J.K. Rowling reiterates that “women like me can’t be bullied out of resistance”

“Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling refused to stop being a feminist in favor of woke demands in places where being a trans-advocate conflicts with feminism and many have pointed out that she damaged her legacy by it. Most pointing this out, however, don’t do so in order to note her courage as a strong independent woman, but to criticize and mock her for not bending the knee to the latest terms that increasingly powerful elements of Cultural Marxism demands. Rowling remains politically Leftist/Progressive, pro-trans and a trans-advocate, but has consistently stood up for the reality that women exist, which causes the increasingly dominant wing of wokeism to smear her as anti-trans.

Other feminist icons such as “Handmaid’s Tale” author Margaret Atwood have pointed out the same things as Rowling, such as the insanity of making the use of the word “woman” a controversial taboo that is somehow insensitive to the gender dysphoric, but the woke condemnation of these female-identifying-persons doesn’t meet that of Rowlings because Rowlings work was so much more influential and celebrated among the generation that has also been indoctrinated into believing things like “the use of the word ‘woman’ is offensive”.

The efforts to smear the creator of the HarryPotterverse over her position that some experiences are in fact inherent to biological female life have been wholly ineffective in getting her to shut up on the subject so lately many of her haters have tried using an appeal to her legacy to help argue the point. The thinking is that if they can’t bully her into submission, then perhaps they can extort her into bending the knee under threat of being tarnished in history as a horrible person for her mainstream views.

Rowling, at this time, has expressed no interest to negotiate with terrorists.

Chelsea Clinton claims free speech platforms are a “grift”. lol

In the ongoing campaign to smear, marginalize, and ultimately cancel dissenting voices to its power structure, the Left in America keeps trying to cut scalps under the guise of being concerned about alleged (and virtually always false claims of) “anti-vaxx” discussion. These de-platforming calls don’t come with factual corrections or proof of falsehoods – they’re just noise designed to rustle up a cloud of negativity over outlets that threaten their supremacy. At the time of this writing, Joe Rogan is a top cancellation target of the Left and now the journalism platform Substack – a place where authors can write articles independently from the corporate press and readers who like it can pay them directly – is in the crosshairs.

Former President Bill and Never-President Hillary Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, (notable only for being Bill and Hillary Clinton’s daughter) joined in the echo chamber to denounce Substack for “facilitating” (fancier way of saying “allowing”) speech she doesn’t like but can’t argue against.

Glenn Greenwald covered the larger story of the Left’s tactics on the subject in his Substack article here. It’s a good piece about the attempt to cancel Rogan but of particular interest is his devastatingly accurate rebuttal to Chelsea Clinton’s smear on Substack in her tweet above. That portion of his piece notes:

This Post attack on Substack predictably provoked expressions of Serious Concern from good and responsible liberals. That included Chelsea Clinton, who lamented that Substack is profiting off a “grift.”

Greenwald is being sarcastic in calling Clinton a “good and responsible liberal” of course, and proceeds to demolish her credibility on her chosen attempted line of attack thusly:

Apparently, this political heiress — who is one of the world’s richest individuals by virtue of winning the birth lottery of being born to rich and powerful parents, who in turn enriched themselves by cashing in on their political influence in exchange for $750,000 paychecks from Goldman Sachs for 45-minute speeches, and who herself somehow was showered with a $600,000 annual contract from NBC News despite no qualifications — believes she is in a position to accuse others of “grifting.”

Such a prominent grifter using this type of projection has been common in the post-Trump election era in where shameless scam artists seek to remain relevant and retain steady income from inventing fake controversies and fear based hoaxes (that they will save you from for a small donation), but they are typically from more shadowy figures like those from the Lincoln Project that no one had ever heard of before. Rarely does someone so publicly known and matched only by how talent-free they are in any of the positions they fail-upwardly into become one of the front-facing voices in a smear campaign like this. Greenwald finishes the paragraph by noting that not only is Clinton a grifter with no credibility to call out others for her own history, but that the same applies to her judgement of moral character:

She also appears to believe that — despite welcoming convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell to her wedding to a hedge fund oligarch whose father was expelled from Congress after his conviction on thirty-one counts of felony fraud — she is entitled to decree who should and should not be allowed to have a writing platform.

