At Padre's
Politics • Spirituality/Belief • Culture
Your Digitial Neighborhood - A place on connection, community and conversation. Come listen, laugh and join us for random discussions, cultural issues, personal stories. pets, cooking, politics and just about anything else. ALWAYS INVITED - NEVER EXPECTED!
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
Deconstructing the LGBTQ+ Backlash

Deconstructing the LGBTQ+ Backlash

Conflating identity groups based on a shared sense of victimization doesn't promote tolerance or understanding
MONICA HARRIS JUN 20

I’ll never forget the first Pride parade I attended in West Hollywood 24 years ago. I was overwhelmed with excitement and a profound sense of relief, as if I’d spent my young life wandering in a wasteland and had finally stumbled upon my tribe. I was stoked to be part of a community that was unapologetically and authentically diverse — white, black, and every color in between; young, old, and middle-aged; “bears,” queens, lipstick lesbians, and baby dykes; teachers and lawyers; firefighters and Marines; hairdressers and masseuses.

More than anything else, I remember feeling giddy with joy. Almost euphoric.

It’s easy to forget that there was a time when being “gay” not only described sexual orientation, but also reflected how an entire community moved through the world. We weren’t angry or resentful; we were fun-loving and proud of what we had accomplished. We were thrilled to express ourselves and the way we chose to live our lives.

Once upon a time, those were the feelings that Pride evoked in me. But now June brings a sense of unease.

This isn’t a confession I make lightly because it feels almost blasphemous. What self-respecting gay person will admit that Pride Month now feels like the mildly nauseating, holiday-drenched stretch between Thanksgiving and Christmas? But there’s also the nagging sense that much of the celebration has started to feel gratuitous, even performative. Having my sexual orientation “celebrated” when I check my account balance or settle in for a flight isn’t empowering or affirming; it actually feels awkward and weirdly inappropriate.

As awkward and inappropriate as Pride-mania often feels to me, I can’t help but wonder what goes through the minds of hundreds of millions of people who aren’t sex or gender “diverse.” Do they question why veterans, mothers, and fathers (whose impact and contributions to society are far-reaching and selfless) warrant only a day of celebration, while those who publicly affirm their sexual orientation or gender identity are gifted with an entire month?

I suspect most Americans set these concerns and questions aside because they accept that living in a free society carries the risk that some freedoms might make us uncomfortable. They’ve learned to tolerate a certain degree of unease. But as Pride-mania has ramped up in tandem with the social justice movement, I sense their unease mounting.

Last year, Pride was marked by “unprecedented backlash.” If recent events are any indication, the backlash is intensifying. Colorado’s GOP has called for Pride flags to be burned. In Carlisle, Massachusetts, 200 Pride flags were stolen from the town center. In Missoula, Montana, vandals destroyed Pride flags at a business that has supported Pride Month for years and never had “an incident like this” happen before.

For the first time in a decade, non-LGBT Americans told pollsters that they’re “less comfortable with their LGBT neighbors.” While many are shocked by these developments, I’m part of a minority who have feared and expected what we’re seeing now.

The LGBT community has always had vocal detractors, mostly political conservatives and those with firmly-held religious beliefs. But over the past twenty years they’ve been pushed to the fringes. As more people have “come out” of the closet, marched in Pride parades, and celebrated their unions, our community has become more visible. By 2016, 87% of U.S. adults knew someone who was gay, lesbian, or bisexual. This exposure had an incredible impact. In 1996, 68% of Americans opposed gay marriage; by 2023 the number had dropped to 28%.

Martin Luther King Jr. taught us that the key to overcoming hatred is human connection. When people are exposed to others of different races, cultures, or lifestyles, they’re more likely to become tolerant of their differences. They realize that human beings are defined not by labels and singular characteristics, but rather the bundle of other traits that make us textured and unique. The last twenty years have proven the vast majority of Americans are tolerant and sensible people. But even sensible people have their limits.

The question is, are these limits being tested? And if so, why is it happening now?

During Pride Month last year, podcaster Joe Rogan summed up the collective frustration outside the LGBTQ+ community: “People are going, ‘Enough, enough.’ Stop shoving this down everybody’s throat.” I don’t want to give too much credit to Rogan’s armchair psychology, but he might be onto something. While most people are comfortable being exposed to ideas or lifestyles they may not support or condone, they tend to resist what they feel is being forced upon them. Admittedly, it’s a fine line, but it’s one the LGTBQ+ community may have tripped over its aggressive efforts to promote visibility. Even the most tolerant heterosexual may question why they’re seeing Pride flags at their local hardware store or plastered on a bag of Doritos.

