RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://goudsmit.pundicity.com/27086/the-politics-of-pronouns

This article is a chapter from my new book, Space Is No Longer the Final Frontier–Reality Is, scheduled for release at the end of 2023.

CHAPTER 25: The Politics of Pronouns

Globalism is a replacement ideology that seeks to reorder the world into one singular, planetary Unistate, ruled by the globalist elite themselves. The globalist war on the nation state cannot succeed without collapsing the United States of America. The long-term strategic attack plan moves America incrementally from constitutional republic to socialism to globalism to feudalism. The tactical attack plan uses psychological, informational warfare to destabilize Americans, and drive society out of objective reality into the madness of subjective reality. The primary target of globalist predators is America’s children. 

A child’s ability to test reality is a reference to his ability to identify the world of facts. It is a human psychological survival skill. When little Johnny tells his Mommy he is a bird that can fly, it is his Mommy’s responsibility to keep Johnny in objective reality, and explain to Johnny that he is a child, not a bird, and he cannot fly. If instead of objective reality, Mommy or Daddy encourages Johnny’s subjective reality, and escorts him to the top floor of their apartment building to fly, Johnny will fall to his death. Objective reality always prevails.

Objective refers to a reality that is outside of your mind (world of facts), and subjective refers to the inner reality of your mind (world of feelings). Conflict between objective reality and subjective reality generates cognitive dissonance––tension in your mind created by holding inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes. The tension is often so intolerable, it causes people to change their thoughts and behaviors to eliminate the pain. Cognitive dissonance is an important dynamic of psychological warfare.

The catastrophic consequences of encouraging children to live in subjective reality, conflicts with parental responsibilities and protections. Children are being intentionally indoctrinated to believe that objective reality does not exist. Hans Christian Anderson’s famous folktale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” published almost 200 years ago, dramatizes the difference between objective and subjective reality, and exposes why reality is the final frontier. In objective reality the emperor is naked. In subjective reality the emperor is wearing new clothes. Weaponized education tries to persuade children the emperor is wearing new clothes.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/michigan-republican-sets-the-record-straight-on-hate-crime-bill-that-could-criminalize-using-wrong-pronouns/?

Michigan’s hate-crime bill is subjective and illogical and could criminalize the use of biologically accurate gender pronouns, state representative Andrew Beeler told National Review, pushing back against local supporters of the legislation who have dismissed claims that it threatens free speech.

The bill would punish speech that “intimidates another individual” with up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Democrats blamed misinformation last week after several outlets reported that the bill would criminalize the refusal to use preferred pronouns. The bill doesn’t dismiss an individual’s First Amendment right to constitutionally protected activity but does criminalize speech if a “reasonable” person feels “intimidated,” a standard state Republicans say is too vague.

“This entire bill hinges on how you define ‘intimidation,’” Beeler said. “I’ll define it the way that the bill defines it: The full definition is, ‘willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened,’ etc. If you intimidate by that definition, anyone in the protected classes, you are subject to criminal prosecution and a potential felony.”

Although Michigan’s 1988 hate-crime law already makes it illegal to intimidate based on race, religion, sex, or nationality, the new bill expands protections for gender identity or expression, which it defines as “having or being perceived as having a gender-related self-identity or expression whether or not associated with an individual’s assigned sex at birth.”

A standard of reason, by which juries determine whether or not a person acted with average care and consideration, is difficult to apply when Michiganders can’t agree on basic truths about the nature of gender, Beeler said.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-affirmative-action-illusion

One byproduct of a half-century of affirmative action is that it has given many Americans the impression that blacks can’t advance without special treatment. The response to last week’s Supreme Court decision banning the use of race in college admissions suggests that even some very accomplished black professionals have internalized this belief.

Joy Reid, the MSNBC host, said in response to the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ruling that racial preferences were the only reason black people like her had access to elite schools such as Harvard. Eddie Glaude, who teaches African American studies at Princeton, said affirmative action was “the only remedy to the legacy of discrimination in admissions in American higher education” and “they’ve taken it away.” Another black academic, Jelani Cobb, wrote in The New Yorker that affirmative action “helped expand the Black middle class” and predicted that one result of the decision will be “fewer students from traditionally underrepresented minorities on college campuses.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent in the case is chock-full of similar doomsaying. The nation’s first black female Supreme Court justice presents a lengthy chronicle of racial disparities in outcomes and argues that they can be linked directly to slavery and the legacy of segregation. Ending racial preferences, she writes, ignores “the well-documented ‘intergenerational transmission of inequality’ that still plagues our citizenry” and “will delay the day that every American has an equal opportunity to thrive, regardless of race.”

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/thou-shalt-not-censor

Imagine if we learned Biden Administration officials had secretly jawboned the New York Times on trans issues. Or told baseball teams they should fly pride flags – or face antitrust hearings. Or complained to the History Channel over a documentary depicting the discovery of crude oil positively.