No lies detected, but legitimate questions raised: Why is a political heiress who got $600,000 from corporate news despite having no background, experience, degree, or discernible talent in journalism (her master’s degree at Oxford is in “international relations”) and whose family of millionaire politicians received millions from mega-banks to make 45-minute speeches think it is a “grift” for a platform to allow citizens to pay journalists directly for their coverage?

That’s going lightly on her family, too. The masterclass in political grifting of course goes to The Clinton Foundation which filtered money for the charitable cause of Haitian relief from Hurricane Katrina that somehow never got to relieving Hatian’s, among its other dubious streams of income from foreign leaders and other foreign sources for years while Hillary Clinton was the United States Senator for New York, then a candidate for President in 2008, and then United States Secretary of State for the Obama administration, and then a candidate for President again. When the world believed Clinton would win her second run for President – coincidentally – donations to the Clinton Foundation skyrocketed – but it wasn’t a grift and was totally coincidental and legitimate we are supposed to believe, and I suppose many do. Curious that when Clinton lost the election to Donald J Trump, the Clinton Foundation fundraising started to dry up for some reason…

Watchdog group OpenSecrets reported that after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, speaking fees to the Clintons dropped like a rock, falling from $3.6 million in 2014 to $370,000 in 2018, and IRS disclosures reveal that the once high-flying Clinton Foundation took in $30.7 million in 2018 and just $16.3 million in 2020.

“Ethics experts,” the Daily Caller reported, are “alarmed” by the speedy decline of donations and say it shows “clear red flags of political corruption.”

And Chelsea hasn’t just cashed in on her last name through unqualified positions in the corporate press, but in corporate investing as well.

The Hill reports that Chelsea reaped $9 million in compensation since 2011 for being a board member for IAC/InterActiveCorp (the company that owns 150 big brands like Vimeo, Tinder, Angie’s List, The Daily Beast, Care.com, Liquer.com, Ask.com, ThoughtCo, People Magazine, and –well, you get the idea). Despite no background, degree, experience, or having done anything ever in corporate management, her board seat not only came with that fat $9 million but includes an annual $50,000 retainer and $250,000 worth of restricted IAC stock units, according to Barron’s.

These are the privileged elites concerned that journalists are collectively earning $2.5M directly from their readers…

YouTuber Ethan Klein deletes interviews with Jordan Peterson

Ethan Klein, known online as “H3H3Productions”, is a YouTuber and podcast host who announced he is deleting episodes of his show interviewing Peterson in what appears to be an apparent grift to appease the Left in the wake of the launch of a new podcast show called “Leftovers” with socialist millionaire Twitch streamer Hasan Piker. 

The reason it appears to be a grift and not a genuine evolution of opinion is the typical basket of reasons; mainly: lying about the person in question, offering no coherent explanation for what or why a change of heart was made, suspiciously making the apparently insincere move at a time when it was financially beneficial, and inconsistency/hypocrisy in the application of applying the alleged rule outside of this one instance.

Peterson himself on the other hand was his typical diplomatic self, saying that he enjoyed meeting and talking with Klein and asked what specifically he had said to justify the censoring of his episodes.

Klein did not allow Peterson to publish the interviews himself but did respond with these two specifics as examples of speech he didn’t want to be “associated with”:

Peterson further offered this warning:

Peterson doesn’t talk politics. He doesn’t endorse candidates, his political ideology isn’t at all clear or disclosed, he criticizes both sides in his native Canada and the United States, and none of his books or lectures or interviews are about his political viewers, so… wtf?

Watch Klein try to explain his reason for cutting out his interviews with Peterson, followed by clips of how he handled his interviews with Peterson:

“He’s obviously transphobic” is an obvious lie and not just a sign of poor researching, because Klein described Petersons one and only political view on trans issues accurately when he had Peterson on his show: simply that State violence shouldn’t be used to enforce speech, including the enforcement of calling a person their preferred pronouns or not. In the response clip Klein praises Peterson personally and ideologically, citing his book, saying he “Read it, and loved it”.

Then, the hypocrisy of it all… Many on twitter pointed out Klein has a lot worse speech in his shows archives (mostly coming from himself) than a professor saying that government shouldn’t enforce speech rules on its people.