Last week, one of my “straight” friends (and a long-time LGBTQ+ supporter) was greeted with a panoply of Pride swag when she visited her 92-year old mother in a nursing home: banners in the atrium, flags at dinner tables, and an “entertaining” afternoon of “Drag Bingo.” It left her feeling perplexed and uncomfortable.

“I totally get the need to acknowledge Pride,” she said. “But is this something that really resonates with people facing end-of-life challenges?”

Throat-shoving has its limits.

There may be something else at play, too. What’s rarely discussed is that the growing unease with Pride might not be directed against the entire LGBTQ+ community, but rather a subset of it—specifically, the caravan of letters that follow “LGB.”

The gay and lesbian movement was spawned in the wake of the 1969 Stonewall riots that galvanized the community to establish venues to openly express sexual orientation without fear of reprisals. Initially, bisexuals (“part-time gays”) were added to the mix. And while the community has always been sympathetic to and supportive of the rights of transsexuals and transvestites, it wasn’t until the late 90s that transgender, nonbinary, and other groups—classifications based on gender identity, not sexual orientation—fused with the LGB movement. Since then, the movement has morphed into an unwieldy behemoth.

To be clear, the only thing these recent additions have in common with the LGB community is that they, too, have been historically underrepresented and marginalized. Yet from a contemporary social justice perspective, the common bond of victimization is apparently sufficient to justify “force-teaming” these groups. This reductive mindset pressures victims to slavishly support one another, even if their interests are not closely aligned.

According to gay rights advocate John Aravosis, “the trans revolution was imposed on the gay community from outside, or at least above.” Many gay Americans “who weren’t running national organizations, weren’t activists, or weren’t living in liberal gay enclaves… accepted de facto that transgendered people were members of the gay, lesbian and bisexual community, but only because our leaders kept telling us it was so.”

It doesn’t take someone with a PhD in sociology to realize that tossing disparate groups into the same victim basket ignores critical differences and diminishes their individual needs and interests. Would it be appropriate to add “Hispanic and Asian Lives” to the Black Lives Matter and rebrand the movement as BHALM? Of course not. Just as a Black person cannot relate to the “lived experience” of a Hispanic or Asian person, a gay person who identifies with their natal sex cannot relate to the challenges and needs of a person who questions their gender. As transgender writer Katie Glover observed nearly a decade ago: “The simple point that everyone seems to be missing here is that being transgender and being gay are two entirely different things and they should never be confused.”

Share

Not surprisingly, fractures have emerged within a LGBTQ+ alliance that’s been “force-teamed.” And herein lies the core of the problem with conflating victim groups: it risks misrepresenting their individual values and perspectives, which can have devastating effects within—and outside—the community.

The LGB Alliance, which has been especially vocal in asserting the rights of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men, claims that lesbians face “extinction” because of LGBT’s “‘disproportionate’ focus on transgender identities.” On X, #LGBdroptheT captures lesbian, gay, and bisexual users who want to distance themselves from transgender activists who have “crossed a line”:

“Not wanting men in our spaces or to have sex with certain genitalia does NOT make us transphobes,” one user wrote.

“You took advantage of our good will. It’s gone too far,” tweeted another user.

This disconnect played out publicly in 2022 when Fred Sargeant, a veteran gay activist who participated in the Stonewall riots, was assaulted at a Pride parade for carrying a sign critical of gender ideology.

It’s not even the case that all transgender people support gay rights. When Caitlyn Jenner transitioned to female nearly a decade ago, she expressed ambivalent support for gay marriage because she believed that marriage is between “a man and a woman.” It turns out gay rights aren’t necessarily a trans person’s turf; it’s estimated that the number of trans people who identify as gay is roughly the same as in the wider population.

This misalignment of values and interests sowed the seeds of discontent that has been simmering quietly and is now spilling over into broader society.

LGBTQ+ advocates attribute the recent spike in hostility to the community’s increased visibility. According to one activist, “[T]he louder and prouder the LGBTQ community gets, the angrier people get.” Yet LGBTQ+ activists conveniently forget that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have been “loud and proud” for at least the past two decades, and during that time our heterosexual counterparts have grown to accept us. Notably, while 80% of Americans approve of gays and lesbians living as they wish, only 67% feel this way about transgender and nonbinary people.