The First Amendment concerns would be obvious. We’d all wonder why government officials thought they could tell private companies what opinions and news to carry.

The American government is hugely powerful. Not even the biggest company can ignore a call from the White House. If the executive branch has something to say, it should do so with press conferences and open advertising – not secretly threaten the media to carry its water.

Yet when it comes to social media companies, the left has forgotten this simple fact. Instead it claims a new age of information warfare demands that the Constitution be set aside – as if propaganda campaigns haven’t always been a feature of mass media. It has forgotten the importance of an open marketplace for ideas and debate.

Now, in a lawsuit brought by two states against the federal government over social media censorship, a judge has reminded the left – and all of us – of what the First Amendment means and why it matters.

And he’s done so in the simplest, most profound possible way.

https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/07/misinformation-is-the-vocabulary-of-a-culture-that-has-lost-its-capacity-to-discuss-truth/

EXCERPTS

The perversion of truth is falsehood; misinformation is just the perversion of information.

In a preliminary injunction issued against the White House and federal agencies on Tuesday in Missouri v. Biden, Judge Terry Doughty eviscerated government actors for colluding with social media companies to censor users’ protected speech in the name of eliminating “misinformation.”

Doughty, as others have done, compares the government censorship to Orwell’s hypothetical “Ministry of Truth.” But Orwell’s satirical title gives the speech police too much credit: It assumes “truth” is still a functional part of their vocabulary. No, our censors speak in terms of “misinformation.”

The perversion of truth is falsehood; misinformation is just the perversion of information. Truth has a moral component; information doesn’t. Years of moral relativism have eroded our cultural understanding of “truth” as a knowable, agreed-upon concept — and in our modern world, all we’re left with is an infinite supply of information.

Truth, Discerned in Nature by Reason

For most of Western history, philosophers and laymen alike have agreed upon the existence of “truth,” as a factual concept but also as a moral one.

Today, we see factual relativism as well as moral. Not only does our prevailing social ethic tolerate individuals’ self-determination of “what’s right for me,” we’ve gone so far as to nod along when a man says he is actually a woman, lacking the philosophical footing to explain why that simply can’t be true.

To “speak your truth,” as distinct from the truth, is a moral victory to be praised according to our prevalent irrational dogma. Our cultural rejection of reason is evident in every field: Look at the deconstructionist sculptures and poetry that pass for art, or the assault on the fixed, rational rules of mathematics.

In this cultural condition, people are no longer equipped to speak in terms of truth, grounded in the divinely appointed laws of nature, discernible by human reason. Those concepts aren’t in our contemporary vocabulary.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/07/07/gallup-faith-in-american-institutions-hits-new-low/

Trust in most major American institutions has reached its lowest point in modern history, according to a survey from Gallup.

As reported by the Washington Free Beacon, the poll shows that just 26 percent of Americans say that they have confidence in the country’s institutions. This marks a 10-point decrease from the same question when it was asked in 2020, and is the lowest point ever since 1979, when Gallup first began asking this question.

When broken down along particular institutional lines, Americans report a 26 percent confidence rate in the office of President of the United States, and a mere 8 percent confidence in the U.S. Congress. The most popular institution is small business, at 65 percent support, while the military comes in second with 60 percent.

Institutions that saw their lowest scores yet include the police, big business, public schools, and technology companies. As Gallup notes, there is also a clear partisan divide when it comes to certain institutions; Democrats’ confidence in the presidency is currently 39 points higher than the confidence of Republicans, and 34 points higher than Republicans when it comes to public schools.

By contrast, Republicans are 28 points higher in confidence than Democrats with regards to the Supreme Court, 24 points higher with churches and organized religion, and 20 points higher in supporting the police.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2023/07/07/explosive-video-missing-witness-says-he-told-doj-in-2019-about-biden-familys-corrupt-dealings-with-china-n1708908

A mole in the U.S. Department of Justice “shared classified information with Hunter Biden and his Chinese partners” and tipped off the Biden family about an investigation into their corrupt dealings with a Chinese energy company with spy ties, and the feds arrested a whistleblower overseas to stop him from getting to the U.S. to testify to the House Oversight Committee. These are among the explosive allegations the “missing witness” in the Biden family corruption investigation has revealed in a video from a secret location.

The man, Dr. Gal Luft, an Israeli citizen who once headed a Washington and China-tied think tank with former CIA Director James Woolsey, released a video this week explaining all of the above allegations and more. The New York Post’s Miranda Devine broke the story while the country celebrated Independence Day and cocaine was found at the White House.