Others cited this story, summarized here by Angelo Isidorou in The Post Millennial:

Additionally, Klein played a significant role in the “Hugh Mungus” story. Rudy Pantoja, aka “Hugh Mungus,” went viral in 2015 after being harassed by an angry feminist on video. This feminist accosted the man, demanding to know his name. He replied, “Hugh Mungus,” causing the feminist to shriek and be detained by police. Klein’s video on the subject is titled, Crazy SJW Gets Triggered Ft. Hugh Mungus and has 7.8 million views.

Pantoja became famous due to Klein’s coverage and the two even had an interview together. However, a lot has changed since 2015 and Klein’s promotion of a vile patriarchal bigot such as Hugh Mungus would not fly today. Truly, the Ethan Klein of 2022 acutely resembles the crazed feminist who accosted Hugh Mungus all those years ago.

It is perhaps not a stretch to also say that the Ethan Klein of 2022 would likely be a subject of comedic ridicule by the Ethan Klein of 2016 that we all loved.

The article cites other insincerities of Klien like when he told a fellow YouTuber, “Being white isn’t a race, dipsh*t” (lolwut?).

Klein had previously accepted a challenge to debate conservative host Steven Crowder, only to bail via a pre-planned bait-and-switch where he exited the feed as soon as it started and had leftist commentator Sam Seder debate for him instead. Earlier this month, Klein also virtue-signalled against Joe Rogan’s eating habits, prompting the inevitable observation that Rogan is obviously verifiably healthier than Klein. The criticism was an attempt to Cancel Rogan over alleged Covid misinformation.

“F*k Trump” Democrats whine about “Let’s Go Brandon”

To the surprise of no one who lived through the Bush years of “dissent is patriotic” talking point that turned into “dissent is categorically racist and evil” for the 8 years right afterward: Democrats are back to pretending that everyone has to respect the President again.

The meme began when a NASCAR crowd chanting “F*ck Joe Biden” in the background of an interview with an NBC reporter was reframed by that reporter as them sayin “Let’s Go Brandon”.

While it’s possible that this was a sincere mishearing by the reporter, no one believed it to be such and thus the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” was born as a way to say “Fkk Joe Biden – and also Fkk the corporate press for propagandizing for him”

Democrat responses to the trend have ranged from them clutching their pearls about the “disrespect to the office of the Presidency” (lol) to all forms of incoherent annoyance trying to shame people into not saying or spreading the phrase.

Naturally, this highlighted lots of reminders of Republican president hate throughout history.

The Defiant L’s twitter account has a dozen more and others have been posting many more reminders of contradictory declarations by these political weather-vane frauds for awhile.

While “Buck Fush” was a popular phrase and bumper sticker during the GW Bush years, Republicans had no similar phrase for the Obama administration. Then when Donald Trump was elected into office, no cutsie phrase was invented to mask the hate – “F*ck Trump” was just a popular saying.

Too bad Joe Biden is an old rich white man or this could be smeared as some kind of racist Nazi thing, right?

When it was alleged that a Southwest Pilot ended an intercom greeting to passengers with “Let’s Go Brandon”, the eruption of outraged Democrats on social media was as over the top as one would expect from the party. While a sane reaction would range somewhere on the spectrum between “silly joke, who cares” to “bad move – not appropriate to mix political views and work”, tens of thousands on Facebook and Twitter were Liking and approvingly reposting analysis that this was a call for half of the passengers to die and that the pilot could possibly kill himself by intentionally crashing the plane (lolwut??).

Former FBI agent and current corporate news pundit Asha Rangappa had this thought:

All this is a combination of pre-existing mental disorders and illnesses being amplified by corporate media and leveraged by government as a way to deputize “useful idiots” in the citizenry to support authoritarianism.

An example of the mental illness that is being used by those in power:

And an accurate summary of the philosophy they’re being duped into supporting:

Democrats running in 2021 on fear, Trump, fake racism, and more Trump

One year after Joe Biden won the presidency by dodging interviews, debates, and proposing as little policy as possible to instead divert all attention on Trump being bad and Biden being not-Trump, the former Democrat Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe is running for the position again (Virginia has a law that you can’t run for Governor in two back to back terms) is running on a very similar strategy and still all about Trump. Which would be strange if Democrats cared about issues in their state and not a perpetual orange-man-bad offensive strategy, but since that’s still their top concern – that’s the candidates top concern.