LGBTQ+ activists also fail to recognize that the cavalcade of gender identities has brought an aspect to advocacy efforts not previously part of the LGB movement: an emphasis on educating children about sexual orientation and gender.

As the LGBTQ+ movement has become louder, a dramatic shift has occurred in schools. Students are encouraged to express their preferred pronouns in an effort to embrace transgender and nonbinary identities. Several states now require schools to teach LGBT history. Drag queens have become the focus of “kid-oriented pride events,” and local libraries offer drag queen story hour for children.

In response, states have introduced a record number of anti-LGBTQ legislation targeting gender affirming care for minors and public school curricula. Florida’s now infamous “Don’t Say Gay” law came under fire for prohibiting teachers from “intentionally” instructing students on sexual orientation or gender identity. Montana became the first state to ban drag queens from reading books to children in public schools and libraries.

While LGBTQ+ activists see these developments as signs of right-wing intolerance and hate, they ignore the fact that these concerns are not confined to conservatives or heterosexuals.

Increasingly, gay activists fret that the LGBTQ+ movement is drawing many young gay people “into social and medical transition.” Gays Against Groomers, a “coalition of gays, lesbians and others” with more than 400,000 followers on X, advocates against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children under the guise of LGBTQIA+.” Detransitioner Oli London expressed alarm that gender ideology is being pushed on “children and vulnerable teenagers,” citing thousands who have fallen “victim to a social contagion” and placed on “irreversible puberty blockers and hormones.” London also lamented that Pride events have become “sexualized fetish parades” with men “showing off their genitalia, sometimes even in front of children.”

More broadly, polls show that most Americans feel the same way. Although a majority support teaching classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender to high school students, 70% oppose introducing these concepts to elementary and middle school children. Similarly, two-thirds of Americans favored laws to protect the ability of transgender or nonbinary adults to receive gender-affirming care, but the number fell to 50% when asked about care for transgender or nonbinary children.

Put it all together, and a picture emerges that transcends sexual orientation and politics: most people aren’t comfortable accepting ideologies that deviate from their understanding of scientific reality, and they’re even less comfortable exposing young minds to such ideologies or any discussion of sex. As the LGBTQ+ community struggles to find its footing amidst growing resentment, it should be mindful that the freedom to express sexual orientation or gender identity does not guarantee the right to expose children to these nuanced topics.

The reckless conflation of LGB interests and values with those of TQ+s not only threatens to undermine the valuable progress made by the gays, lesbians, and bisexuals; it also unnecessarily alienates heterosexuals and others who embrace the binary nature of sex and feel compelled to protect children from subject matter they lack the developmental grounding and maturity to digest. Unless and until LGBTQ+ advocates adopt a more measured approach that respects moral sensitivities and common sense social boundaries, the backlash we are seeing will continue—and intensify.

Share

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diversity of voices and encouraging compassionate and good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking other perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send drafts to [email protected].

A guest post by
Monica Harris
As an author, speaker and changemaker, I reflect on the social, political and economic challenges of our times; advocate for an awakening to the forces that divide and distract us; and search for meaningful solutions that serve our shared interests.

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
October 03, 2025
Candywoman, Candywoman, Candywoman
00:00:07
October 01, 2025
In a galaxy far, far away FRED prevailed (Butt Trumpet throw back for Alan!)
00:00:51
September 27, 2025
Kirk on Islam - another good watch
00:09:54
It's been a rough year..
It's been a rough year..
November 22, 2024
Voltaire's birthday 11-21-1694 - A brief essay by Steve Weidenkopf

Today marks the three hundred and thirtieth birthday of the Frenchman François-Marie Arouet, better known by his nom de plume, Voltaire (1694-1778).

Born into a bourgeois family during the reign of Louis XIV, the “Sun King” (r. 1643-1715), Voltaire suffered tragedy at a young age when his mother died. Never close with his father or brother, Voltaire exhibited a rebellious attitude toward authority from his youth. His brilliant mind was fostered in the care of the Society of Jesus, who introduced him to the joys of literature and theater. Despite his later criticisms against the Church, Voltaire, throughout his life, fondly recalled his dedicated Jesuit teachers.

