must be destroyed, and English cricket must be restructured and purged of racism, on the basis of allegations made by an admitted anti-Semite. The irrational dictates of woke ideology make for some very strange bedfellows indeed.
The current Australian cricket scandal differs in subject matter and intensity from its English counterpart, but not in substance.
It centres on Tim Paine, who was appointed Australian cricket captain after the disgraceful Cape Town cheating incident in March 2018, which led to the sacking of then-captain Steve Smith and senior player David Warner. Smith and Warner are now back in the Australian team, after serving 12-month suspensions.
Paine has performed well as captain during what has been a very difficult period for Australian cricket. How has he been rewarded for his efforts?
Two weeks ago, media outlets published a 2017 text exchange between Paine and a female employee of Cricket Australia, the sport’s governing body in this country. The texts were of an explicit sexual nature and included what is colloquially known as a ‘dick pic’ (apparently, this is an integral component of contemporary courtship rituals).
Paine apologised for his behaviour, and immediately resigned as Australian captain. The woke media predictably had a field day in condemning Paine, and the current board of Cricket Australia enthusiastically joined in that condemnation.
In the week following Paine’s resignation, the facts surrounding the texting incident emerged. It became clear that the text exchange – which was very brief –was consensual. The exchange occurred in 2017 – before Paine had been appointed captain – but the woman did not complain to Cricket Australia about it until 2018.
Cricket Australia immediately established an internal inquiry when it received the complaint. Paine admitted to sending his texts and apologised. The female complainant, however, refused to participate in the enquiry unless she received an apology and $40,000 for ‘legal costs’. These demands were refused.
In the circumstances, and because the texts were consensual and private, Cricket Australia, quite correctly, found that Paine had not breached the sport’s code of conduct.
More importantly, it was revealed that the female complainant was sacked by Cricket Australia for stealing, and this week she appeared in court facing criminal charges. It was also disclosed that she had tried to sell her story to a current affairs television program – without success.
Notwithstanding the above facts – which are not in dispute – the current Cricket Australia board has continued to condemn Paine. He has now announced that he is taking a break from cricket, and that he is not available to play in the Ashes tests. To add insult to injury, Cricket Australia has announced that the cheat, Steve Smith, has been appointed vice-captain of the Australian team.
Once again, the blatant hypocrisy exhibited by Cricket Australia simply beggars belief. Cricket Australia sees no issue in two self-confessed cheats playing in the Australian team, but takes the view that a player who was cleared of any wrongdoing by its own internal inquiry process is not fit to be captain – in circumstances where the accusations made against him were made by an alleged thief.
Nor does Cricket Australia seem to care one jot that the current scandal – which it is responsible for – will undoubtedly adversely affect the Australian team’s performance in the forthcoming Ashes tests.
Fortunately, Paine has received a great deal of support over the past week. The chairman of the former board of Cricket Australia has rightly condemned the current board’s actions, and Cricket Tasmania – Paine is a Tasmanian – has echoed those criticisms.
Even so, it is clear that the woke elites’ irrational drive to remake sport in their own image will stop at absolutely nothing – including destroying famous sporting clubs, ruining the careers of loyal players and utilising extremely flawed complainants to achieve their own ends.
Cricket is just the latest sport to have come under concerted attack from the woke elites.
Governing bodies of other sports, together with all genuine sports fans, should watch the outcome of the current cricket scandals in England and Australia with keen interest.