Earlier this month, McAuliffe mentioned Trump 18 times in a 12 minute CNN interview.

A few days ago in a single speech for McCauliffe, Biden mentioned Trump 24 times.

In virtually every appearance, candidate McCauliffe and surrogate Democrats supporting him not only keep bringing up Donald Trump, but use the majority of their time to focus exclusively on the former President instead of the candidate they’re running against. The problem is that while the Democrat party remains obsessed with Trump, it hasn’t been working as a focus to convince voters to support McCauliffe, so one day before election day – McCauliffe attempted to reverse course on the messaging

CNN was even snarkier about the messaging flip on the air:

This somewhat offhand comment is being blown out of proportion by the press to suggest that McAuliffe’s tossing his entire campaign strategy out the window in the final hours. He isn’t. He’s still laser-focused on Trump, knowing that scaring Democrats about Glenn Youngkin may be the only way he can get them off the couch and to the polls.

What’s interesting to me is that it was CNN that dinged him for it, not Fox News. The media is liberal but they can smell the panic from McAuliffe’s campaign lately and can’t resist a storyline that communicates his desperation.

Youngkin’s campaign responded with a revamped edition of the video above, now with more examples in a minute long cut of what is still just a small selection of the times McAuliffe tried to make the campaign about Trump now that he’s trying to say it isn’t only after he started to lose in the polls:

Candidates pivot as needed with their campaigns focus of course, but this ridiculous insult to Virginia voters intelligence was ripe for ridicule, which was why even CNN couldn’t help but note it above. The especially slimy part of this gaslighting isn’t just the ‘on second thought, forget what I’ve made my entire candidacy about please’ nature of the backpeddle, but the pure projection of it all. Specifically: Youngkin had never embraced Trump or Trumpism or the MAGA agenda or any of the big Trump talking points or campaign issues and by all accounts is much more of a Mitt Romney style Republican, so McAuliffe’s fearmongering that Youngkin is a dangerous Trumpie Virginia should be afraid of was always a dishonest smear, but also one that he is legitimately guilty of himself in regards to the Democrats “Trump”, Hillary Clinton. While Youngkin and Trump were never allies or connected in any way yet Democrats tried to make them appear synonymous with each each other – McAuliffe and the Clintons have always been very close, but due to Clintons unpopularity, McAuliffe has ran away from that association in exactly the way he falsely accused Younkin of doing with Trump…

In fact, McAuliffe literally has more ties to Donald Trump than his opponent he’s trying to frame as Trumps best friend…

McAuliffe’s lying projection aside – this Trump-scare tactic is just part of a larger ‘scare Democrat-leaning voters so they give you power to protect them’ strategy. McAuliffe doesn’t just deserve to lose for lying about this specifically, but also for avoiding issues the state he is trying to be the governor of again faces by distracting focus to fake issues at large.

McAuliffe wants Virginians to be scared of Covid, so he lies about it:

McAuliffe wants Virginians to be scared of racist Republicans, so he creates a hoax where Democrat operatives pretended to be racist Republicans so McAuliffe and his allies could pretend to be shocked and denounce it (most, but not all, later deleted the fake-outrage tweets after the alleged Republican racists were revealed to be anti-Republican Democrats perpetrating a hoax):

And in perfect line with the trend: the actual things in Virginia that require concern are – surprise! – the things that Terry McAuliffe says (but doesn’t actually believe) are in great condition. eg: the terrible school system that McAuliffe kept his own children out of but claims is “great” for everyone else…

Election day is tomorrow. For the record, the same scam is being pulled by Democrats in New Jersey for their Governor’s election as well:

Jersey is surely going to go Democrat as they only vote for Republican Governors when their Democrat Governors go to jail or have to resign over corruption riddled scandal (which has been nearly every Democrat Governor in the past 20+ years, so this will be the first Democrat Gov in awhile to win reelection).

But will the fearmongering work in Virginia which is only “mostly Democrat” and not solidly blue for the past 20 years? They’re already making excuses for when it doesn’t and you guessed it – it’s gonna bet those phantom rrrrrracists to blame:

Developing…

Democrats’ Fake Racist hoaxes in Virginia race fail and backfire

In the Virginia race for Governor, the polls have been tightening as the Republican candidate shifts his focus from bland etherial government management issues and into culture war issues that people actually care about. To counter this progress, Democrats have focused less on issues and more on fear and personal smears, amplifying their attempts to focus the race as a referendum of the previous president who has been out of office for a year and on alleged dangers of racism that require Democrats in power to protect people from.