Although he spent time as a civil servant in the French embassy to the Hague, Voltaire’s main love was writing—an endeavor where he excelled in various genres, including poetry, which led to his appointment as the royal court poet for King Louis XV. Widely recognized as one of the greatest French writers, and even hyperbolically referred to by ...

Voltaire's birthday 11-21-1694 - A brief essay by Steve Weidenkopf
Meme of The Week Nominees

Happy Sunday Beaver milkers! Get ready to vote!

January 01, 2025
Local's Lounge - All are welcome

Padre - Tom Miller invited you to a Microsoft Teams Meeting series:

The Local's Lounge with the ADD Irregulars - Home of Coffee Talk, Speakeasies, Schmoozes, Tea Times, Afterhours and other gatherings.

Coffee Talk - 6:00 AM Central - Daily
Afternoon Chats - Tuesdays, Friday & Sundays at 2:00 PM Central
Other Chats as scheduled by the community.

Please look for notifications for Speakeasies, Tea Times, Schmoozes & Afterhours for gatherings of the gang. New comers welcome, become an Irregular today!!

Wednesday, January 1, 2025
6:00 AM - 8:00 AM (CST)
Occurs every day starting 1/1 until 12/31

Meeting link: https://teams.live.com/meet/9392334144614?p=4Lr3AcWswEWjbzgHsZ

post photo preview
post photo preview
October 04, 2025
Why They Will Never Be Honest About Islamist Violence
From Konstantin Kisin's Sub Stack

Why They Will Never Be Honest About Islamist Violence

 
Oct 04, 2025
∙ Paid
 
 
 

Have you ever wondered why in the wake of every Islamist terrorist attack, our media and politicians bend over backwards to make the extraordinary claim that Islamism has nothing to do with Islam? The answer is a mixture of things, but the central reason is easy to understand if you think about it logically.

To avoid offending morons, let’s not talk about people and talk about apples instead. As you know, there are red apples, green apples and yellow apples. Let’s imagine for a second that a small percentage of green apples are poisonous and can injure and kill people. It is difficult to distinguish the toxic green apples from the other green apples which are perfectly “peaceful”, “law-abiding” and so forth.

Now imagine that you are the public health authority whose job it is to protect the public. If your concern is solving the problem of the small minority of toxic green apples, you would immediately do a number of things.

You might devote significant resources to identifying the toxic green apples and removing them from the supermarket shelves. You might commission thorough research into how and where the toxic green apples are grown. You might crack down very, very hard on anyone who knowingly participates in growing or distributing such apples. You might even say that while you are dealing with the problem of deaths caused by toxic green apples, bringing more green apples into the country is liable to worsen the public health crisis until suitable measures are identified which allow you to separate the bad green apples from the good ones.

This is how you would act if your primary concern was the safety of the public. But what if you, as the public health authority, had spent the preceding decades claiming that all apples are the same? That to suggest that a small minority of green apples are potentially toxic is fear-mongering and green-o-phobic? What if you had been openly encouraging unfiltered importation of green apples and actively resisted calls to thoroughly check whether such apples are in fact, digestible for your citizens? What if your mantra for the last 20 years has been that anyone who believes there may be significant variations between the toxicity of different types of apples is a bigot who must be suppressed for fear of emboldening the “far right”?

If you were, in fact, responsible for the fact that people were now being killed on the streets of your country by the small minority of toxic green apples, would you not do everything in your power to explain that the diversity of apples is our greatest strength? That the toxicity of green apples is nothing to do with them being green? That any doctor who suggests that the government should carefully regulate the importation of green apples specifically is a racist?

The central premise of our elite consensus is that we must continue to pretend that all apples are the same. No matter how many people pay for this lie with their lives.

Read full Article
September 27, 2025
post photo preview
More thoughts on Forgiveness
Thoughts from 2022 with a new addendum for 2025

Thoughts on Forgiveness from April of 2022 with a 2025 Addendum

In Cath-O-Land we are celebrating Divine Mercy Sunday. Be you a believer or not, do you think that people are defined by their worst traits or decisions and thereafter imprisoned by them? Once a murderer, always a murderer? Is there a path of redemption, rehabilitation or restitution for that person, or are those dark choices and acts irrevocable? For the victims of vile crimes, they are unforgettable, they can be experiences that are life changing or life ending.