Luft explains that instead of being on the lam from the Department of Justice that wants to put him away for what he says are bogus arms and Foreign Agent Registration Act charges, he was forced to release a video to tell his side of this extraordinary story. He says his first mistake was “a fatal decision I made in March of 2019 to share with the U.S. Government my knowledge about the Biden family’s relations with CEFC,” the Chinese energy company that had ties to the Chinese Communist Party’s intelligence agency.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2023/07/07/the-cdc-gives-advice-for-men-who-want-to-breastfeed-n1708925

Humanity is doomed. I’m sorry to say it, but I’m not sure if there’s anything else one can conclude. Individuals and once-reputable organizations are going to absurd lengths to perpetuate the myths that people can be born in the “wrong body” and that plastic surgery and drug injections can actually change one’s sex.

Those who perpetuated this nonsense were once limited to the fringes of society; now, it’s become mainstream. Even though polls show a large majority of Americans reject radical left-wing gender ideology, health organizations and even our government have been bullied into endorsing it lock, stock, and barrel.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did itself no favors during the COVID pandemic, having endorsed universal masking and vaccines for children. Now it has managed to beclown itself once again by giving advice to biological men on how to “breastfeed.”

Of course, it’s no longer to be called “breastfeeding” because that’s not inclusive enough. Now, they’re calling it “chestfeeding.” We can’t risk offending those who don’t have breasts (also known as men) who think they can defy nature and successfully feed a newborn child mother’s milk.

“The CDC advice isn’t just for biological women who have removed their breasts but still want to nurse babies, it’s also for biological men, who through the magic of plastic surgery also have breasts and would now like to use these breasts to feed babies,” reports Karol Markowitz at the New York Post. “As that’s biologically impossible, the CDC suggests getting help with ‘maximizing milk production, supplementing with pasteurized donor human milk or formula, medication to induce lactation.’”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-short-sighted-new-health-rule-96d90d3e?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

Here’s a definition of Bidenomics you won’t hear from the White House: Forcing Americans to buy expensive products they don’t want or need. Behold the President’s plan to limit short-term health insurance plans in order to jam more consumers into the heavily subsidized and regulated ObamaCare exchanges.

The Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury Departments on Friday proposed rules to roll back the Trump Administration’s expansion of short-term, limited-duration insurance (STLDI) plans. Since 2018 these plans have been available in 12-month increments, and consumers have been able to renew them for up to 36 months.

Short-term plans aren’t required to provide comprehensive benefits, including pediatric services, maternity care and mental health treatment. They are thus much cheaper than the heavily-regulated plans on the ObamaCare exchanges, which must provide 10 “essential” benefits and are restricted in their ability to charge premiums based on age and risk.

These plans are especially attractive to young people whose employers don’t provide coverage. Why would a healthy 26-year-old want to pay for maternity, pediatric and other services he probably won’t use in the near future? Instead, he could use the thousands of dollars in savings from enrolling in short-term plans to repay student loans.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/07/06/two-americas-collide-at-the-supreme-court/

When President Biden fumed that the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling is “not normal,” he spoke more truth than he may have intended. It is certainly not normal nowadays to acknowledge, even implicitly, that discrimination against whites is possible, or even wrong. The Supreme Court blasted the vaporous pretexts that elites have used to justify this invidious scheme, which has carried on indefinitely, feasting on countless dreams without satisfying a bottomless hunger of unquantifiable grievance. The sentimental and, arguably, self-serving wailing of the dissenters, particularly Justice Jackson, draws from that same source.

Although affirmative action has long been unpopular with the public, the outcome in this case is paradoxically more provocative than the Dobbs decision, which cut against popular opinion on abortion. The reason is that racially conscious discrimination has been the rule of American life for the better part of a century. When, in the majority opinion, the famously milquetoast John Roberts asserted that all racial discrimination is bad, he was appealing to a supposed truism that has been repudiated in theory and practice by this country’s ruling class.

To the left, the court’s colorblind worldview is casuistry. Judging by the fruits of civil rights, the left would seem to have the better argument. From its inception, civil rights has meant almost exclusively treating certain groups favorably and others disfavorably. Affirmative action at elite universities was merely the most high-stakes example of this system. From corporate hiring to television advertising and the way newspapers report, or do not report, crime, life in America is now encoded in the subtlest of ways by racial preferences. Even in the most informal of situations, everyone understands the power of the proverbial “race card.” Some employees are virtually unfireable because of their skin color. Freedom of speech has been throttled by a pervasive dread of retaliation for causing even unintentional offense on the basis of race.

Justices Sotomayor and Jackson envision a totalitarian nightmare where wealth, honors, and opportunities are perpetually redistributed until some intangible state of “equality” is reached. Yet this terror, indistinguishable from communism, is the reality in which Americans have lived for a long time. The disruption of that reality makes the court’s ruling anomalous. Can civil rights law now be repurposed to protect everyone, as originally advertised? Perhaps, but the role of blind luck and accident in this ruling should not be underestimated. Had Donald Trump lost in 2016, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a bit more humility, these opinions would have been flipped.