In service to this strategy, Democrats manufactured a white supremacist hoax to scare the electorate by playing on the “fine people” hoax – one of the most widely debunked hoaxes in history where a protest organized by conservatives was hijacked by a different group of racists. Groups like The Proud Boys smelled the hijacking and condemned it before it happened and forbid members from going but it was too late for all to get the memo and the protest between Democrats and Conservatives was crashed by terrorist Antifa members attacking people and a goofy march of racists who carried tiki torches and chanted “Jews will not replace us”. Following the debacle, Democrats and the corporate press invented a race hoax to smear the president by making the false claim that Trump called the racists “very fine people” despite him actually saying the opposite and condemning them several times, unprompted. The hoax was achieved by reporting Trump observing that there were “very fine people on both sides” of the Conservative and Democrat debate that comprised the original protest, but then editing out his following sentence from his remarks that went out of his way to clarify that he was not talking about racists of any kind and then condemned those groups. That was in 2017.

Now, in 2021, Democrats sought to rekindle the fear they successfully stoked with the 2017 hoax by having Democrat operatives dress like the 2017 race marchers, complete with tiki torches, and stand in front of the Republican candidate for Governors bus for photo ops in order to scare people into thinking that those wascally wacists are at it again and only an elected Democrat can keep us safe from them:

Charlie Olaf, McAuliffe’s social-media manager, wrote: “Disgusting reference to the 2017 Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville.”

Democratic strategist Max Burns claimed Youngkin’s campaign “counts white supremacists among its most enthusiastic supporters.”

The bet being made here was that the Charlottesville hoax was so successful that if the Democrats could suggest that the Republican candidate for governor in Virginia had a similar support base of people with bad views about race then that will terrify voters against that Republican.

The root of this tactic reveals how Democrats use fear of racism that isn’t actually prevalent as a way to trick vulnerable minds into voting them into power.

The fraud here also wasn’t just in putting the bait out there and trying to hook suckers that bit on it, either – part of the plan was to feign outrage over the bait they knew was fake in an attempt to create a larger buzz over the claim:

When the hoax was uncovered to have been orchestrated by the pro-war, anti-Trump Democrat group The Lincoln Project, the McAuliffe campaign finally “condemned the stunt” after they spent all day pushing it as proof of Youngkin’s racist ties.

After the uncovering, the main excuse was that the Lincoln Project was the sole party to blame and not the Democrats who helped push it – ignoring of course the ties and partnerships the Lincoln Project has with the Democrats in exactly these media stunts:

Corporate press to the rescue!

Corporate media outlets and their members that label themselves as journalists dutifully volunteered in spreading the false story without doing any acts of research, fact checking, or verification (eg: Journalism) and only some of them had the dignity to delete the lies when exposed.

MSNBC contributor Glenn Kirschner condemned the “blatant display of racism, hatred and intolerance,” urging Virginians to vote for McAuliffe, who represents a “kind, welcoming, diverse Virginia.”

Then there came the damage control spin. The first cover-up was to call the group “Republicans”, which is of course a total lie. It is true that the Lincoln Project was founded by *former* John McCain operative Republicans but the group is not just “anti-Trump” – it is a pro-war org that abandoned the Republican party completely when Trump shifted the platform away from the Bush Doctrine method of bombing and invasion that Biden has always supported and Democrats have followed into. The group endorses and campaigns for Democrats and against Republicans. It is in no way a Republican organization. Further: at least 3 of the people that were later identified as performers in the stunt are all Democrat party operatives that have never been Republicans or affiliated with any Republican organization.