I guess it depends on the circumstances. I am not a fan of letting criminals skate free. If you commit the crime, do the time. I know it sounds simple, and we live in a world of decaying justice and manipulations of the courts that can prompt all of us to be cynics about justice. Dial back the clocks just a century and domestic violence and abuse was often ignored unless it erupted into murder. If you saw your neighbors beating their children or a husband beating a spouse, it was often ignored unless dealt with specifically within the family. I am not even sure that was the case, but that certainly is the impression I got from listening to my parents and grandparents talk about abusive neighbors by today's standard.

 

Justice - Mercy - Forgiveness – Contrition - Reconciliation - Healing

Justice - everyone has to face their choices, good & bad. If you believe in a Divine Judge who knows all, no one skates free. Everyone must face their story and how they wrote it by their actions.

Mercy - One can find forgiveness of sins, make restitution for their crimes. In this life, or the next. No one is a prisoner to their past, but no one gets to ignore it either. Mercy is meant to lift us above our past, pull us back on the path, reset the world we live in even if our acts have shrunk that world by our choices. Some may only fine mercy by a life in prison because their acts make them unworthy of living among us. While not a fan of the death penalty, finality of life often opens the door to reflection. The mask comes off when you are going to die, are you a harden & hateful soul, or can you in your final moments have contrition for your acts? In my world, mercy is only going to be received when I am willing to provide it. Mercy flows through me, or it bypasses me. My choice.

Forgiveness - It does not ever mean that the wrong someone has committed against us is acceptable. Forgiveness is not asking us to close our eyes and pretend everything is ok. Forgiveness is the ability to see beyond the wound, to emancipate oneself from the memory that has become our mental prison, to let justice be in the hands of another when we cannot obtain it for ourselves. Forgiveness is a choice - we can decide to offer it or withhold it. few things are worse than letting someone who injured us live rent-free in our heads for a life, imprisoning us in an inescapable memory when we have the keys of our freedom in our own possession.

Contrition – You are sorry for your offense and take accountability for it and are willing to live with the consequences of it and the possible need to make amends for it. Contrition belongs to the perpetrator of the act, and the victim may freely tell them to the go to Hell if they please.  Your sorrow for your acts does not depend upon their recognition or reception of your repentance.  

Reconciliation - It takes two, and it is not always achievable. When forgiveness and contrition are experienced, there is the possibility of reconciliation. You can't be reconciled with someone with someone who fails to take account of their own actions. In a more perfect world, reconciliation is always the goal. You can't be reconciled with a person who is a slave to addiction, especially if that addiction is behavioral altering. The addiction will always come first until they leave it behind. If someone says they are sorry and they alter their acts, reconciliation is possible. But contrition without change is empty. Few things can heal our hearts more than real reconciliation, but it is something not entirely in our control, as all the best things in life are, others have to meet us on the path of their reconciliation and work through the mess and injury however great or small it might be.

Healing - Be it victim or perpetrator - there is healing. If you have a healthy mind & heart, you choose the acts that define you. You choose the emotional weight to give to those acts and how they roam about in your thoughts and feelings. No victim need be a prisoner to the worst crime committed against them. *Victimhood is the surest path to an unhappy life.* Perhaps for some it is inescapable because they have developed a mental illness that will ever prevent they from rising above the pain. But if you are not mentally ill, defining your life as a victim may be one of your worst choices. Healing for the perpetrator can only come when they face their acts and do what they can to make amends.

Well, that is a lot. If you read it all, you probably need another cup of coffee. As always comments are welcome, even if you disagree with me on some of the points. It is after all just my ramblings about it. I hope you have a great day my friend, fellow pilgrim and one willing to lead me some minutes to read this. Peace.

*2025 Addendum for the Coffee Talk Crew 

I couldn’t agree with Fred more than recklessly inviting evil into your life is stupid. Nothing could be more stupid than knowing beforehand that someone is going to do evil and you welcome it pretending that it somehow won’t take place.   I can agree that that type of naive wishful thinking is profoundly stupid.  Europe is doing that with Islamists and the Center & Right of American culture & politics does that too often with the LEFT. There is no such thing as pre-forgiveness. If you come to commit evil, I pray you are stopped.  If it takes you leaving life to protect those I love, I vote you go home to God first rather than my loved ones. I am not happy about not having a choice but violence, but violent men/women have to be stopped with violence, not nice words or hopeful prayers.  Pray for their souls, stop their actions. Contain their evil. Predatory evil needs to be identified and ended. 

I don’t think Charlie Kirk’s wife is stupid for forgiving the murderer of her husband.  She still wants him to face justice and punishment for his crimes, but she is not going to live in the wound created in her life by his vile act. She did not have to forgive; she could have chosen to wait on it or never offer it to the murderer. She made a choice, and one that happened early on because she is serious (not perfect) about her faith.  I admire hr for her seriouness, I don't think I could arrive at forgiveness that quickly. 

At the core of Christian Discipleship is the dynamic of forgiveness – contrition and reconciliation.  Disciples are aware of how much they have been forgiven by God. Disciples know that if they want to seek God’s mercy, they must offer it to others.  I don’t think it has to be an immediate thing, massive wounds of hatred, violence and evil take equally massive amounts of time, grace and healing to mend.  The wounded will know their scars forever, how they chose to think about them is a choice.

Most Christians, and all Disciples should know that forgiveness is essential if they pay any attention to the Our Father.  “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” I can’t imagine praying those words and not trying to live by them. Again, I don’t think it means forgiveness has to be immediate, thoughtless and a given, but it should be something or somewhere I hope to arrive in life.  I should want to forgive eventually even if the pain of the offense at the moment is too fresh, deep and crushing.

Read full Article
September 15, 2025
From VDH - The Blade of Perseus
Was the Current Madness Birthed in the University?

Was the Current Madness Birthed in the University?

September 15, 2025

Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness

America is currently sick.

The young conservative organizer and media personality Charlie Kirk was just murdered in a political assassination by a 22-year-old ‘anti-fascist’ and trans advocate, Tyler Robinson. As planned, he eliminated the most astute and successful political activist in a generation. Indeed, Kirk may well have ensured that Donald Trump won the 2024 election by not just increasing his youth vote by 6 percent since 2020 but, more importantly, by margins in the swing states of 15-24 percent, ensuring Trump’s victory.

No sooner was he killed than thousands on left-wing social media erupted in celebration—among them scores of teachers and professors. Their venom was eerily reminiscent of their earlier canonization of left-wing murderer Luigi Mangione. Recall, Mangione was the spoiled nepo baby who lethally ambushed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Thereby, he became an icon to the Left as a social justice warrior fighting the evil capitalist system, which had so enriched himself and his own family.

Such utter moral bankruptcy was on display as well by the social media praise of Palestinian activist Elias Rodriguez (“Free Palestine”), after he brutally murdered a young Jewish couple at the Jewish museum in Washington, D.C. Rodriguez supposedly showed the world how to deal with Zionists—reifying the hateful rhetoric that pervades the modern campus.

Was that ghoulishness confined to such anonymous left-wing nuts and fringe trolls?

Not really.

MSNBC’s guest “analyst,” Matthew Dowd, casually raised an asinine suggestion that the lethal shot came from a Kirk supporter firing off a round. And then, in Pavlovian fashion, he blamed the assassination of Kirk—on Kirk himself—for being an unapologetic “divisive” activist.

Dowd, who was subsequently fired by an embarrassed MSNBC president, only took his cue from anchorwoman, the untouchable Katy Tur, who first editorialized Kirk as a “divisive” figure. By her logic, would that mean that, say, a Bernie Sanders or Zohran Mamdani would also be divisive? What does Joe Biden, by Tur’s logic, deserve after labeling half the country as “semi-fascists” or reducing them to “garbage,” “chumps,” and “dregs”—or boasting he’d like to take Trump behind the gym and beat him up?

Does Tur mean that anyone deemed “divisive” then should naturally expect what befell Charlie Kirk?

Yet, in truth, Charlie Kirk was an upbeat, happy warrior not unlike William F. Buckley in his youth, willing to politely debate political opponents without anger and bias.

The multimillionaire socialist Rep. Ilhan Omar, who once claimed that the Trump “dictatorship” was worse than what she had fled from in her native Somalia, claimed the slain Kirk mourners were “full of sh-t” in a long, incoherent rant. Such creepy examples could be easily multiplied, such as the accustomed lunacy of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She now claimed that those who block gun control legislation could not blame others for inciting the violence: i.e., Charlie Kirk should have expected to reap what he sowed.