Within 24 hours of the scandal, The Lincoln Project spokespeople were invited onto CNN not to be grilled on why they perpetrated such a cynical fraud and why they thought it was okay to attempt to fool voters in such an ugly lie – but to explain themselves in a piece so favorable to them, The Lincoln Project itself tweeted out the video as damage control:

Why does the corporate press help big government politicians in these ways? Edward Snowden tangentially explains with the observation that the “neo” factions of each party have merged:

Meanwhile, the grift of the Lincoln Project is failing every day, dying hour by hour, but remains alive with Democrat millions in support:

Judge Judy’s new show “Judy Justice” adds 2 new figures; recasts the bailiff

Judge Judy Sheindlin left her CBS show last year after the distributor decided that 25 years of reruns was enough to sell and continue making a profit off, with the suggestion being that just selling the shows 25 year archive to networks was a better bet than continuing with a new contract with Shendlin who was making $45 million per season and likely would have been demanding more in the negotiations for the show to continue. Instead, she left the show and signed on with Amazon to stream a new version of the concept on IMDBtv (the free streaming network by the Amazon owned Internet Movie Database website).

Regarding the end of Judge Judy, she admitted she “wasn’t teary” and didn’t feel “all that emotional,” but said, “I felt gratified that I had completed that part of my journey and done it respectably. It was just the end of the day, the end of the job. I cleaned the bathroom, and the bathroom is sparkling.”

Judge Judy fans will have a unanimous reaction to the trailer: Where’s Byrd??? Judy’s bailiff Petri Hawkins Byrd stood by her side for 25 years on the syndicated show Judge Judy, but will not be joining her on Judy Justice and at the time of this writing, no one knows why. Byrd was Judy’s bailiff in her courtroom before the show and stayed on for the entire 25 year duration of Judge Judy. First thought was that he probably was ready to retire? That doesn’t appear to be the case, as last year, Byrd told the Associated Press he would be “honored” to join Judy in her new venture – but as the trailer for the show depicts – no Byrd is present. Instead, Judy praises her new bailiff Kevin, a retired Los Angeles probation officer and entrepreneur, as “one of the warmest people”. Byrd seemed pretty warm to most… Was there friction? Drama? Or more likely – did the budget of the show just not justify matching his previous salary, reported to be $1 million a year. This would make sense since the show added 2 other cast members, whose salaries have not been reported but are unlikely to be $1M each.

The new members are two additional women flanking the judge on the bench: court stenographer Whitney Kumar, and law clerk Sarah Rose – who “happens to be my granddaughter,” Judy notes in the trailer. “Sarah is wired like I am,” Judy says. “She’s a little snarky. I like that.”

The other, less shocking change is her ditching of the traditional black judicial robe, replaced with a burgundy red one with white collar flaps.

The show premieres November 1 with new episodes to be released each weekday.

‘Mind Your Own Business Act’ would empower shareholders against woke corporations

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has introduced a bill to “enable shareholders to hold woke corporations accountable” by equalizing the playing field in the ways publicly traded companies serve or fail to serve the public that owns it. The “Mind Your Own Business Act” is a bill that would empower shareholders with the ability to successfully sue a corporation if the corporation is behaving in “woke” ways that undermine its “fiduciary duty” to the shareholders. These include advertising campaigns that have nothing to do with a corporations product or service and everything to do with a sociopolitical agenda and corporate boycotts of states and industries for non-financial reasons.

This sort of fighting back against the corporate elites that go against what their shareholders want of them is long overdue, but up until recently, it has been extremely difficult for a middle class shareholder to voice their concerns to corporate management as many don’t even use their shareholder rights to vote to change corporate leadership. As Sen Rubio noted in an op-ed for Fox business:

If you own a stock, invest in a mutual fund, have a company-sponsored 401k, then you are a shareholder and are owed legal duties by the corporations you invest in. The truth is that corporate executives keep you in the dark about your right to hold them accountable for how they spend your money.

Technically it has always been legal for a shareholder to sue over this mismanagement in a company, but the process is nearly impossible to complete or get a ruling because – surprise! – the corporate elites who write the rules have continually added labyrinths that make the process virtually impossible to navigate. As Rubio notes:

Under current law, a shareholder has the right to sue corporate officers when they take actions like these that are motivated by their politics rather than your financial interests. But corporations have stacked the deck to make these lawsuits hopeless. They tweak provisions in their bylaws to protect themselves as they leave America behind.

The solution is simple: these large, publicly traded companies must provide a clear path forward for shareholders when they sue in response to these actions. My bill would put the burden of proof on the company to show that these actions were in shareholders’ best interests, and make corporate officers personally liable if they can’t prove it.

No more legal tricks that shield these corporate executives from accountability. If they really believe that being woke is good for business, they should have to say so—and prove it—under oath in court.