A dense AOC seems clueless that not even her fellow leftists seriously advocate confiscating bolt-action .30-06 hunting rifles of the sort that the assassin used to kill Kirk. Perhaps it might be wiser not to try to hunt down and round up 500 million guns in America, but rather to enforce existing unenforced gun laws that prohibit felons, the mentally ill, and domestic terrorists (“anti-fascists”) from possessing them.

Just prior to the murder of Charlie Kirk, a video had been issued of a 23-year-old Ukrainian immigrant, Iryna Zarutska, brutally murdered on public transit in Charlotte, North Carolina. Her throat was slashed by one Decarlos Brown, an African-American, 14-time felon, recently and prematurely released from custody.

The horror followed the now familiar left-wing script. The left-wing mayor, Vi Lyles, immediately tried to stop the release of the transit video, lest it cause anyone or anything to be blamed. Then she followed with the usual DEI boilerplate that excuses evil: do not judge the homeless, arresting people solves nothing, and the murder was merely “tragic,” as if there is no culpability, just bad luck or fate.

As expected, most of the media suffocated the murder story. After all, it upset the dominant racial narrative that must remain unquestioned. We have been told for decades that systemically racist Americans prey on victimized blacks, and thus, Ibram X. Kendi-style antiracism—de facto stigmatizing and demonizing whites—is needed to stop racism.

The left knows that black males, age 15-40, commit well over 50 percent of the most violent crimes in America, while comprising about 3 percent of the population. They know it and privately navigate accordingly, but few speak of it, and none seem to have answers to it. So the topic remains taboo.

Any “tragedy” that highlights that fact—such as the murder of Ms. Zarutska or the recent brutal strangling of Auburn retired professor Julie Schnuelle by a young black man with a felony record who was released back into the public—must be suppressed. So too we rarely hear of the recent murder of the elderly Queens couple by the alleged career felon and released criminal Jamel McGriff. He robbed them, he tied them up, he murdered them, and then he torched their home. And on and on the crime continues, the narrative continues, and we dare not say a word.

In our post-Daniel Penny world, three young black people, sitting just feet away from Zarutska, witnessed Decarlos Brown slit her throat—and did nothing. Perhaps they were afraid, we were told. Perhaps, we were advised, no first aid could have staunched such horrific wounds. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…

Nonetheless, when Zarutska was staring out at eternity in her death throes, bewildered that someone or something had just ended her life, none of the three lifted a finger to help her—or even console her in her final moments. Instead, the killer, blood dripping from his person, calmly walked off the train unmolested. And even then, in his absence, there was no effort of any of the nearby witnesses to tend to the dying Zarutska. Instead, they sidestepped her and left her behind on the train as she lay gasping her last breaths.

The killer, Decarlos Brown? He can be heard on the video mumbling twice, “I got that white girl.” Yet we were told either that the video was doctored, or too unclear, or irrelevant. If accurate, it demolished the media elite’s insistence that Decarlos Brown had not a racial thought in his mind.

Instead, we were to listen to media analyst Van Jones pontificate that the late Charlie Kirk should have been ashamed for connecting Decarlos Brown to racist hatred. Perhaps Van Jones should reconsider. He should review the entire narrative of how Zarutska found herself a target of a killer. Brown was a 14-time felon. He was out on cashless bail. The magistrate Teresa Stokes, who freed him, had no law degree. Such a “judge” had never taken, much less passed, a bar exam.

She owned an out-of-state alternative treatment center and was involved in another local one. In a prior sane world, magistrates had law degrees. They had been certified as competent by the bar exams. They followed conflict-of-interest protocols that prohibited them from even indirectly profiting from their judicial decisions.

But again, that narrative too is passé, given the power of diversity, equity, and inclusion to exempt norms and protocols for the supposed greater collective good.

From where does all this hatred, violence, and moral vacuity arise? Why did the shooter inscribe his bullets with “anti-fascist” messaging, cruel taunts, and trans jargon?

Is the hatred caused by the media, who talk about toxic “whiteness” nonstop? Is it the collateral damage from the racial obsessions of a Jasmine Crockett, Joy Reid, and septuagenarian Al Sharpton, now ending his racialist career where he started it?

Or is the promulgator the Democratic Party and the Left, out of power, impotent, and angry that their superior intelligence and morality are not properly appreciated by 51 percent of the people? Who put a photoshopped Trump on a New Republic cover as Hitler?