In effect, this is a corporate-America way to achieve the Communist dream of a utopia that at least moves closer to a truly worker-owned economy. Financial firms are supposed to be accountable only to shareholders and exist only for maximizing shareholder value and if you don’t like it then you can become a shareholder and vote for the corporate direction the company should be taking in your estimation, or, if your vote fails, you can sell your shares and not buy from the company. Facilitating this end only helps the system be more of what it is designed to be, so everyone should be in favor of it, right? The problem is that the most powerful groups in the country don’t want the system to be what the system is supposed to be, so “woke capital” has been the way they’ve tried to change it.

American Compass in a piece titled Woking 9 to 5 (heh) shows the results of what people think about wokeness on behalf of corporations in a survey of workers (and for those without a traditional employer they asked about business in general) to determine the publics actual desire for businesses to skew woke.

In their adoption of “progressive” agendas, both unions and corporations have ignored entirely the preferences and interests of workers. (Whether an agenda that abandons workers can rightly be called progressive is a question for another day.) Not What They Bargained For, the American Compass survey of worker attitudes, highlights the ways that the labor movement’s focus on progressive politics has undermined its own popularity and alienated the lower and working classes. Workers similarly disdain “woke” employers.

Specifically they asked: “In recent months American companies have taken public stances and made business decisions that they say advance social justice, on issues such as election reform, racial equity, and LGBTQ+ rights. Thinking about your own employer, which of the following best represents your own view.”

Large majorities want businesses to “focus on business and stay out of social justice issues.” There is one segment of workers who go against the majority and want more wokeness:

There are 4 other charts breaking down the survey data at the American Compass website

Oren Cass summarizes:

As corporations and unions have found common cause advancing social justice—or perhaps, more accurately, as both have fallen under the control of the same set of managerial-class graduates of the same set of universities plying a common social justice dogma—it is both shareholders’ and workers’ interests that get snubbed, and both who would benefit from businesses getting back to business.

A well-functioning capitalist system requires that managers consider many obligations beyond those to shareholders, which a business can fulfill in its operation as a business: treating workers well and offering employment that allows them to support their families; investing in the long-term sustainability of the firm itself and the surrounding community; promoting the nation’s prosperity. Getting co-opted by political activists is not on the list. Asking shareholders to help in policing such behavior may somewhat incidentally accrue to their own benefit, but the benefits to society will be much larger. It is precisely the role of policymakers in a market economy to craft rules that encourage capitalists to advance their own interests in ways that advance the common good as well.

For now, the the legislation’s going nowhere under a Democrat-controlled Congress and White House, but it is good signaling by Rubio who is up for reelection next November and if/when Republicans take back congress in the 2022 midterms, this is a good direction to alert supporters that the party would be going in.

As new footage of the fake “insurrection” is released, the hoax continues to crumble

The “Insurrection” hoax dies deeper into the ground with each and every new discovery…

The masked Fed Tucker referenced:

Democrats quietly switch sides on nuclear power

The debate is over. Nuclear power has been officially adopted by the last remaining American faction opposing it as its favored power sources it gave generous financial grants to and leaned on heavily in its environmental image-marketing continue to fail financially and require more fossil fuel to run than they eliminate. Both of those faults have been targets of Republicans and non-partisan pro-nuclear energy proponents for awhile, but it seemed as though Democrats were intent on holding onto the money losing failures and environment worseners just so they could keep that marketing angle alive since wind and solar have such better PR with the general public and their voter base in particular to give up on.

But give up, they did. Which is rare that you get to live to see a public partisan debate like this actually get solved with a concession like this.

In May (2021), Biden White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy told attendees at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy that nuclear power would be “essential” to fight global warming (something Republicans have been saying for decades, pointing out that nuclear power has zero carbon emission and a low environmental footprint).

Still, that’s just an adviser saying it. But now, Biden’s Secretary of Energy is echoing the same line, making clear that the administrations official position is now pro-nuclear and they are just quietly unfolding that change in position so as to save face:

Granholm had previously test-suggested the concept of federal subsidies for nuclear power plants back in May as well, but it didn’t get much press coverage then as her reiterations that more definitively state support for nuclear power (and stated in a more official and public announcement) mark a big shift.

Developing…