If a General Milley (“now I realize he’s a total fascist”) or a General Kelly (“certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure”) calls a current or ex-president a fascist, and presidential candidate Kamala Harris agrees (“a president…who admires dictators and is a fascist”), then does an unhinged 22-year-old “anti-fascist” college student feel the popular culture might approve of his own efforts in dealing with “fascist” Trump supporters?

Milley, Kelly, Harris, and the rest can call anyone a fascist but without ever defining the term. Did Trump suspend immigration law to let in 12 million illegals? Did he invite into the DOJ or White House the prosecutors Nathan Wade, Jack Smith, and the revolving door Michael Colangelo to coordinate lawfare against an ex-president?

Is Trump ignoring the improper usurpation of executive power by left-wing lower-court judges or instead appealing their decisions through lawful channels?

Did he hire a foreign national to undermine his presidential rival with a fake dossier?

Did he round up “51 former intelligence officials” to lie to the American people to warp the election?

Did he pardon his entire criminally minded family and then cover it up by in absentia outsourcing to his aides the pardoning of hundreds of criminals through an autopen? So please define fascism before smearing a president and lowering the bar of the acceptable.

What is the point of the past violent braggadocio of Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority Leader, posing with a baseball bat, or huffing that he will take the “fight” against the Trump agenda “to the streets?” Was he merely following on the earlier example of Rep. Maxine Waters, who urged supporters to whip up a crowd and physically confront Trump officials in stores and restaurants?

Why are congresswomen kickboxing and punching the screen as they video their seriousness to assault Trump?

What does now-campaigning California Governor Gavin Newsom mean when he promises, “It’s not about whether we play hardball anymore—it’s about how we play hardball. We are going to fight back, and we’re going to punch this bully in the mouth.” What would a potential third assassin think of that promise?

If the governor of the largest state in the union wants to bloody the face of the President of the United States or physically attack his opponents (“We’re gonna punch these sons of b‑‑‑‑es in the mouth”), then might lesser underlings and sympathizers try to outdo that?

Or, finally, is the culprit for the madness found ultimately in the elite university? Who, after all, mainstreamed the idea of racial re-segregation in dorms and graduation ceremonies and taught America that racial essentialism is part of the new tribal America?

Who ignored court rulings and civil rights legislation in their arrogance to recalibrate admissions by race? Who taught the anti-Jewish assassin Elias Rodriguez his hatred of Israel and his pro-Hamas zealotry, and who influenced Luigi Mangione, an honors graduate, to despise “capitalist” CEOs?

Where did the practice of identifying one’s pronouns at the end of memos start, or demanding that biological males could compete in women’s sports, and demonizing anyone who objected that there were still two, not three, biological sexes?

Where did the critical race theory and critical legal theory that empowered Black Lives Matter, Defund the Police, Cashless Bail, and all the laws that assured the public that thefts less than $950 were not really thefts?

From where did the new anti-Semitism come, and so strangely after the slaughter of October 7—if not from the campus?

Where else in America were young Jews fleeing to a library with the mob pounding on the windows? Where else are Jews roughed up by a thug who is subsequently given an award by their university? Where did demonstrations arise on behalf of those who murdered 1,200 on October 7?

Why, in the aftermath of the murder of Charlie Kirk, are so many teachers, professors, and college-graduate bureaucrats so eager to gloat over and cheer his death? Who taught them that?

Are universities critical to America’s prosperity and security now only in terms of the sciences, math, engineering, and medical schools?

As for the humanities? They scarcely exist at the elite universities as we once knew them. Either de facto or literally, they have been overwhelmed and distorted by endless studies-courses, DEI radicalism, 90 percent leftist faculties, and suppression of free thought and free expression.

Where did the envisioning of violent crime as the fault of a flawed society, the institutionalization of modern racialism, chauvinism, and essentialism, and the empowerment of militant transgenderism that in so many insidious ways has filtered throughout society—if not originally birthed in the university—come from?

Those sins of commission are force-multiplied by those of omission. Hundreds of thousands of students emerge from campuses not just indoctrinated with contempt for the Western tradition and American exceptionalism, and not just often thousands of dollars in debt from inflated tuition, but also poorly educated by the standards that once defined education.

The working classes and high school graduates, supposedly the losers of our society, are not those who are dividing the country. They are not often advocating violence or trying to use any means necessary to overturn the established order. But so often the products of the modern university are doing just that.

Sadly, in all these recent horrors, the ideology behind them—the premise that either birthed or appeased them—was birthed in modern higher education.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals